NPRM-FAA Transfer of Authority

[tombuch 0]

Quote

The FAA has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that could transform the way the agency regulates skydiving and other aviation activities. The FAA is proposing the establishment of an “Organization Designation Authorization” program, under which the agency would designate various organizations with the authority to perform specific regulatory functions on behalf of the FAA. At its upcoming meeting, USPA’s Board of Directors will consider the implications for USPA and the skydiving community and develop USPA’s formal response to the proposal. The FAA’s comment period ends May 20. To view the text of the NPRM, click here.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/pdf/04-1133.pdf

The above is from the USPA web site.

It sounds like the FAA is trying to cut costs and allow some industry organizations to self-approve some functions. One of the examples used in the NPRM is “…Included are functions leading to certification authorization for parachute jumping operations.” It sounds like the FAA is willing to let us self-certify some demo activity under the umbrella of a national organization such as USPA. The program would require an extensive and consistent approval and supervision process at the USPA level, and would then involve FAA oversight above USPA. It would probably simplify the process of demo approval for jumpers, but add infrastructure to USPA, and possibly add additional liability to the organization. For those who don’t like USPA, it could give the organization direct control over the demo functions now handled by FAA.

The NPRM and the final rule would NOT automatically transfer any authority to USPA. Rather, assuming the rule is passed USPA would need to request that authorization and meet FAA standards. It sounds like any change is a long way off, and it might not be in the best interest of USPA or member skydivers to go the route of self-certification, but it is worth looking at.

Check out the NPRM and let USPA know what you think.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem)
S&TA
Commercial Pilot (IAMSEL,G)
Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

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

[diverdriver 5]

So is this saying it's time to put up or shut up on "self policing"?

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[markbaur 0]

Having slogged through 18 pages of NPRM, I'm not sure it will have any significant impact on skydiving.

The summary says the FAA wants to "expand the approval functions of FAA organizational designees..." But USPA has no organizational designees, the way Part 121/135 operators have designated check pilots, or Part 141/142 flight schools have their own examiners. Designated Parachute Rigger Examiners are not USPA employees.

"[T]he proposed rule would allow designated organizations to issue airman certificatges or authorizations under 14 CFR parts 61, 63, and 91..." But noticeable by omission is Part 65, which covers parachute riggers.

"[T]he proposed rule would allow designated organizations to find compliance or conduct functions leading to the issuance of certificates or authorizations for --
Parachute jumping operations under 14 CFR Part 105..."

But Part 105 only requires certificates of authorization in connection with demonstration-type jumps, and for jumps in designated airspace, although that authorization is more in the nature of "notification" rather than "asking permission." Since ATC is unlikely to cede any control over airspace, the FAA is talking at most about allowing USPA (or ICAS) to approve demo jumps.

So could USPA simplify the approval process for demos? I'd be surprised if they could, but my knowledge is limited.

...

I find it interesting that the other GA folks most affected by the NPRM are all flight operations (rotorcraft external load, ag, flight schools), and there is no proposal to change our flight operations. Sorry, diverdriver.

The NPRM does apply to Part 21, which covers production and which includes TSOs. I'd be interested in learning what kind of QC system the manufacturers have, what kind of FAA oversight they have, and how this NPRM might affect them.

Mark

[quade 3]

Maybe I missed it, where does it say any of this applies to FAR Part 105 operations?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sducoach 0]

In the body of the document.

Mark is correct in that the fed's have used designated examiners for some time.

Enforcement and inspections are another matter.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[quade 3]

Quote

In the body of the document.

Ah, I was kinda thrown by the cover. Mentioned the other parts but not 105.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver