Skydiving banned from all federally funded airports

[base363 0]

If you think this can't happen, it already does!

If a federally funded airport simply requires all skydivers to hold a $1mil insurance policy covering all skydiving activities and naming the county or city as additional insured, the FAA will allow them to shut down all skydiving activities.

We have been kicked-off two federally funded airports in the last two years because of this. The FAA has formally said that this insurance was a reasonable requirement, and the USPA could do nothing to help.

USPA is supposed to be holding an insurance summit soon, but in the meantime all operations at federally funded airports are in jeopardy.

I believe the only solution is a grass roots effort to enact legislation limiting liability exposure to these airports.

Anyone else have suggestions or possible solutions to this?

[quade 3]

At first I thought you were rehashing an old joke of mine, but unfortunately it looks like you're serious.

Quote

If you think this can't happen, it has already started.

Please provide ANY documentation to substantiate this claim. What airport are we talking about here?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[base363 0]

Black Hills/Clyde Ice Field in Spearfish South Dakota and now Belle Fourche airport in South Dakota. The USPA has make a lot of phone calls and offers moral support, but has no power to do anything about this. The FAA simply feels requiring skydiving participants to have a $1 mil policy covering the airport is a reasonable request. The problem is that most airport liability policies exclude the act of parachuting. This leaves the airport and directors open to any suit. They claim they aren't discriminating because the other activities are covered under their existing policy. Just try to purchase a $1 mil skydiving policy? Doesn't exist.

[quade 3]

Uh, doesn't USPA membership come with a $1million liability policy?

Maybe I'm wrong on the limits.

See http://uspa.org/membership/index.htm#insurance

Or are these not USPA GM drop zones?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[base363 0]

This is a group member dz. Black Hills Air Sports. We have been in operation since 1990. The USPA insurance is 50K and covers 3rd parties. Not participants. What the airports are asking for is: "suppose a skydiver gets killed, then the family sues us for damages. We want to be covered against such a suit in the amount of $1mil, and we want the jumper to pay for the insurance too". USPA will direct you to Falcon Insurance, which specializes in skydiving coverage. They do provide policies that look good on the surface, but the fine print always excludes any coverage for the jumper. Even the aircraft insurance only covers 3rd parties. Like someone's house or car as long as they have nothing to do with the skydiving activity.

[quade 3]

Ahhh . . . NOW I understand.

You should be in contact with AOPA. Not so much for the insurance issues, but rather the airport access issues.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[webracer 0]

Maybe this explains why Morris IL (Skydive Illinois) was recently shut down. The airport told them to get out (according to my sources). It's the same kinda government control as with speed limits and seatbelts. The government isn't saying you can't, just if you do you'll get no money.

Troy

I am now free to exercise my downward mobility.

[base363 0]

I've talked to AOPA and they were of no help either. They have lawyers who specialize in aviation, but offered no solution. Their lawyer said there was nothing he could do.

Bottom line is the FAA is endorsing the airport's requirements. USPA doesn't want to act on this because they are afraid that if it goes to court, a judge will side with the FAA and that will set the precedence. Well, the precedence has already been set.

In order to be in compliance with the FAR's, you must have land owners permission prior to jumping. As soon as the airport denies you access, you must cease the activity. The next step is to wait for the FAA to make a ruling. It took them almost 2 years to tell us they could legally stop skydiving.

We then moved to Belle Fourche who welcomed us initially. Then, like a cancer, the insurance guy in Belle came-up with the same scenario as in Spearfish. They had obviously been talking.

I'm afraid that any DZ that is not on the best of terms with the local community could be shut down just like us. We have went through the whole process only to realize that we DON'T have a right to jump at a federally funded airport.

Want to shut down skydiving? Here's the recipe! Like the cancer analogy, USPA can ignore it and die a slow death, or treat it aggressively and hope to survive. I'm really wondering what I've been paying for these last 20 years? A magazine I don't read about people I don't know? Oh, and if your not a group member DZ you are treated as if you are somehow unsafe. Oh yea, you have to be a member to jump at other DZ's. Or what's going to be left of them.

By the way, we require AAD's for all Jumpers. How much more restrictive could that be?

[BikerBabe 0]

Our club has had a continual battle with our airport.

The way we got around it was we finally pooled the members' donations and bought 5 acres of land about 3 miles away from the airport. That's where we land.

All we do is load and take off from the airport. They know if they try to prevent that, it becomes a pilot/FBO issue, and they don't want to deal with that...right now we're just another Cessna taking off at the airfield.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[quade 3]

Any nearby BLM land at either airport?

I'm looking at http://topozone.com/map.asp?z=13&n=4925724&e=596800&s=25&size=l and it looks pretty sparse in some places nearby . . . or is that just my inability to read a topo right?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[base363 0]

Currently, the city's policy is that no skydiving related activities will be allowed on the airport. For about 3 hours, two weeks ago, the city attorney said we couldn't even take off with skydivers!

The FAA did put a stop to that, but upheld the insurance requirement.

Anyway, they won't officially even let us practice exits with tandem students. Not letting us practice is a safety issue that I believe makes them more likely to be exposed to a lawsuit.

The airport manager has been working hard for us, and secured access to land in a field next to the airport. So that's what we are doing. It's not the worst situation, but it also puts landing parachutes on the downwind for the 14 runway.

So, by banning skydiving at the airport, they have effectively made the jump operation less safe for the jumpers and general aviation activities.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

You should be in contact with AOPA. Not so much for the insurance issues, but rather the airport access issues.

Umm. Nope.

We're not members of the AOPA, we're members of the USPA, and the USPA should grow a sack and actually do what they say they do: stand up for jumpers and especially their GM DZs in situations like this.

This goes back to the previous threads we've had about the USPA, showing that they're not actually doing much useful to actually support jumpers in these scenerios.

Their unwillingness to publish the little headway they've made with the TSA, their inability to put us back in the air after 9/11 (the AOPA did that)...I guess we can add this to the list.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[TrickyDicky 0]

I thought the whole point of signing the forms were to say "I accept that skydiving is dangerous and I could die. The DZ is not liable for damage assuming Ive had all the proper training."

I come from the UK, but I assume the same sort of thing happens in the US.

UK Skydiver for all your UK skydiving needs.

[Malev 0]

Quote

I come from the UK, but I assume the same sort of thing happens in the US.

From what I gather, its even worse in the US. We (in the UK) have a two-sided sign-up form, which has a paragraph somewhere which says something along the lines of "I accept there is a risk of serious injury or death when participating in the sport". Thats pretty much it. Over there, the wavers are pages long and require an initial beside each paragraph.

Thats not to say even that will stop someone suing - lawyers will argue over whether the waiver legal, did the signer really understand the risks, can you sign away your right to sue etc...

[base363 0]

The waiver may keep you from losing a lawsuit, but it doesn't prevent someone from filing one. So, you still have the legal costs of fighting such a suit.

If it was somehow illegal to file a suit once you had signed a waiver "frivolous lawsuit protection?" then the waiver might have some weight.

The people on these city councils have no knowledge of what skydiving is all about. They make their decisions based on "Whats easiest for me right now?" emotions. Cliche's like "The waiver isn't worth the paper it's written on!" carry the weight.

And if they believe they can be personally held liable for the actions of someone else, they don't want anything to do with it. The easiest thing to do is ban the activity and say it's in the best interest of the community. That way they cover their asses and it sounds like they are doing it for the public good.

The FAA backs them up, or has twice in our case. The USPA hopes no one else notices and continues to espouse the claim the we have a right to use publicly funded airports

[slotperfect 7]

I have a different spin on what all of us can do . . .

First, we broadcast a perception of joy, excitement, and love of life to the public with regard to our sport.

Much of what we see on TV about skydiving is the "Real TV" version - "no s***, there I was at 9,000 feet unconscious with a drogue around my neck until my cameraman buddy came in to save the day. Many people out there think skydivers are crazy and wonder "what happens if the parachute doesn't open?" Ironically those people will jump in their car without asking "what happens if my brakes fail?" They will head out in the rush hour traffic in a thunderstorm without giving it a second thought.

How do we do this? Externally, we educate the public by using the many vehicles available: bringing friends and co-workers to the dropzone for a visit; conducting professional demo jumps; and yes, even using the media to spread the word that skydiving is absolutely incredible.

Internally (within our ranks), we stress safety. We encourage reasonable wingloadings and get people to see the value in learning to swoop using the "crawl, walk, run" theory. We make emergency procedures, safe exit separation, and equipment maintenance a priority. If everyone down to the last individual makes this shift, we will stop losing the amount of brothers and sisters we are losing every year, Real TV will have less to sensationalize, and people (including the federally funded airports) will LOVE to have us around!

This is obviously a stretch; I'm being optimistic on a pipe-dream scale. But, if all of us strive to make the public's perception of skydiving as positive, it will solve the airport eviction issue and many others.

[Stepping off my soapbox]

Arrive Safely

John

[Kramer 0]

I just got into work this morning, and about dropped a nut.

If skydiving is banned at all federally funded airports, I must ask, what airports are federally funded? My DZ in little Goshen Indiana isn't one of them, is it?

I'll be fisted if I can't jump this weekend.

Someone who knows more about how aviation and the FAA works, let me/us know what constitutes as a "Federally Funded Airport". Thanks a mil. Blue skies always.

-Kramer

The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!!

[tombuch 0]

Quote

If skydiving is banned at all federally funded airports, I must ask, what airports are federally funded? My DZ in little Goshen Indiana isn't one of them, is it?

Your airport almost certainly is federally funded. Just from my quick visit a couple of weeks ago it looked like a well managed and well funded airport operation, and that tends to suggest federal money. Further, you have n ILS on the field, and that is a big ticket item that almost always comes with federal dollars.

Don't worry about your situation. An airport that takes federal money must be open to all users equally, including skydiving. A local airport that does NOT get federal money can pick and choose what operations to allow. So, federally funded airports offer better access to skydivers than non-federally funded public airpoprts.

This case is about insurance, and as I understand it, the local airport in this case has insurance for all users except skydivers, and now expects the jump operation to provide the same coverage that the airport is providing for other users. The part I'm confused about is that according the the local poster, the airport agrees to provide insurance coverage for some user groups, but not others. That seems like discrimination to me. If they required ALL users to provide their own insurance, then it would seem reasonable.

I'm wondering what the FAA position is regarding a funded airport providing some user groups with insurance, but not providing the same coverage to other groups. It is an interesting issue.

In any event, we shouldn't all start sweating yet. The insurance issue is an old one that has been batted around for years. Yes, there are some isolated problems, and yes, it could get worse in time, but right now it's just one of many government issues that threaten skydiving.

The best solution is to buy land of your own and get away from government airports. Short of that, a federally funded airport is better than a non-federally funded local-government managed airport.

In the case of Goshen, maintain good relationships with the city and airport manager, rely on your USPA group member coverage and any other insurance you might have, and hope that the issue doesn't become too big of a thorn in the future.

Tom Buchanan
Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

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

[Kramer 0]

Thanks Tom, just what I wanted to hear, I appreciate it.

-Kramer

The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!!

[base363 0]

I'm wondering what the FAA position is regarding a funded airport providing some user groups with insurance, but not providing the same coverage to other groups. It is an interesting issue.

The FAA's position is that requiring a $1 mil policy is reasonable. That's the point of the whole thing. We have been duped into believing that we have a right to use these airports. Finally, after 2 1/2 years, we have finally came to the realization we don't .

If we did, we would be jumping there right now.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

The FAA's position is that requiring a $1 mil policy is reasonable. That's the point of the whole thing. We have been duped into believing that we have a right to use these airports. Finally, after 2 1/2 years, we have finally came to the realization we don't .

[Quote]
This leaves the airport and directors open to any suit. They claim they aren't discriminating because the other activities are covered under their existing policy.

I understand your concern, and understand that the FAA considers a million dollar policy reasonable, and that requiring an entity to have that policy is not discriminatory if all users are required to have the same coverage.

What concerns me here is that you say the airport/city covers most users under an umbrella policy, but that skydiving is specifically excluded from that policy. If the city is going to provide coverage to some users, shouldn't they be required to provide coverage to all users? Isn't offering a city policy to airplane owners and not skydivers discrimination under the FAA grant authority? Why hasn't the FAA required the airport/city to provide equal insurance to all recognized user groups? I could understand the city position if they required each entity to have their own coverage, and skydiving coverage just isn't available, but in this case you say the city actually provides coverage to some users, but excludes others. Am I missing something here?

Tom Buchanan
Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

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

[base363 0]

Your not missing anything. That is the argument we have been making all along. The FAA just doesn't see it that way.

The FAA published a memo covering this issue years ago. (don't have the info in front of me now, so I'm paraphrasing) Anyway, the memo says that can't discriminate but they can require insurance and charge fees to cover the cost.

The end result is, regarless of what we have been led to believe, federally funded airports can require insurance that is not available.

Them memo also mentions that the requirements must be "reasonable". Our question to the FAA was this: "Is it reasonable to require something that is not available?" The answer was yes.

They might as well require Santa Cluaus to fly the jump plane.

The FAA said they were not in the business of setting insurance limitations and that our inability to obtain coverage that is available to all other users was our problem.

"We find no merit in your complaint"

[tombuch 0]

Quote

The memo also mentions that the requirements must be "reasonable". Our question to the FAA was this: "Is it reasonable to require something that is not available?" The answer was yes.

I understand that position. It was hashed out by the FAA years ago, and they do think it is reasonable to require insurance that is not available. That's not, however, my point.

Your post says that the city has a policy that covers most, but not all, users of the airport. So, as a grant recipient, the city has offered coverage to one group of users, but refused coverage for others. That seems like discrimination under the grant authority, and I have not seen it addressed in other cases.

If the city requires a million dollars of insurance and leaves it up to each user to obtain that insurance, then they are not discriminating. If they require the insurance and offer it to some users but not others, that seems to be discrimination under the grant authority.

This is a different issue than the requirement for insurance. This problem sounds like discrimination through the offer of insurance to some users but not all users. Have you worked that angle with the FAA?

-tom buchanan

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

[base363 0]

Yes. We claimed that this was discrimination toward skydiving. We claimed that our activity was singled out.

The FAA said that they had made their decision and that if we wanted to pursue the issue we would have to file a part 16 complaint.

The USPA said that while we could pursue that avenue, the FAA had given them indications that we would lose the complaint. Once a judge made that ruling, it would eliminate the only defense we have now. Claim we have the right to use the airport under the grant assurances, and hope for the best result on a case by case basis.

[base363 0]

I heard last night that there may be a news letter (for airport managers) containing information on how to keep skydiving off your airport. Anyone heard of such a thing?