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

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

10 hours ago, mbohu said:

So, then what about all the Wingsuit proximity jumps that start out of a helicopter above a mountain range? Are they all illegal? There are tons of promotional RedBull videos of them. I cannot imagine that a large international company would associate themselves with patently illegal stuff? 
I assume therefore, that all of them are from outside the USA? If so, why would it be illegal in the USA but perfectly legal in most European countries? 
Given that Americans are constantly screaming that their country is the only one where real freedom exists, and how deplorable the "European nanny state" is, how could this be?

Seriously though, does anyone know what went wrong historically or politically, that the US is so hostile to base jumping, while Europe is not? It seems to go against what the US claims to stand for. (Not that I want to jump out of an airplane with a BASE rig, but still)

Most of the 'base rig from an aircraft' stuff is done outside the US, where it's legal.

The US isn't all that hostile to BASE. Bridge Day in WV, the Perrine Bridge in ID, much of the stuff out west, all of that is mostly legal.
Structure jumping (bridges, buildings, antennas, power line towers, ect) are generally considered 'trespassing'. The owners are pretty strict about keeping everyone off them, due to the 'sue happy' legal culture in the US.
Jumping in the National Parks in the US isn't ever going to happen again. Search out the "Flatbed Ten" for the story. 

3 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

far 91.307 (e) 2

That covers emergency rigs. 

 

Everything I can find in 105 covers what has to be legal to make a 'single harness dual parachute' jump. And a "parachutist" is defined as using one of those. 
But, again, I don't see a requirement to actually use one anywhere but as applied to foreign jumpers using equipment not certified in the US.

 

Also again, this has been discussed before. More knowledgeable people than I have cited the spot in the regs that requires a two parachute system to legally jump from an aircraft (I think).

[nwt 131]

6 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

far 91.307 (e) 2

Quote

(e) For the purposes of this section, approved parachute means -

(1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical standard order (C-23 series); or

(2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or AN drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation or specification number.

This just defines the term "approved parachute"--it doesn't create any requirements.

[sfzombie13 307]

5 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

 

That covers emergency rigs. 

 

Everything I can find in 105 covers what has to be legal to make a 'single harness dual parachute' jump. And a "parachutist" is defined as using one of those. 
But, again, I don't see a requirement to actually use one anywhere but as applied to foreign jumpers using equipment not certified in the US.

 

 

sure doesn't look that way to me, as it defines what a parachute is.  it says it has to be tso'd, just like everyone says.  it mentions emergency parachutes before e.    i may not be well versed in the far readings, but have been reading government documents for clarity for decades.

 

2 hours ago, nwt said:

This just defines the term "approved parachute"--it doesn't create any requirements.

it says it has to be tso'd.  it's actually one of the most clear cut government regs that i have seen.

[nwt 131]

3 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

it says it has to be tso'd

No it doesn't. It says if it's not TSOd then it doesn't meet their definition of an "approved parachute". I don't see any requirement that a jumper use an "approved parachute".

[riggerrob 558]

Dear nwt, it is illegal to carry a non-TSOed/non-approved parachute in an airplane cabin or cockpit.

Even if your pilot emergency parachute is TSOed, it cannot be legally carried in an airplane cabin if it is more than 180 days past its last inspection.

The FAA has never issued a TSO for a BASE rig.

[nwt 131]

2 hours ago, riggerrob said:

Dear nwt, it is illegal to carry a non-TSOed/non-approved parachute in an airplane cabin or cockpit.

I've seen this and similar things stated many times, but I've never seen any proof, and I've been unable to come to this conclusion from my own reading of the FARs. Can you cite anything specific that supports your understanding? That's why I'm here.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

12 minutes ago, nwt said:

I've seen this and similar things stated many times, but I've never seen any proof, and I've been unable to come to this conclusion from my own reading of the FARs. Can you cite anything specific that supports your understanding? That's why I'm here.

91.307 says:
 

Quote

(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved type and has been packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger -

The sticking point would be the 'available for emergency use' part.

I highly doubt it would be illegal to transport an out of date emergency rig, even in the cabin (most light aircraft don't have a separate cargo hold). 

I would think that if it's in a box that is taped shut, with the handle zip tied to prevent accidental pulling, one could successfully argue that it wasn't 'available'. 

However, if it's in a warbird, where the parachute container is the seat cushion, then the 'availability' may become questionable. 

I read through the whole thread. Interesting and sometimes annoying discussion. This one is from before I started, and it's kinda cool to see some names that I haven't seen in a long time. Some, including the OP are no longer with us.

There's no actual cite to verify that jumping a single, non-TSO'd rig is illegal. It's repeatedly stated, and simply accepted.
Again, it's been cited somewhere, by someone. I just can't remember when, where or by whom.

 

[nwt 131]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

91.307 says:
 

The sticking point would be the 'available for emergency use' part.

I'm sure the precise meaning of that phrase is debatable, but we can probably all agree that it can't have no meaning, right? The clause cannot have the same meaning with and without the phrase. It must be there as a differentiator to tell us that some rigs need to be an approved type and conversely others do not.

Perhaps it means "intended for emergency use", but this is an aside from the point I'm interested in.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Just now, nwt said:

I'm sure the precise meaning of that phrase is debatable, but we can probably all agree that it can't have no meaning, right? The clause cannot have the same meaning with and without the phrase. It must be there as a differentiator to tell us that some rigs need to be an approved type and conversely others do not.

Perhaps it means "intended for emergency use", but this is an aside from the point I'm interested in.

I think the differentiator is that 'approved type rigs' are legal and 'other than approved type rigs' are not legal.
Think about using a BASE rig for an emergency (pilot) rig in a jump or acrobatic plane. From a 'function' standpoint, they would both save your life if you had to get out. From a legality standpoint, the 'other than approved' part would be problematic. 
Part 105 covers 'other than approved type rigs', when they can be used and by whom for skydiving. 

[sfzombie13 307]

5 hours ago, nwt said:

No it doesn't. It says if it's not TSOd then it doesn't meet their definition of an "approved parachute". I don't see any requirement that a jumper use an "approved parachute".

i was mistaken earlier it seems.  105.3 defines an approved parachute as having a tso, and a single harness dual parachute system has an approved reserve parachute.  this means it has a tso and is packed by a rigger in 105.43.  105.49 provides the exception for foreign equipment, but not base equipment.  go read it, it's in there and says it clear as day.

[nwt 131]

6 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

i was mistaken earlier it seems.  105.3 defines an approved parachute as having a tso, and a single harness dual parachute system has an approved reserve parachute. 

This doesn't change my response. Defining a term, on it's own, doesn't create any requirements.

[20kN 93]

Here we go:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/105.43

 

§ 105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems.

No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows:

 

(a) The main parachute must have been packed within 180 days before the date of its use by a certificated parachute rigger, the person making the next jump with that parachute, or a non-certificated person under the direct supervision of a certificated parachute rigger.

(b) The reserve parachute must have been packed by a certificated parachute rigger -

(1) Within 180 days before the date of its use, if its canopy, shroud, and harness are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or similar synthetic fiber or material that is substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, and other fungi, and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or

(2) Within 60 days before the date of its use, if it is composed of any amount of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber, or material not specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device.

Edited January 26, 2021 by 20kN

[nwt 131]

2 minutes ago, 20kN said:

No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system,

This says if a dual parachute system is used, then here are some requirements. It does not say a dual parachute system is required.

[sfzombie13 307]

27 minutes ago, nwt said:

This doesn't change my response. Defining a term, on it's own, doesn't create any requirements.

it does in this case.  the definition says it has to be approved, and approved is defined as having a tso, and further restricted by making an faa licensed rigger pack it, just as 20kn has been so gracious to put together for us above.

1 minute ago, nwt said:

This doesn't change my response. Defining a term, on it's own, doesn't create any requirements.

now you're just being argumentative.  read 105.43, the paragraph before a.  it says it right there that you have to use an approved parachute system, defined as stated.

Edited January 26, 2021 by sfzombie13

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

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.

[sfzombie13 307]

2 minutes ago, 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.

105.43, right before a

 

[nwt 131]

3 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

the definition says it has to be approved,

It doesn't though.

[SethInMI 145]

yeah, it is funny isn't it? I can't find anything either in 105 that says the only way to make an intentional jump is to use a dual parachute system.

[nwt 131]

1 minute ago, sfzombie13 said:

105.43, right before a

 

Quote

No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system,

 

5 minutes ago, nwt said:

This says if a dual parachute system is used, then here are some requirements. It does not say a dual parachute system is required.

 

[sfzombie13 307]

Just now, nwt said:

It doesn't though.

what does the part in red say?

[nwt 131]

Just now, sfzombie13 said:

what does the part in red say?

It says IF you jump a dual-container system, THEN you must have two parachutes in it

[SethInMI 145]

1 minute ago, sfzombie13 said:

what does the part in red say?

it says if you use a dual parachute system, it better be approved. doesn't say anything about using a single parachute system.

[20kN 93]

6 minutes ago, 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.

In general if a legal authority specifically lists out the requirements of an approved standard, then it's legally implied that everything else is unapproved. I dont think that argument would hold up in court very well if you tried to test it. Maybe if you had a very expensive lawyer, but otherwise not likely.

[20kN 93]

2 minutes ago, SethInMI said:

it says if you use a dual parachute system, it better be approved. doesn't say anything about using a single parachute system.

It's a legal assumption, which is a real thing. When the FAA states what an approved parachute system is, then legally anything else is assumed as unapproved if it doesent meet the definition. Rather than saying what is not approved, it's a shorter list to just say what is.

Edited January 26, 2021 by 20kN

[sfzombie13 307]

5 minutes ago, SethInMI said:

it says if you use a dual parachute system, it better be approved. doesn't say anything about using a single parachute system.

that is why i mentioned 91.307 b.  that part says you can only use an approved parachute for intentional jumps, and that it has to also meet the restrictions in part 105. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by sfzombie13