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

[SkiD_PL8 0]

Quote

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

Yes, you are correct, I didn't realize it was worded the way it is.

Greenie in training.

[kallend 1,622]

Quote

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, that is an excellent safety site you have assembled there!

...

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

[Levin 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.

i disagree. the pilot would fall under the jurisdiction of the faa and would lose his license and be subject to fines. the jumper would fall under the jurisdiction of the local sherriff's department and would be eligible for involuntary manslaughter charges.

[itllclear 1]

OK, my turn to add some interpretations.

If the person leaving the plane does not have a parachute, it's not a "parachute operation" and 14 CFR 105 doesn't apply. When Jimmy Tyler left the plane without a rig, the intent was to use a parachute for landing. That's what put the activity under Part 105. Same with the videographer without a rig in 1988. There was an intent to use a parachute.

Dar Robinson made a number of jumps from a helicopter into an airbag. I remember that happening at an air show, the FAA was there, no problem. What's the difference between that stunt and landing a wingsuit? My guess is none.

If the person does have a parachute system, and
1) It conforms with the requirements of Part 105,
2) Precautions are taken to avoid damage or injury to property or persons on the ground, or other aircraft,

it's my guess that the FAA would be satisfied. Most of them think we're crazy,

The simplest way? Just don't admit that it was done in U.S. airspace!

Blue Skies!

Harry

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

[The111 0]

Quote

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 a WS landing attempt does happen, I doubt the jumper would exit with no rig, regardless of legality. The jumper would be a highly experienced WS jumper who has done all of his WS jumps wearing a suit and rig... to take the rig off would alter his performance from what he was used to and probably not be a good idea.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[Fast 0]

Quote

Quote

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 a WS landing attempt does happen, I doubt the jumper would exit with no rig, regardless of legality. The jumper would be a highly experienced WS jumper who has done all of his WS jumps wearing a suit and rig... to take the rig off would alter his performance from what he was used to and probably not be a good idea.

Not to mention this leaves no room at all for possible wingsuit malfunction and/or inopertune conditions for the landing which may or may not become apparent after exit.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

So is a winsuit jumper without a rig a skydiver? Or an aircraft launched glider?

[DrewEckhardt 0]

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.....

Assuming he doesn't do it over a crowd absolutely zero.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

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 .

In theory moderate skills and no additional equipment are enough to land a wingsuit on a ski slope of at least 26 degrees with zero speed perpindicular to the ground. Steeper slopes give you more outs.

On flat ground a big winged suit should flare to a vertical descent rate which shock absorbers can handle. A wheeled undercarriage with brakes adresses the forward speed problem.

If that doesn't workJeb's survived dying before.

[quade 3]

Quote

In theory moderate skills and no additional equipment are enough to land a wingsuit on a ski slope of at least 26 degrees with zero speed perpindicular to the ground.

Who's theory is that?!?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,119]

I really liked it before the edit.
Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,622]

Quote

Quote

In theory moderate skills and no additional equipment are enough to land a wingsuit on a ski slope of at least 26 degrees with zero speed perpindicular to the ground.

Who's theory is that?!?

It's arctan(0.5) so I suppose it relates to a glide ratio of 2:1, readily achievable in a wingsuit.

...

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

[quade 3]

It still doesn't explain the distance required to stop nor the survivibility issue in attempting to do so. Simply having a surface that matches the glide path means nothing if that surface isn't long enough, smooth and soft enough for the person to survive.

In short, it's a lousy "theory" if all it's based on is the angle alone.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[pilotdave 0]

He said there'd be no speed perpendicular to the ground... no mention of survival.

Dave

[peterk 0]

Why not perform the stunt from an ultralight? There would be no need for a TSO'd rig, no license to take from the pilot, etc.

Or maybe the wingsuit needs to go through a $50,000 TSO approval process?

I wonder where skydiving would be today if the pioneers from the 60's and 70's were online back then, debating online if something was legal, or if they should do it even if it isn't 100% safe. Or if they should make more regulations...

Remember, FAR 105.17...
http://www.chutinggallery.com/services/safety/far105.htm#105.17

I can't believe that skydivers would tell someone, who has the skill level to attempt something like this, that they have to have a TSO'd rig, and would be in support of the FAA revoking the pilots certificates. Seems to me, the way you guys are regulating yourselves now, within 5 years, jump ticket prices will be $50, or it will simply be impossible to skydive without buying a $10,000 TSO'd rig... Its a good thing it wasn't always like this...

---------------
Peter
BASE - The Ultimate Victimless Crime

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Why not perform the stunt from an ultralight? There would be no need for a TSO'd rig, no license to take from the pilot, etc.

A TSO'd rig would still be required.

Quote

I can't believe that skydivers would tell someone, who has the skill level to attempt something like this, that they have to have a TSO'd rig, and would be in support of the FAA revoking the pilots certificates. Seems to me, the way you guys are regulating yourselves now, within 5 years, jump ticket prices will be $50, or it will simply be impossible to skydive without buying a $10,000 TSO'd rig... Its a good thing it wasn't always like this...

Doing something that brings negative FAA attention (such as jumping BASE rigs from aircraft) could cause the price of jump tickets to increase. Following the rules is unlikely to cause the price of jump tickets to increase.

Derek

[pilotdave 0]

The question was what would the FAA do, not what do skydivers think the FAA should do.

An ultralight jump would violate more FARs than an airplane jump... but yeah, no license to lose. I'm sure the FAA has other ways to stop an ultralight pilot from flying though.

The real way to do it legally would be a great big slingshot. I support any attempt of that type fully. Just as long as I get to see the video.

Dave

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

Why not perform the stunt from an ultralight? There would be no need for a TSO'd rig, no license to take from the pilot, etc.

I jumped from a 2 place ultralite once and the pilot said the FAA was on him next week, saying not to do that anymore. Big brother is watchin'.

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

On flat ground a big winged suit should flare to a vertical descent rate which shock absorbers can handle. A wheeled undercarriage with brakes adresses the forward speed problem

yeah, I heard something about that before. I think they call it an airplane

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

[mjosparky 3]

I am not sure what your reference to Part 105.17 has to do with this discussion.

But this "attempt" can be done without violating any FAA reg. The wing suit jumper has to leave the plane wearing an approved rig, over an area that will not present a danger to persons or property on the ground and not try to land on an airport. If the right airspace is picked all that would be needed is to file a NOTAM.

The regs do not say he has to use the rig, he just has to exit with it.

I bet you feel that all this rules and regulation shit is for everyone else, not Peter.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[AndyMan 7]

Even though you seem to reguarly jump out of planes with non-TSO gear, it does not mean that recomending others do so is good advice.

Ultra-lights are still very much airplanes, and you expose yourself, the pilot, the DZ, and the USPA to significant legal risk by jumping one without TSO'd gear, much less effectively admitting to such in public.

Stop being stupid.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[bodypilot1 0]

Quote

If the right airspace is picked all that would be needed is to file a NOTAM.

I think the right landing place needs to be picked also should this be attempted.

The landing spot should be very close to a hospital or some open field where a few shovels are handy.

Keepin' it safe!
Ed

www.WestCoastWingsuits.com
www.PrecisionSkydiving.com

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

In theory moderate skills and no additional equipment are enough to land a wingsuit on a ski slope of at least 26 degrees with zero speed perpindicular to the ground.

Who's theory is that?!?

Mine by way of junior high trigonometry and however many wing suit jumps I've managed over five years.

You want zero speed into the ground.

We've flown 1.5 laps arround a 5000' long runway from 12,000 to 4,500 feet. That's 15,000 feet horizontally using 7,500 feet vertically for a 2:1 glide ratio. The inverse tangent is 26.6 degrees. You could fly next to a 26.6 degree slope with zero speed into it.

While better fliers can get their decent rate down into the high 30 MPH range 45 MPH is not unreasonable for a less skilled flier in a big suit. With a 2:1 glide ratio this would get you a 100 MPH airspeed and zero speed normal to the corresponding slope.

Docking is not difficult and demostrates the ability to control horizontal location within inches. Flying within a path the width of a green ski run would be much easier.

Snow preparation for speed slkiers is well understood. On such surfaces they've stopped without injury with over twice the kinetic injury.

A location that allows you to gain less than 500' of vertical off the hill (steeper thasn 26 degrees or followed by a steeper section) provides ample altitude to deploy a mesh-slidered free packed seven cell if you need an out.

It's a matter of testicle size not physics.

[billvon 2,391]

>I can't believe that skydivers would tell someone, who has the skill level
>to attempt something like this, that they have to have a TSO'd rig, and
> would be in support of the FAA revoking the pilots certificates.

You have to have a TSOed rig. It doesn't matter whether you're doing 4-way, or jumping a wingsuit, or doing a low pull contest. We have to follow the laws of the US when we jump in the US. If you want to jump without a TSOed rig, go to a country that doesn't have such laws.

>Seems to me, the way you guys are regulating yourselves now, within
>5 years, jump ticket prices will be $50, or it will simply be impossible
>to skydive without buying a $10,000 TSO'd rig... Its a good thing it
>wasn't always like this...

How we yearn for the days of Capewells, cotton twill, silk reserves, and Jesus strings . . .

[billvon 2,391]

>With a 2:1 glide ratio this would get you a 100 MPH airspeed and
>zero speed normal to the corresponding slope.

From flying, I can tell you that there is a huge difference between maintaining a certain glideslope and putting an aircraft onto a runway - even if you have power, it's a flat runway, and the runway is ten thousand times the area you need to land safely.