Attention Skydivers: Jumping a BASE rig from aircraft in the US is not just illegal, but stupid

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

3 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

that part makes sense, it's the ride, not the fall, that the uspa worries about, due to the faa.  the only other thing i am gonna throw out there now is the question of the waiver.  one person mentioned legal balloon base jumps for training.  another said you can't waiver the far.  which is it?  i am pretty sure almost everything is waiverable with the right paperwork and reasoning, but have been wrong before.

I agree that just about everything is 'waiverable'.

Hollywood gets all sorts of waivers for the FARs to do movie stunt shoots.
They've got the track record, connections*, skilled people and all that. The FAA allows them the waivers because they can show they aren't just a 'bunch of yahoos'.

USPA does the same. Look at Luke's jump into the net. My understanding is that he got sort of a 'blanket waiver' to do a bunch of practice jumps where he pulled pretty low. Again, connections*, credibility, and a demonstration that he knew what he was doing.

The thing about low exits from a balloon for training BASE is a bit different.
If I read the thread correctly, they were going from a tethered balloon. 
I think the FAA treats tethered balloons differently. Because, among other things, they don't need a pilot, they aren't considered 'aircraft'. Again, this is from reading the thread. I don't have any personal or direct knowledge of this.

* - Note: I'm using the word 'connections' to mean knowing what people to approach, and a working relationship with them from previous experience. It's not intended to mean special treatment.

[sfzombie13 307]

3 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The thing about low exits from a balloon for training BASE is a bit different.
If I read the thread correctly, they were going from a tethered balloon. 
I think the FAA treats tethered balloons differently. Because, among other things, they don't need a pilot, they aren't considered 'aircraft'. Again, this is from reading the thread. I don't have any personal or direct knowledge of this.

i saw that part somewhere in reading the regs.  i hate to keep up the discussion, just kneed to see where i am wrong in order to change my mind.  i change it, but only when i have proof i am wrong.  my college instructors hated me and loved me at the same time.  in high school, i usually knew more than the teachers anyway, except in math and english because i loved to read.

 

now, with all the important parts in place, i can see how 91.307, and 105 (all the ones i am too lazy to look up now) work together to make it illegal.  of course, now that we have the court citation, that trumps all of it, since we work on a precedent system. 

[20kN 93]

On 1/26/2021 at 1:58 PM, BMAC615 said:

Since we’re on the topic of BASE from aircraft: Does USPA BSR 2-1 A.1. cover ALL jumps - even those made outside the US?

The Basic Safety Requirements apply to all jumps except those made under military orders, or those training personnel under military orders, and those made because of in-flight emergencies. USPA members must comply with the Basic Safety Requirements, protecting the best interests of both the participants and the general public.

As it reads, USPA members must comply with the BSRs regardless of geography or whether or not it is a USPA member DZ. Those USPA license and ratings holders may be in violation of the BSRs when jumping BASE rigs from aircraft, regardless of the legality of the location where the jump is being made.

Anyone have an opinion on the matter?

 

Yes, the BSRs apply everywhere. I clarified this with the director of safety and training at the USPA. BSRs apply on all jumps from all aircraft at all DZs at all locations under all circumstances worldwide. But they are not legal requirements. They are requirements to be a USPA member. That said, you have to know the wording of the rules.

For example, the BSRs say "For skydives made within the U.S. and its territories and possessions, no skydive may be made in violation of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations" which means that you  canot jump a BASE rig out of a plane or fly through a cloud as those are FAA regulation violations.

However, the FAA regulations do not apply outside of the USA as as the FAA has no authority in another country. There is no BSR that actually says you cannot jump a BASE rig or you cant fly through clouds. Those rules are caught under the BSR of "follow the FAA regs". Since the FAA regs dont apply in another country, the rules about flying through clouds or jumping a BASE rig would not apply either.

There is a BSR that is specific about minimum opening altitudes though. The minimum is 2000' with S&TA approval, so even if you can jump a BASE rig, you cant pull low enough to truly need one without a waiver from the BOD regardless of what country you are in.

I can tell you though that a lot of people jump BASE rigs out of helicopters in Europe and pull super low. It's one of those things like just keep it on the DL and no one is going to say anything. I can pretty much guarantee you any serious wingsuiter who has flown in Europe has done it.

Edited January 27, 2021 by 20kN

[riggerrob 558]

On 1/25/2021 at 5:44 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

Right.

But where does it say that a 'single harness dual parachute' system is the only legal rig to jump?

Where, for example, does it prohibit the use of an approved, emergency bailout rig? I know that isn't legal, but I cannot find where it specifically prohibits that.

Dear Wolfriverjoe,

You are correct. FARs and TSOs were originally written for single parachute, pilot emergency parachutes. No one does intentional jumps with PEPs.

Later versions of FARs added provisions to intentional jumps with equipment that must include an approved (TSOed) single harness and dual parachute container (e.g. main and reserve that was last packed by a rigger less than 180 days ago.

FARs try to ignore main parachutes because there is too great a variety for gov't bureaucrats to keep track of.

 

BASE jumping was only invented many decades after FARs were written. The FAA does not want to bother with BASE jumping because it occurrs below their (air traffic control) radar. IOW If BASE jumping does not interfere with airline traffic. the FAA do not want to hear about BASE.

[20kN 93]

5 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

If I read the thread correctly, they were going from a tethered balloon. 
I think the FAA treats tethered balloons differently. Because, among other things, they don't need a pilot, they aren't considered 'aircraft'. Again, this is from reading the thread. I don't have any personal or direct knowledge of this.
 

Yes you are correct. There are people who do BASE jumps from tethered balloons. Last year there was boogie of sorts for BASE jumping from one. But as you indicated, tethered balloons are not aircraft and do not follow under the realm of skydiving. Plus they only go up like 300' at most so they are pretty low anyway.

[riggerrob 558]

8 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

that part makes sense, it's the ride, not the fall, that the uspa worries about, due to the faa.  the only other thing i am gonna throw out there now is the question of the waiver.  one person mentioned legal balloon base jumps for training.  another said you can't waiver the far.  which is it?  i am pretty sure almost everything is waiverable with the right paperwork and reasoning, but have been wrong before.

Dear sfzombie,

Waivers only apply to jumps made outside the Federal Air Regulations and USPA Basic Safety Rules. Please confine this conversation to jumps done WITHIN FARs and BSRs.

In older days, if USPA found out about anyone jumping outside of FARs and BSRs - even outside the USA - they suspended members and cancelled instructor ratings, etc. because USPA did not want to be connected to illegal jumps. USPA made extra efforts to distance the Association from BASE jumping after it was banned in US National Parks. The primary reason BASE jumping was banned in National Parks was because of too much litter, too much graffiti, too many difficult rescues and too many fatalities.

Younger jumpers now get confused about regulations that are on  the books, but rarely enforced.

That is my pet peeve about Canadian laws ... too many on the books, but so few enforced that the general public has their own (amateur) interpretation of laws. For example, in Vancouver, turn signals on cars are only decoration. IOW Turn signals have no practical function because so few people use them, that they no longer hint about which direction a car will turn.

[20kN 93]

3 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

In older days, if USPA found out about anyone jumping outside of FARs and BSRs - even outside the USA - they suspended members and cancelled instructor ratings, etc.

FARs dont apply outside of the USA. BSRs do, but FARs do not. The FAA has no legal authority outside of the country.

[riggerrob 558]

1 minute ago, 20kN said:

FARs dont apply outside of the USA. BSRs do, but FARs do not. The FAA has no legal authority outside of the country.

Dear 20kN,

I will agree with your point ... HOWEVER ... there are only tiny differences between American Federal Air Regulations and Canadian Air Regulations. Lawyers may enjoy debating the tiny differences, but there is no practical difference. Besides, both countries are signatories to ICAO, so cannot differ significantly.

CARs state Canadian-registered airplanes flying over another country should follow CARs except when that is repugnant to local air regulations.

Like I said earlier, FARs and CARs are soo close that debating differences is as productive as splitting hairs.

[nwt 131]

28 minutes ago, 20kN said:

Yes you are correct. There are people who do BASE jumps from tethered balloons. Last year there was boogie of sorts for BASE jumping from one. But as you indicated, tethered balloons are not aircraft and do not follow under the realm of skydiving. Plus they only go up like 300' at most so they are pretty low anyway.

Interestingly, I've heard of helicopters being tethered as well for experimental flights. The FAA doesn't care what you do while tethered, unless I guess if you get to the point where you are an obstruction.

[BMAC615 205]

Ah, yes, I see what you are saying.

Quote

For skydives made within the U.S. and its territories and possessions, no skydive may be made in violation of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations.

USPA doesn’t care if you follow FAA regulations or not when outside the US, just that you follow the BSRs. There’s no BSR requiring a dual parachute harness when jumping from an aircraft outside the US, correct? If so, that makes sense.

Still does not cover the minimum altitude opening violation when jumping from a heli in another country.

Edited January 28, 2021 by BMAC615

[20kN 93]

30 minutes ago, BMAC615 said:

 There’s no BSR requiring a dual parachute harness when jumping from an aircraft outside the US, correct? If so, that makes sense.

 

Nope, there is not.

[BMAC615 205]

3 minutes ago, 20kN said:

Nope, there is not.

But, there is the BSR of minimum altitude of container opening that would be a BSR violation, correct?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

5 hours ago, riggerrob said:

Dear Wolfriverjoe,

You are correct. FARs and TSOs were originally written for single parachute, pilot emergency parachutes. No one does intentional jumps with PEPs.

Later versions of FARs added provisions to intentional jumps with equipment that must include an approved (TSOed) single harness and dual parachute container (e.g. main and reserve that was last packed by a rigger less than 180 days ago.

FARs try to ignore main parachutes because there is too great a variety for gov't bureaucrats to keep track of.

 

BASE jumping was only invented many decades after FARs were written. The FAA does not want to bother with BASE jumping because it occurrs below their (air traffic control) radar. IOW If BASE jumping does not interfere with airline traffic. the FAA do not want to hear about BASE.

Actually, I know of a jumper who wanted to try a bailout rig to see what it was like. 

The story I was told is that the opening at near terminal was hard enough that he lost his shoes. 
The landing on the round was also rather hard. Made worse by not having shoes on.

[20kN 93]

8 minutes ago, BMAC615 said:

But, there is the BSR of minimum altitude of container opening that would be a BSR violation, correct?

Yes. 2000' with S&TA approval. Interestingly enough, it's not a violation to proxy fly a mountain 10' off the ground, but it is to deploy at 1800'. The BSR is about deployment altitudes.

Edited January 28, 2021 by 20kN

[BMAC615 205]

1 minute ago, 20kN said:

Yes. 2000' with S&TA approval. Interestingly enough, it's not a violation to proxy fly a mountain 10' off the ground, but it is to deploy at 1800'. The BSR is about deployment altitudes. They were not written with the concept of BASE from an aircraft in mind.

Totally agree. It seems it’s a catch 22 in that if you bring it up to make a change to accommodate, it would draw attention to the matter that could result in a BSR going the other way.

[20kN 93]

1 minute ago, BMAC615 said:

Totally agree. It seems it’s a catch 22 in that if you bring it up to make a change to accommodate, it would draw attention to the matter that could result in a BSR going the other way.

Yes well in reality pretty much anyone who jumps a BASE container out of an airplane with a wingsuit is pulling below 2000'. For one, most skydivers assume that USPA rules only apply at an actual USPA DZ. But more over, who is going to say anything? The guy flying next to you doing the exact same thing? Probably not. So it does happen often, but it's on the DL and there doesn't seem to be much fuss about it.

[riggerrob 558]

16 hours ago, 20kN said:

Yes well in reality pretty much anyone who jumps a BASE container out of an airplane with a wingsuit is pulling below 2000'. For one, most skydivers assume that USPA rules only apply at an actual USPA DZ. But more over, who is going to say anything? The guy flying next to you doing the exact same thing? Probably not. So it does happen often, but it's on the DL and there doesn't seem to be much fuss about it.

People who jump BASE rigs out of aircraft, then open low rarely have the first clue about the physics involved.

BASE jumpers pull low for two reasons.

First, their fixed object may not be very high.

Secondly, to experience ground-rush, they need to pull below 2,000 to see the horizon in their peripheral vision.

BASE jumpers survive pulling low because they are usually falling at much less than terminal velocity. Pulling low, at terminal velocity removes the margin of error for slow openings.

[nwt 131]

2 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

People who jump BASE rigs out of aircraft, then open low rarely have the first clue about the physics involved.

BASE jumpers survive pulling low because they are usually falling at much less than terminal velocity. Pulling low, at terminal velocity removes the margin of error for slow openings.

Are you sure they don't understand and accept that? It seems pretty obvious to me.

[riggerrob 558]

Dear nwt,

What is obvious to you and me may have never crossed a junior jumper's mind.

[platypii 20]

7 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

People who jump BASE rigs out of aircraft, then open low rarely have the first clue about the physics involved.

Or maybe you don't understand standard deviations.

If a sky canopy opens in 500ft +/- 500ft, but a BASE canopy opens in 200ft +/- 100ft even at terminal... then no, there is virtually no difference in risk pulling at 2000ft or 500ft with a BASE rig. You might have a little more time to fix a malfunction, but the difference in risk is pretty minor in my opinion.

[nwt 131]

17 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

Dear nwt,

What is obvious to you and me may have never crossed a junior jumper's mind.

Oh, I hope it isn't junior jumpers doing this!

[20kN 93]

2 hours ago, riggerrob said:

People who jump BASE rigs out of aircraft, then open low rarely have the first clue about the physics involved.

BASE jumpers pull low for two reasons.

First, their fixed object may not be very high.

Secondly, to experience ground-rush, they need to pull below 2,000 to see the horizon in their peripheral vision.

BASE jumpers survive pulling low because they are usually falling at much less than terminal velocity. Pulling low, at terminal velocity removes the margin of error for slow openings.

People jumping BASE rigs out of aircraft are almost exclusively wingsuiters. Wingsuit BASE jumps reach terminal velocity (WS terminal velocity) 100% of the time on all jumps regardless if they are jumping out of an airplane or off a cliff becasue no one is going to jump a WS off a fixed object just to pull three seconds later. That would be stupid and dangerous.

Also, there are tons of slick trackers who take their BASE rigs terminal. Lauterbrunnen. Brento. Those are both slider up terminal jump locations. Also, pulling at 2000' is not low in BASE. That is like dirty high. That's like the skydiving equivalent of pulling at 5k. Low is pulling terminal at under 500'. On most WS BASE jumps pilots are pulling between 750' and 1500'.

Edited January 28, 2021 by 20kN

[BMAC615 205]

Are there any documented cases of penalties for violations of 105 for pilot or skydiver jumping BASE rig from plane?

[Bluhdow 31]

On 1/28/2021 at 11:57 AM, riggerrob said:

People who jump BASE rigs out of aircraft, then open low rarely have the first clue about the physics involved.

BASE jumpers pull low for two reasons.

First, their fixed object may not be very high.

Secondly, to experience ground-rush, they need to pull below 2,000 to see the horizon in their peripheral vision.

BASE jumpers survive pulling low because they are usually falling at much less than terminal velocity. Pulling low, at terminal velocity removes the margin of error for slow openings.

Pretty much everything about this post is incorrect:

"People who jump BASE rigs out of aircraft, then open low rarely have the first clue about the physics involved." 

Speculation...at best. 

"BASE jumpers pull low for two reasons.

First, their fixed object may not be very high.

Secondly, to experience ground-rush, they need to pull below 2,000 to see the horizon in their peripheral vision."

Third: Separation from a solid object. 

Fourth: To improve heading performance (for example, on a sub-terminal slider-up jump).

Etc., etc. etc.

"BASE jumpers survive pulling low because they are usually falling at much less than terminal velocity. Pulling low, at terminal velocity removes the margin of error for slow openings."

This statement ignores entire subsets of BASE jumps (terminal, tracking, WS) as well as the aforementioned differences between sky and BASE canopy openings. It also ignores the opening characteristics of slider-down/off packing techniques.

I'm not going to read 15 pages about (or add any value to) an FAA/legal conversation about BASE rigs and aircraft in the USA, but I do think you've got a lot of misconceptions about BASE jumping.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

21 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

Are there any documented cases of penalties for violations of 105 for pilot or skydiver jumping BASE rig from plane?

IIRC, there were legal sanctions in the wake of Dwain Weston's death at Royal Gorge. 
I'm not going to go look, but there's a hell of a long thread in Incidents.

 

Edit to spell Dwain's name correctly (Dwain, not Dwayne)

Edited October 18, 2021 by wolfriverjoe