base363 0 #1 March 20, 2004 The FAA has made final it's decision regarding our DZ's right to use public airports. Beginning in February 2001, we filed a complaint with the FAA, alleging that the insurance required by both the City of Belle Fourche, SD and Lawrence Co. SD, was in violation of Grant Assurance 22 which states, in part, the sponsor "...will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities..." Both airports have required us to obtain insurance in the amount of $1 million, that covers all aspects of skydiving. This insurance is not commercially available. The final FAA ruling stated "...While airport sponsors are required to make their airports available on a reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory basis, they are also expected to protect their communities from the liability associated with the use of the airport..." "...the amount of insurance coverage required is consistent with the liability coverage for other activities at the airport..." "...it does not appear that the City has violated its Federal obligations in this matter, and the FAA intends to take no further action at this time..." What does this mean to you? If you are currently jumping at a federally funded airport, and believe you have the right to do so, think again. With the stroke of a pen, any airport can ban skydiving by requiring unavailable insurance, and the FAA will endorse their actions. It's a good thing the USPA is spending our money on a Skydiving Museum. Because before long, it's all we'll have left. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rmsmith 1 #2 March 20, 2004 QuoteBoth airports have required us to obtain insurance in the amount of $1 million, that covers all aspects of skydiving. This insurance is not commercially available. Many of the Port District Airports here in Washington state require a $2-million blanket indemnity for anything that might be brought against them. Last summer a teenager drowned in our local community pool, and the city was hit with a $5-million lawsuit. The city built the waterpark because the current liability atmosphere here prevented viable private investment given the small local population. The pool might open again this summer, but it will certainly cost more for that summer pass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #3 March 21, 2004 Did you get the USPA involved in this? If so, what actions did they take? If not - why didn't you? Did you contact the AOPA?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base363 0 #4 March 21, 2004 We have been involved with USPA and AOPA since the beginning. We are a group member DZ, and have exhausted all possible recourses regarding this issue. The insurance the airports are requesting is not available. The FAA says they are within their rights to require the insurance. The USPA told me early on that this may not be a winable case. They take-on each case quietly, hoping to influence the city or county that they we have a right to use the airport. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NightJumper 0 #5 March 21, 2004 Quotehave exhausted all possible recourses regarding this issue. Was this a local FSDO ruling or did it com from DC? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base363 0 #6 March 21, 2004 The FSDO. However, the DC people have told the USPA that if a Part 16 complaint was filed, we could expect to lose. The FAA claims they are not in the business of setting insurance limits, just making sure they are imposed consistently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NightJumper 0 #7 March 21, 2004 QuoteThe FAA claims they are not in the business of setting insurance limits, just making sure they are imposed consistently. That is strange because we got just the opisite ruling. How can they impose a restriction that can not be met? And that would not be "consistant" since it is not available. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base363 0 #8 March 21, 2004 Can you send me a copy of their ruling? These have been our arguments all along. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #9 March 21, 2004 QuoteWe have been involved with USPA and AOPA since the beginning. We are a group member DZ, and have exhausted all possible recourses regarding this issue. The insurance the airports are requesting is not available. The FAA says they are within their rights to require the insurance. The USPA told me early on that this may not be a winable case. They take-on each case quietly, hoping to influence the city or county that they we have a right to use the airport. I'd bet you can get insurance from Lloyds of London. You may not like their premiums, though. It would be interesting to do an actuarial study on the risks to third parties from skydiving operations - something USPA should be doing if insurance is going to be an increasing problem in the future. Is this a REAL risk so insurance companies won't touch it, or is it just so far out of their experience that they just don't want to have to deal with it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #10 March 22, 2004 Well, you better go buy your own airport. Do it now before being forced to.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base363 0 #11 March 22, 2004 It would be interesting to do an actuarial study on the risks to third parties from skydiving operations - something USPA should be doing if insurance is going to be an increasing problem in the future. *** The insurance they require is for participants, not third parties. This is why we have made the case that it us unreasonable and discriminatory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NightJumper 0 #12 March 22, 2004 QuoteCan you send me a copy of their ruling? These have been our arguments all along. Sorry, all ours took was a telephone conference with the Ft. Lauderdale FSDO and the county. You might also get a lawyer and ask about the civil options in your state for restraint of trade by requiring something that is not available. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #13 March 22, 2004 Is there a right of appeal to the decision that has just been reached? Have you spoken to a lawyer? In the UK, there would be a very good argument for saying that requiring you to have insurance, (even where they require every other type of aeronautical activity to have insurance), should be regarded as unreasonable and therefore in violation of the City regs. That’s England though... I have no idea if US law embraces the same concept of unreasonableness UK law. Check with someone who does this as a living, they will be able to help even if the “help” is just telling you you’re screwed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
