hallux 0 #26 July 13, 2011 everything kills people...dont be stupid. And I know about 105 what Im saying is that two experienced skydivers on a tandem rig should be treated no differently than two experienced jumpers on a sport rigs. No student should = no extra regs just because its a tandem system. These rules only exist in 105 to protect students in commercial operation because that is what the tandem systems existence was intended for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #27 July 13, 2011 Easterpig.... Used to be a guy in Zhills that used to call himself that. Last I checked, he was run out of town for trying to start trouble with no evidence to back up his claims."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #28 July 14, 2011 Quoteeverything kills people...dont be stupid. And I know about 105 what Im saying is that two experienced skydivers on a tandem rig should be treated no differently than two experienced jumpers on a sport rigs. No student should = no extra regs just because its a tandem system. These rules only exist in 105 to protect students in commercial operation because that is what the tandem systems existence was intended for. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you does not make them “stupid”. The rules are there keep people from dying. Have you ever heard of Dave Wildes or Terry Reed? At the time they were current world champions in 8 way. Dave was a rated TI. They were 2 highly experienced skydivers on a tandem rig. They both went in with nothing out. They were better jumpers than you hypothetical “experienced jumpers” will ever be. There is a big difference between 2 on a tandem and 2 jumping sports rig. If you can’t see that maybe you should rethink who it the “stupid” one. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #29 July 14, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote... That reg is only in violation if the person in front was not a TI. .. .................................................................. I disagree. Unless the skydiver wearing the instructor's harness is a certified TI (on that system) or jumping under the supervision of a Tandem Examiner, he is violating a law. Tandem rigs are far too expensive and far too complicated to be used as TOYS. Tandem rigs are TOOLs and cost "x" number of dollars every time they leave the ground. Not to muddy the water , but FAR's aren't law.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,402 #30 July 14, 2011 >Tandem rigs are far too expensive and far too complicated to be used as TOYS. At the end of the day, 99% of tandem rigs are just that; they are amusement park rides intended to thrill whuffos. (The remaining 1% are used for training as the first part of a continuing educational program, or as part of military delivery systems.) We as skydivers can make money off that ride, but that doesn't make it any less of a toy. >. . . and cost "x" number of dollars every time they leave the ground. So do sport aircraft. Most of them are toys as well, flown for fun. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful with how we use them, of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,059 #31 July 14, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote... That reg is only in violation if the person in front was not a TI. .. .................................................................. I disagree. Unless the skydiver wearing the instructor's harness is a certified TI (on that system) or jumping under the supervision of a Tandem Examiner, he is violating a law. Tandem rigs are far too expensive and far too complicated to be used as TOYS. Tandem rigs are TOOLs and cost "x" number of dollars every time they leave the ground. Not to muddy the water , but FAR's aren't law. I may be wrong, but I think they fall under Administrative Law.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #32 July 14, 2011 Quote Not to muddy the water , but FAR's aren't law. If not law, then why can/do peace officers arrest airline passengers who violate FARs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #33 July 14, 2011 Quote...but FAR's aren't law. What is your definition of "law"? Since you can be punished by the government and in court for violations of FAR's, I think that puts them into the category of "law". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #34 July 14, 2011 We're getting a bit sidetracked on definitions, so hopefully I can clarify. FARs are federal regulations enacted by the FAA. Congress has passed various statutes (for example, the Federal Aviation Act of 1958) ("the Act") which authorize the FAA to write and enact FARs, and to enforce them by various means. Thus, although FARs are not statutes passed by Congress, they do carry the practical weight of law. The Act specifies that anyone violating its provisions can be subject to criminal prosecution and penalty. In turn, the FAA has provided in its FARs that any FAA inspector or employee who believes that someone has violated the Act may refer the matter to the Department of Justice for prosecution. (see link) http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_13-23.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #35 July 14, 2011 QuoteQuote...but FAR's aren't law. What is your definition of "law"? Since you can be punished by the government and in court for violations of FAR's, I think that puts them into the category of "law". It's not my definition that matters. You may call it punishment, but that doesn't mean the infraction that gets you "punished" was the breaking of a law. We get punished all the time for things that aren't laws. Kids get suspended from school for breaking "rules", you get penalized if you pay your property taxes late, etc., etc. Ever know anyone that went to jail for an FAR violation? Me neither. Breaking the law is a criminal (loosely used in context) offense, breaking FAR's is not. The FAA can only issue "civil penalties" for FAR violations - in addition of course to removing privileges issued by that organization. The federal government calls FAR's regulations because they aren't laws. If they were, we would follow FAL's.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #36 July 14, 2011 QuoteQuote Not to muddy the water , but FAR's aren't law. If not law, then why can/do peace officers arrest airline passengers who violate FARs? Because they aren't violating FAR's. They are violating any variety of federal laws under the US Code. For example, these idiots that mess with flight crews are typically prosecuted under Section 46504 of Title 49, (USC), which makes it illegal to interfere with a flight crew. It has nothing to do with FAR's. When someone busts an FAR, there are possible civil penalties. When someone breaks a law covered under any of several US Codes, they are breaking the law and by such can face jail time depending on the seriousness of the offense. The FAA can't criminally prosecute you. They must refer your case to the US Justice Department, which then decides if any actual laws (under USC) were broken.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #37 July 14, 2011 What distinguishes a law from a regulation? You claim that the FAA only has the authority to issue "civil penalties". But the link Andy9o8 provided is pretty clear that criminal actions CAN result from violating FARs. If there is a particular law that says breaking an FAR is against that particular law, isn't that effectively making the FARs laws too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #38 July 14, 2011 QuoteWe're getting a bit sidetracked on definitions, so hopefully I can clarify. FARs are federal regulations enacted by the FAA. Congress has passed various statutes (for example, the Federal Aviation Act of 1958) ("the Act") which authorize the FAA to write and enact FARs, and to enforce them by various means. Thus, although FARs are not statutes passed by Congress, they do carry the practical weight of law. The Act specifies that anyone violating its provisions can be subject to criminal prosecution and penalty. In turn, the FAA has provided in its FARs that any FAA inspector or employee who believes that someone has violated the Act may refer the matter to the Department of Justice for prosecution. (see link) http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_13-23.html The operative part of that phrase is "may refer the matter to the Department of Justice for prosecution". Any criminal prosecution would fall under Title 49 of the US Code, which ARE laws.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #39 July 14, 2011 QuoteWhen someone busts an FAR, there are possible civil penalties. There are also possible criminal penalties: QuoteSections 902 and 1203 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1472 and 1523), provide criminal penalties for any person who knowingly and willfully violates specified provisions of that Act, or any regulation or order issued under those provisions. The FARs are regulations issued (by the FAA) under the provisions of the Act. The prosecuting authority would be the Department of Justice, but the alleged criminal act would be the violation of FARs. As long as it's recognized that busting an FAR can, in and of itself, be a criminal act, then what you and I are saying need not be mutually exclusive, but can be harmonized. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #40 July 14, 2011 QuoteWhat distinguishes a law from a regulation? You claim that the FAA only has the authority to issue "civil penalties". But the link Andy9o8 provided is pretty clear that criminal actions CAN result from violating FARs. If there is a particular law that says breaking an FAR is against that particular law, isn't that effectively making the FARs laws too? Criminal actions are brought under US Code (not FAR's) by the Department of Justice (not the FAA), commonly under Title 49 in the case of aviation related crimes.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #41 July 14, 2011 QuoteWhat distinguishes a law from a regulation? "Law" has become a sort of generic term. What most people refer to as a "law" means a federal statute passed by Congress or a state statute passed by a particular state's Legislature. Regulations, on the other hand, are "promulgated" (i.e., written and enacted) by federal or state agencies (like, for example, the FAA or a state's Department of Transportation). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #42 July 14, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhen someone busts an FAR, there are possible civil penalties. There are also possible criminal penalties: QuoteSections 902 and 1203 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1472 and 1523), provide criminal penalties for any person who knowingly and willfully violates specified provisions of that Act, or any regulation or order issued under those provisions. The FARs are regulations issued (by the FAA) under the provisions of the Act. The prosecuting authority would be the Department of Justice, but the alleged criminal act would be the violation of FARs. As long as it's recognized that busting an FAR can, in and of itself, be a criminal act, then what you and I are saying need not be mutually exclusive, but can be harmonized. I think you are hitting on my point. Any criminal prosecution would come from busting the specified provisions in US Code, not an FAR itself. That's why the FAA can only refer cases to the Justice Department if they believe a prosecution is warranted. The most the FAA can do to those who bust FAR's is fine them (civil penalties), pull ratings, etc. If the violation breaks US Code, then it is criminally prosecutable.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #43 July 14, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhat distinguishes a law from a regulation? You claim that the FAA only has the authority to issue "civil penalties". But the link Andy9o8 provided is pretty clear that criminal actions CAN result from violating FARs. If there is a particular law that says breaking an FAR is against that particular law, isn't that effectively making the FARs laws too? Criminal actions are brought under US Code (not FAR's) by the Department of Justice (not the FAA), commonly under Title 49 in the case of aviation related crimes. I don't care much WHO is doing the prosecuting. There are FARs that, if broken, can result in a criminal prosecution. Fine, the FAA may not have the authority to conduct that criminal prosecution for an FAR violation. But someone else can, and, to me, that gives the FARs the weight of law. I'll ask again, what distinguishes a law from a regulation? What does it take for you to consider something a law, as opposed to a regulation? For instance, are the vehicle codes laws? Why, or why not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #44 July 14, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhat distinguishes a law from a regulation? "Law" has become a sort of generic term. What most people refer to as a "law" means a federal statute passed by Congress or a state statute passed by a particular state's Legislature. Regulations, on the other hand, are "promulgated" (i.e., written and enacted) by federal or state agencies (like, for example, the FAA or a state's Department of Transportation). And my point is that for an FAR bust to be a criminally prosecutable offense, it must violate specified provisions of US Code. The most the FAA can do is refer a case to the Justice Department if they believe the infraction is in violation of US Code.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #45 July 14, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhat distinguishes a law from a regulation? You claim that the FAA only has the authority to issue "civil penalties". But the link Andy9o8 provided is pretty clear that criminal actions CAN result from violating FARs. If there is a particular law that says breaking an FAR is against that particular law, isn't that effectively making the FARs laws too? Criminal actions are brought under US Code (not FAR's) by the Department of Justice (not the FAA), commonly under Title 49 in the case of aviation related crimes. That's partially correct and partially incomplete. A more complete way to describe it would be: Violations of FARs are deemed to be prosecutable violations of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 - which is another way of saying "aviation-related crimes". In terms of enforcement and prosecution, the FAA would be the initial investigating agency, as well as the referring agency. FAA would refer to DOJ. DOJ would probably assign the FBI to investigate and, if need be, arrest. If FBI determines a crime has been committed, they'd bounce it over to the US Attorney's office for prosecution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #46 July 14, 2011 Quotefor an FAR bust to be a criminally prosecutable offense, it must violate specified provisions of US Code. That's correct. And the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (which is part of the US Code) specifies that a busted FAR can be a criminally prosecutable offense. So as I said, what you and I are saying can be harmonized. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #47 July 14, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat distinguishes a law from a regulation? You claim that the FAA only has the authority to issue "civil penalties". But the link Andy9o8 provided is pretty clear that criminal actions CAN result from violating FARs. If there is a particular law that says breaking an FAR is against that particular law, isn't that effectively making the FARs laws too? Criminal actions are brought under US Code (not FAR's) by the Department of Justice (not the FAA), commonly under Title 49 in the case of aviation related crimes. That's partially correct and partially incomplete. A more complete way to describe it would be: Violations of FARs are deemed to be prosecutable violations of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 - which is another way of saying "aviation-related crimes". In terms of enforcement and prosecution, the FAA would be the initial investigating agency, as well as the referring agency. FAA would refer to DOJ. DOJ would probably assign the FBI to investigate and, if need be, arrest. If FBI determines a crime has been committed, they'd bounce it over to the US Attorney's office for prosecution. Maybe my point was a bit simplistic, but we are saying the same thing. There are many (most, actually) FAR's that would get laughed out of court if a criminal prosecution was attempted.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,049 #48 July 14, 2011 Hi Sparky, Quote Dave was a rated TI. I understood ( the story up in this area ) that Dave was rated on one mfr's rig but was jumping another mfr's rig, that he was not rated on; and that is possibly/probably why he could not find the drogue release or reserve handles. Quote or Terry Reed? Terry was a really nice guy and a very good jumper. He was originally from the Richland, WA area, then he drifted down to Sheridan, OR where I had the privilige to jump with him. Then he went down to your part of the world because he wanted better jump weather. But for some reason I do not remember his last name as being 'Reed.' But I cannot remember what it was. I'm getting old. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #49 July 14, 2011 QuoteQuoteeverything kills people...dont be stupid. And I know about 105 what Im saying is that two experienced skydivers on a tandem rig should be treated no differently than two experienced jumpers on a sport rigs. No student should = no extra regs just because its a tandem system. These rules only exist in 105 to protect students in commercial operation because that is what the tandem systems existence was intended for. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you does not make them “stupid”. The rules are there keep people from dying. Have you ever heard of Dave Wildes or Terry Reed? At the time they were current world champions in 8 way. Dave was a rated TI. They were 2 highly experienced skydivers on a tandem rig. They both went in with nothing out. They were better jumpers than you hypothetical “experienced jumpers” will ever be. There is a big difference between 2 on a tandem and 2 jumping sports rig. If you can’t see that maybe you should rethink who it the “stupid” one. Sparky Was there no AAD on the rig?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #50 July 14, 2011 Jerry, You are right, it was a different manufacture. My point was that they were 2 highly experienced jumpers on a tandem rig. And again you are right the name was Terry Dean, not Reed. Chuckers This was before tandem was approved by the FAA and AAD’s were not required. This was also before an activation device was required for the passenger. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
