FAR 105.45, Help Me Understand This Convoluted Rule

[skydived19006 4]

What does (4) mean? Who is "owner/operator?"

Does this rule mean that supplying the "passenger" a main parachute activation devise is required only if the "owner/operator" so desires? Or, is only the main parachute activation instruction up to "owner/operator" discretion?

Who is the "owner/operator"? "Owner" I take to mean owner of the gear. Is "operator" the business owner, or operator of the gear, ie "parachutist in command?" I take owner/operator to be owner of the gear/operator of the business.

Also, as I understand (1)(iv), and (1)(v), initial manufacture instruction, and certification is required. No maintenance of said manufacture rating is required, no annual renewal, etc.

http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY%5CRGFAR.NSF/0/5D73A27815BE37A986256EED005E150D?OpenDocument
Sec. 105.45

Use of tandem parachute systems.

(a) No person may conduct a parachute operation using a tandem parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a tandem parachute system, unless--
(1) One of the parachutists using the tandem parachute system is the parachutist in command, and meets the following requirements:
(i) Has a minimum of 3 years of experience in parachuting, and must provide documentation that the parachutist--
(ii) Has completed a minimum of 500 freefall parachute jumps using a ram-air parachute, and
(iii) Holds a master parachute license issued by an organization recognized by the FAA, and
(iv) Has successfully completed a tandem instructor course given by the manufacturer of the tandem parachute system used in the parachute operation or a course acceptable to the Administrator.
(v) Has been certified by the appropriate parachute manufacturer or tandem course provider as being properly trained on the use of the specific tandem parachute system to be used.
(2) The person acting as parachutist in command:
(i) Has briefed the passenger parachutist before boarding the aircraft. The briefing must include the procedures to be used in case of an emergency with the aircraft or after exiting the aircraft, while preparing to exit and exiting the aircraft, freefall, operating the parachute after freefall, landing approach, and landing.
(ii) Uses the harness position prescribed by the manufacturer of the tandem parachute equipment.
(b) No person may make a parachute jump with a tandem parachute system unless--
(1) The main parachute has been packed by a certificated parachute rigger, the parachutist in command making the next jump with that parachute, or a person under the direct supervision of a certificated parachute rigger. (2) The reserve parachute has been packed by a certificated parachute rigger in accordance with §105.43(b) of this part.
(3) The tandem parachute system contains an operational automatic activation device for the reserve parachute, approved by the manufacturer of that tandem parachute system. The device must--
(i) Have been maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions, and
(ii) Be armed during each tandem parachute operation.
(4) The passenger parachutist is provided with a manual main parachute activation device and instructed on the use of that device, if required by the owner/operator.
(5) The main parachute is equipped with a single-point release system.
(6) The reserve parachute meets Technical Standard Order C23 specifications.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[skydived19006 4]

Separate thought, but related (hence the reply to my own post).

(iii) Holds a master parachute license issued by an organization recognized by the FAA, and

You may notice the lack of any age requirements for either passenger, or parachutist in command. There's also no requirement to maintain any instructional rating with "an organization recognized by the FAA". So, it has been my contention that were I to drop my USPA instructional ratings, I could take a 5 year old on a tandem skydive, and not be subject to any disciplinary action by any entity. After reading through this FAR again, it appears that were I to drop my USPA individual membership (or have it revoked), and took anyone on a tandem skydive regardless of age, I would be in violation of the law. So, I can legally take a 5 year old on a tandem skydive, and keep doing it legally, as long as the USPA BOD is not informed, and I keep my USPA individual membership, and "D."

Another devils advocate question. If I drop my USPA membership, do I still "hold a master parachute license?" I "hold" it, just not maintaining USPA membership. If I'm not a member of the organization, am I still subject to administrative discipline?

Disclaimer: Just because I'm the father of a two sons, 4, and 6 years of age, does not mean that I have any intention of taking them skydiving anytime in the near future. I don't own, or have the ability to build a harness to fit them.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[livendive 8]

As far as I know, you have a D-license, not a "master license." I think novice, intermediate, advanced, and master licenses were phased out several years ago.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

As far as I know, you have a D-license, not a "master license." I think novice, intermediate, advanced, and master licenses were phased out several years ago.

Blues,
Dave

I just looked at USPA.org, appears that you are correct Dave. That being the case, every single tandem skydive (except military) conducted over/on the soil of these United States of America is in violation of FAR 105! I'm go'na to tell.

Martin

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[BIGUN 1,059]

Quote

As far as I know, you have a D-license, not a "master license." I think novice, intermediate, advanced, and master licenses were phased out several years ago.

As far as it pertains to the USPA; however, there are organizations all over the world and the term "Master License" could be considered - as being the highest level of license one can hold by their organization.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[BIGUN 1,059]

Quote

Another devils advocate question. If I drop my USPA membership, do I still "hold a master parachute license?" I "hold" it, just not maintaining USPA membership. If I'm not a member of the organization, am I still subject to administrative discipline?

Let's make this easy; start your own 501(c)3 organization, get recognized by the FAA (which is not hard to do), and issue yourself a "master" license. Developing your own organization is a lot harder than getting recognized by the FAA, cause you'll have to have ALL the legalese in your corporate charter and demonstrate to the FAA training methods, license achievement process, Instructor training and ratings achievement process, etc., etc.

Regarding the issue of taking a 5 year old... you still signed a contract with the Tandem Manufacturer that you not take anyone less than 18 y/o. The FAA expects you to abide by the terms and conditions of "Training" by the Manufacturer - in which you were trained and contractually obligated not to take anyone under 18.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

Regarding the issue of taking a 5 year old... you still signed a contract with the Tandem Manufacturer that you not take anyone less than 18 y/o.

Does anyone have a copy of the Stunts Adventure Equipment tandem instructor contract? I don't really know what I signed, though I do remember there being the normal "under age of contract" issue.

Quote

The FAA expects you to abide by the terms and conditions of "Training" by the Manufacturer - in which you were trained and contractually obligated not to take anyone under 18.

That's making a couple of leaps. I doubt that the FAA would be overly enthusiastic in pursuing. Basically on this train of logic, the FAA would find it a violation to take a 15 year old out on a tandem, but no problem with putting a 8 year old out with Static Line, IAD, or AFF. More likely the issue would be with the local authority seeing children skydiving as an endangerment issue.

Any opinion on the "passenger" (I prefer to use "student") being given instruction, and access to a main parachute activation device? I found it interesting that that "rule" is left to the discretion of the gear owner, or DZO.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

Regarding the issue of taking a 5 year old... you still signed a contract with the Tandem Manufacturer that you not take anyone less than 18 y/o. The FAA expects you to abide by the terms and conditions of "Training" by the Manufacturer - in which you were trained and contractually obligated not to take anyone under 18.

How did the current USPA BOD National Director Michael Mullins start his kids. I had thought that they were doing tandems starting very young, like 8 or 10. Am I mistaken? If not, I have to wonder why the manufacturer didn't pursue the issue. That would have been while tandem skydiving was operating under a FAA waiver as well. I understand that his DZ was not a USPA Group Member at the time, and that the USPA didn't issue Tandem Instructor ratings. As I remember there is a USPA rule of 16, regardless of method. Why did the USPA not pursue the Tandem Instructors working with the Mullins boys? Is this an issue that the USPA BOD is apathetic about, or does is that depend on the sitting BOD. Possibly minimum age is one of the "changes" the Red Bull Boys keep talking about?

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[riggerrob 558]

"Sec. 105.45

Use of tandem parachute systems.
...
(4) The passenger parachutist is provided with a manual main parachute activation device and instructed on the use of that device, if required by the owner/operator."

...................................................................

Agreed that this clause is vague and out of context with the rest of the regulation.

There are two intents in this paragraph.

First, all tandem jumps should include some "instruction" instead of merely being joy-rides. Remember that tandem parachutes were initially waivered under the same logic as two-seater unltra-lights: as "trainers."
The flip side of this logic is that if a tandem pair thunders-in and it can be proved that the student failed to save his own life, then the student is partially responsible for the accident .

Secondly, the FAA is trying to place some responsibility on the equipment owner.
Similarly, Strong Enterprises tries to hold equipment owners liable in any accidents involving Strong tandem equipment. This is partially because many TIs are dirt-poor DZ bums.
For example, - before he died - DZO Milt Burton confided in me that he was paying damages to the family of a dead tandem student for many years to come.

[flydog 0]

The FAA expects you to abide by the terms of the USPA. They have set the minimum age as the age of legal majority (18 in most states). They then waivered a couple of southern state who have an age of legal majority of more than 18.

[skydived19006 4]

As I read the SIM, and the statement below, it would seem that the USPA is ok with 16 year olds skydiving. No exception for method.

USPA SIM 2007
2-1 D. AGE REQUIREMENTS
1. Skydivers are to be at least either:
a. 18 years of age [FB]
b. 16 years of age with notarized parental or
guardian consent [FB]

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

"Sec. 105.45

Use of tandem parachute systems.
...
(4) The passenger parachutist is provided with a manual main parachute activation device and instructed on the use of that device, if required by the owner/operator."

...................................................................

Agreed that this clause is vague and out of context with the rest of the regulation.

There are two intents in this paragraph.

First, all tandem jumps should include some "instruction" instead of merely being joy-rides. Remember that tandem parachutes were initially waivered under the same logic as two-seater unltra-lights: as "trainers."
The flip side of this logic is that if a tandem pair thunders-in and it can be proved that the student failed to save his own life, then the student is partially responsible for the accident .

Secondly, the FAA is trying to place some responsibility on the equipment owner.
Similarly, Strong Enterprises tries to hold equipment owners liable in any accidents involving Strong tandem equipment. This is partially because many TIs are dirt-poor DZ bums.
For example, - before he died - DZO Milt Burton confided in me that he was paying damages to the family of a dead tandem student for many years to come.

Good insight. It seems that the FARs are a bit like the US Constitution. It helps to understand what went into the thought process behind the laws.

I totally agree with the instruction issue. I was doing tandems at a boogie, packing for myself, and making every other otter load (one Otter flying the last day). The time allowed for instruction ammounted to "this is how you arch, I'll tell you more on the walk to the airplane." Some parachutists in command (not really instructors, as no instruction was going on), were making every load, having someone bring them the student, a harness, and another rig. Gear the student up while the Otter is waiting, and "instruct" on the ride up.

Anyway. I had a malfunction (two center A/B lines break below the cascade), screwed around with the canopy for a little bit, then informed my passenger that we had a malfunctioning parachute, and to arch again. His reaction was to be pissed. Thinking about it later, he had no idea what "malfunctioning parachute" meant, he didn't even know that we had a reserve parachute. I think he heard 'sorry, but we're dead.' Talk about potential litigation! The landing was less than pretty, we thumped in with the wind, and he hurt his lower back a bit.

Long-story-short, I informed the boogie personnel of my opinion in an email after the boogie, made a couple of suggestions, pointed out the legal issues etc. I will not put myself in that situation again!

Martin

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[kallend 1,632]

Quote

Quote

As far as I know, you have a D-license, not a "master license." I think novice, intermediate, advanced, and master licenses were phased out several years ago.

As far as it pertains to the USPA; however, there are organizations all over the world and the term "Master License" could be considered - as being the highest level of license one can hold by their organization.

What you might consider the meaning of "D- license" to be and what an NTSB administrative law judge would interpret it to be if the FAA decided to take action against you may well not be the same thing. This SHOULD be clarified.

...

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

[BIGUN 1,059]

Quote

What you might consider the meaning of "D- license" to be and what an NTSB administrative law judge would interpret it to be if the FAA decided to take action against you may well not be the same thing. This SHOULD be clarified.

Total Agreement. For example, the WWII Airborne Demonstration Team is an FAA recognized organization and their license structure has "Master" as the highest rating one can achieve.

There should also be additional clarification as to the Tandem Rating. Is there still a Manufacturer's rating whereby that rating supersedes the organizational rating (USPA TI rating), What if Tandem Master with a manufacturer's rating belongs to another U.S. organization recognized by the FAA? .

For example, if the WWIIADT who is currently expanding/reorganizing to a Veteran's Demonstration Team (WWII, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan) and include HALO/Skydiving and should choose to do Tandems, how would the Manufacturers/FAA handle multiple U.S. Organizations (i.e., let's say someone started the United States Skydiving Association or equivalent?)

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[tkhayes 127]

Operator is the operator of the equipment or aircraft referred to in the regs. But case law is there that shows it could also be the DZO or other persons on the dropzone involved in the conduct of day-to-day business.

Owner, while I could not find a specific definition in the FARs, is the owner of the aircraft, equipment and/or business. There are PLENTY of cases out there where the owner of an aircraft has been found liable or had FAA actions taken against them for the actions of the 'operator', even if they were not even present during said operation.

That case law would also hold true in this case.

The tandem master fails to teach the ripcord pull for example, but the dropzone (owner) has it in their syllabus. If an accident occurs and then the fact of the non-teaching of the ripcord became apparent (i.e. a tandem video demonstrates that it was never taught), then

Quote

"(a) No person may conduct a parachute operation using a tandem parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a tandem parachute system, unless-- "

The "person conducting the parachute operation" - who happens to be the tandem master AND the owner AND the operator of the DZ AND the pilot could have actions all taken against them.

Easiest way to avoid #4? Teach a ripcord pull. THen there is no question that you were following the regs, even if the DZ does not require it.

"Here's an altimeter and here's a ripcord. I am pulling at 5000', if you see this needle at 4000' or less and we are still falling, then you pull this ripcord. Please do not pull it above 5000' as you may put us into some danger with the other jumpers exiting behind us" (13 seconds to recite)

or something like that, if you do not normally teach ripcord pulls. If you follow the ISP and teach ripcord pulls on the first jump, then you are already in compliance with the FARs fully.

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

"Here's an altimeter and here's a ripcord. I am pulling at 5000', if you see this needle at 4000' or less and we are still falling, then you pull this ripcord. Please do not pull it above 5000' as you may put us into some danger with the other jumpers exiting behind us" (13 seconds to recite)

Not bad. Interesting how a lot of what we do is to cover our asses for either tax, or FAA law. "I have to say it, it's an FAA thing."

I should add the ripcord statement to our training video, then it's covered, and proven to have been taught.

I suppose that in lue of handing the student an altimeter, I would also be covered by saying, "once we leave the airplane, you should count one elephant, two elephant, three elephant..., if we don't have a parachute by "40 elephant", pull this handle."

I'm constantly learning stuff here!

Martin

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ