FAA Part 103 regulations for Skidivers?

[ICOM 0]

I would like to know if after deployment, a parachute becomes an Ultralight aircraft as defined in part 103. The issue comes after knowing that tickets have been issued to paragliding pilots for landing their "aircraft" in state or national parks. If paragliders are "aircraft" as defined by the FAA then a deployed parachute is also an aircraft, just like an ultralight.
I would like some input on this.

[quade 3]

You can ask for all the input you'd like, but the FAA, National Park Service and the Courts have pretty much all agreed that a parachute is a parachute and at no time whatsoever does it turn into an aircraft as defined by FAR Part 103.

You might want to go to BLiNC and check out the Lake Powell stuff.

Personal opinion time -- it's a pretty lame defense tactic.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sarge 0]

The best I can determine from a general undertanding of what differentiates FAR PART 103 from PART 105 is that definition of what an ultraliight is. A parachute is of course an upowered device intended to manned by one occupant (tandems exluded) "...for the descent of a person, to the surface from an aircraft in flight, when he intends to use, or uses, a parachute during all or part of that descent"

There is an inspection that may be requested under 103.3(a). My reasoning would be that upon said inspection, the result would be well, "heck, thats a parachute, not an ultralight" go back to PART 105, have a nice day...
.

--
I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

[pilotdave 0]

What happens if ya jump a part 103 powered parachute? Lines get blurred...

Dave

[quade 3]

Quote

What happens if ya jump a part 103 powered parachute? What happens if ya jump a part 103 powered parachute?

Look, obviously the only reason this question gets asked (in reality) is as some sort of legal defense maneuvering and as I previously stated I think it's a pretty lame one.

For instance, if you were to BASE an FAR Part 103 powered parachute, would that even work?!? NO. Lemme tell you right now, you'd die. Further, even if you -could- get it to work, why the heck would you even be worried about the NPS since you could just continue to fly away from them?

No, the lines do not get blurred.

A parachute is a parachute and an ultralight is an ultralight.

If somebody -really- was interested in changing things, they'd go after the "aerial delievery" law itself and try to get the language in it changed rather than try to maneuver other language around it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sarge 0]

Uh huh. I was just trying to be tactful...
.

--
I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

[ICOM 0]

I would like to put enphasis on the following words:
paraglider - aircraft - deployed parachute.
From the definition of parachute given in a previous reply, if you don't jump from an airplane, your deployed parachute does not enter the definition. The it perfectly fits Part 103. You are the same as a hanglider or paraglider. Forget about powered parachutes, those are definitely "Aircraft". I am trying to draw the fine line between paragliders and parachutes.
Yes the idea is that State parks, which do not allow "aircraft" to overfly their land at less than 2000ft AGL, can not give paragliders a ticket for "landing an aircraft" on their property, the same way they can not give a parachute a ticket for landing on ther land. Just because parachutes are not aircraft, as we have agreed.
Jerome

[quade 3]

Quote

I am trying to draw the fine line between paragliders and parachutes.

It appears then that the key difference is that one is packed and then deployed in mid-air and the other is not.

Why this is a key sticking point with the NPS is beyond me. Personally I don't see the big deal, but I'm not the NPS. Since the aerial delivery laws exist, they've used that as their one and only means of denying folks the joy of deploying after launching off of locations that would be perfectly fine to launch off of with a fully deployed device of very similar construction.

Again, in my opinion, you guys should be going after the law itself. The law is outdated and meaningless in just about every other context, but trying to weasle-word your way around it simply isn't the way to go -- getting the law overturned is your best bet because the NPS would have no real say in the matter.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sarge 0]

Yo, look, I did not write FAR/AIM I have had some xposure to inspectors. There is is nothing to extrapolate. They are not 'open-minded' juries of our peers! You want to go after them, like Paul says, " ...in my opinion, you guys should be going after the law itself. The law is outdated and meaningless..."

Another thing; in this this context...except to contrive another meaningless debate that is resounding upon deaf ears, why is this even argued?

Finally, the NPS has exerted a VERY conservative approach to BASE and other parachute activities on our NPS lands but it is slow to change in any profound dynamic... be patient,,, keep fighting,,, but pick your battles.
.
.

.

--
I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!!

[ICOM 0]

Quote

There is an inspection that may be requested under 103.3(a). My reasoning would be that upon said inspection, the result would be well, "heck, thats a parachute, not an ultralight" go back to PART 105, have a nice day...
.

OK, then you call the same inspector, and you show him a paraglider. (Have ever had a paraglider in your hands? no joking, no ofense, I've encountered many skydivers that never had one in front of them)
And the inspector sais: "heck this is a ..., go to part..."
Complete the dots...
Jerome

[chadair 0]

with a parachute involved they want the aircraft pilot. With a paraglider they have to call you the Ultralight pilot so they can get you in trouble....