FAR's and wingsuit landing w/o a parachute?

[linestretch 0]

What would the ramifications be if someone intended to land their wingsuit without using their parachute concerning FAR's? For example, he's leaving a plane with no intentions of using his parachute.....

my pics & stuff!

[quade 3]

The -pilot- will probably lose his license if a reasonable person would expect him to have known about it (and my guess is that's going to be the case). It is a violation of at least two FARs that I think apply and would be thrown at the pilot.

See FAR 105.5 and FAR 91.13

The jumper, of course, doesn't have to worry about this too much. While he's in the hospital or grave the FAA isn't going to be able to do too much to him and since the FAA doesn't issue skydiving license, there's really nothing to for them to take away. It is -conceivable- that they could fine him, but they probably wouldn't.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[linestretch 0]

Then how would the article about Jeb Corliss deal with this? Do they have an exempt or what? (this is for a bullshit paper I'm writing for school)

my pics & stuff!

[Travman 6]

How do these legal issues effect Team Crater landing a "Mr Bill" at Rantoul (btw, good work on that one)?

[darkwing 4]

I'm going to disagree with Quade. The FARs are, in my view, vague, at best, on this issue. I think a lawyer could get around it. It may not even take a lawyer. I bet the FAA would make a change in their wording though.

Now that I think of it though, could the FAA could interpret a wingsuit as a parachute? Here is their definition of a main parachute from FAR105: "Main parachute means a parachute worn as the primary parachute used or intended to be used in conjunction with a reserve parachute." So I think not.

It will be interesting though. They might go with the theory that the law is vague enough that they can get away with it once. Or they may go for the kind of permission you can get for attempting a stunt.

-- Jeff
My Skydiving History

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

The -pilot- will probably lose his license if a reasonable person would expect him to have known about it (and my guess is that's going to be the case). It is a violation of at least two FARs that I think apply and would be thrown at the pilot.

See FAR 105.5 and FAR 91.13

The jumper, of course, doesn't have to worry about this too much. While he's in the hospital or grave the FAA isn't going to be able to do too much to him and since the FAA doesn't issue skydiving license, there's really nothing to for them to take away. It is -conceivable- that they could fine him, but they probably wouldn't.

You think so? Neither FAR says anything about having to DEPLOY a parachute, just that you have to have one to conduct parachute operations. It's not illegal to make an air drop provided it's done in a manner not to endanger other traffic or persons on the ground.

I watched the Mr. Bill land at Rantoul last year. To the best of my recall the FAA guys were pissed, but couldn't do anything.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AndyAnderson 0]

You only have to wear a dual container single harness (tso'd) with a reserve (tso'd) and in date if you intend doing a parachute jump.
They may get any survivors for public endangerment.

[grue 1]

Sorry for the thread hijack, but on the subject of FARs, my girlfriend made a crack that if we get married, she'll kick my ass if I skydive to the altar at an outdoor wedding, which begs the question:

Obviously, I wouldn't wanna try and land on an altar with people there, but is there any FAR preventing someone from jumping out above city limits and, say, coming down on their property? Assume the edge of town and lots of land? It just poppped into my head and I wasn't sure.

cavete terrae.

[BIGUN 1,071]

http://www.uspa.org/publications/SIM/2004SIM/section7.htm

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[grue 1]

Yup, that's about what I figured. Cheers ;)

cavete terrae.

[ryoder 1,400]

Quote

The -pilot- will probably lose his license if a reasonable person would expect him to have known about it (and my guess is that's going to be the case). It is a violation of at least two FARs that I think apply and would be thrown at the pilot.

See FAR 105.5 and FAR 91.13

The jumper, of course, doesn't have to worry about this too much. While he's in the hospital or grave the FAA isn't going to be able to do too much to him and since the FAA doesn't issue skydiving license, there's really nothing to for them to take away. It is -conceivable- that they could fine him, but they probably wouldn't.

For the sake of argument...

- 105.5 is about parachute operations. Since there is no parachute involved in landing a wingsuit, it isn't applicable.
- 91.13 is about recklessly dropping cargo or persons in a way to endanger lives/property of those below. I will argue that the wingsuit landing attempt can be made with proper planning to meet this requirement.

From my point of view, what is being attempted is similar to dropping a hang-glider from a hot-air balloon; A small, lightweight, unlicensed, glider is being dropped from a powered, licensed aircraft.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Kallend is right. The FAA cares only that you wear an approved rig with an in date reserve., but doesn't care if you open the parachute or not. Just don't bounce on a taxpayer. I've done enough paperwork to know this is true.

[skypuppy 1]

If this is the case, why did a pilot lose his licence over dropping a jumper at the Royal Gorge with a BASE rig, let alone a wingsuit and no rig at all?

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[linestretch 0]

i would think because the rig was a BASE rig, not being TSO'd and only having one chute.


edited for bad spelling

my pics & stuff!

[linestretch 0]

Quote

Kallend is right. The FAA cares only that you wear an approved rig with an in date reserve., but doesn't care if you open the parachute or not. Just don't bounce on a taxpayer. I've done enough paperwork to know this is true.

So if this is the case, and this stunt is announced and planned, you don't think the FAA will say anything about it? Do you think they will just let it happen?

Some good debate here.

my pics & stuff!

[darkwing 4]

Because it WAS a parachute jump, and the jumper did not have an approved system.

Also, I don't see any relevance to USPA stuff at all, since it isn't a parachute jump.

-- Jeff
My Skydiving History

[linestretch 0]

but this may be performed at a USPA recognized DZ.......where does that fit it?

my pics & stuff!

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

What would the ramifications be if someone intended to land their wingsuit without using their parachute concerning FAR's? For example, he's leaving a plane with no intentions of using his parachute.....

OK, I'll play your game. [ silly game] If this was even remotely possible with the current technology the way to do it would be to use a normal rig(TSO'd, 2 chutes) and simply not pull. It is esentially what was done at WFFC 04 with the Mr. Bill. The one individual simply didn't pull and landed via alternate means. As was mentioned, as long as your body didn't land on someone or their property, the FAA would probablly have the same reaction they had after the Mr. Bill at WFFC. [/silly game]

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[SkiD_PL8 0]

Quote

Quote

Kallend is right. The FAA cares only that you wear an approved rig with an in date reserve., but doesn't care if you open the parachute or not. Just don't bounce on a taxpayer. I've done enough paperwork to know this is true.

So if this is the case, and this stunt is announced and planned, you don't think the FAA will say anything about it? Do you think they will just let it happen?

Some good debate here.

I think they have to let it happen. They might try to fight it but they have no footing to do so. As long as he has on a TSO'd rig and reserve he is following their rules.

Greenie in training.

[quade 3]

Quote

You think so?

Absolutely. I wouldn't have said so otherwise.

One of the great things about being a flight instructor is you get to spend some quality time with the FSDO. The topic has come up and opinions expressed.

The 105.5 is a lock. Absolutely going to happen unless it's a situation in which no reasonable human could have expected the pilot and or operator of the aircraft to have known what was going to happen. I'm thinking the only way to avoid it is to hijack the airplane and not let the pilot look at what you're doing. I can almost 100% guarantee that if it's a regular drop zone pilot, the FAA will not buy any excuse.

91.13 is the FAA catch-all. If anybody ever gets hurt doing anything during the operation of an airplane the pilot gets this thrown at them. Almost 100% certitude.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[darkwing 4]

Quote

but this may be performed at a USPA recognized DZ.......where does that fit it?

It still wouldn't be a parachute jump, and therefore it isn't under USPAs umbrella.

-- Jeff
My Skydiving History

[SkiD_PL8 0]

Quote

Quote

but this may be performed at a USPA recognized DZ.......where does that fit it?

It still wouldn't be a parachute jump, and therefore it isn't under USPAs umbrella.

If he is wearing a rig and presumeably jumping at a USPA member dropzone then it is a parachute jump even if he doesn't deploy.

Greenie in training.

[BlindBrick 0]

Quote

***
The 105.5 is a lock.

OK, ignoring the question of whether this is a parachute operaion on not. aren't you able to get around that by droppign over an unihabited area. I thought that that was how Eloy got around chucking stuff out the back of their tailgaters.

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[SkiD_PL8 0]

Quote

Quote

***
The 105.5 is a lock.

OK, ignoring the question of whether this is a parachute operaion on not. aren't you able to get around that by droppign over an unihabited area. I thought that that was how Eloy got around chucking stuff out the back of their tailgaters.

-Blind

From what I understand the pilot is responsible for any object that leaves his plane during flight. A skyball is a perfect example, if it went in and killed someone on the ground he is responsible not the jumpers who were using it. So, that being said he can drop whatever he wants out of the plane but if it damages someone's property or hurts someone the pilot is liable.

Greenie in training.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

From what I understand the pilot is responsible for any object that leaves his plane during flight. A skyball is a perfect example, if it went in and killed someone on the ground he is responsible not the jumpers who were using it. So, that being said he can drop whatever he wants out of the plane but if it damages someone's property or hurts someone the pilot is liable.

It's not just the pilot that is responsible. The FAA places responsibility on the jumper(s), pilot, drop zone owner, manifester, riggers, mechanics, or anybody (or corporate entity) involved in the "parachute operation." See article 13 (FAA Regulations Applied, on The Ranch web site at: http://ranchskydive.com/safety/index.htm

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy