DBCOOPER

So would a regular hard drive be better than the hybrid? Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

When your saying hybrid are you referring to sshd? Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

I only quoted the portion that addressed the issue at hand. *** You don't think a drop zone is a commercial operator that is exempted under this part and allowed to operate under part 91 because of 119.1(6)? If it was just part 91 why don't DZs have to get a LOA from the Feds ? Where is the drug testing requirement? Look in Part 91.147 Sparky It was a rhetorical question. I fly my plane for 3 dropzones and I'm not listed on a loa nor drug tested. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

*** Truer words were never spoken... Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

You can't just quote part of the reg... §119.23 Operators engaged in passenger-carrying operations, cargo operations, or both with airplanes when common carriage is not involved. (a) Each person who conducts operations when common carriage is not involved with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding each crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, shall, unless deviation authority is issued— (1) Comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements of part 125 of this chapter; (2) Conduct its operations with those airplanes in accordance with the requirements of part 125 of this chapter; and (3) Be issued operations specifications in accordance with those requirements. (b) Each person who conducts noncommon carriage (except as provided in §91.501(b) of this chapter) or private carriage operations for compensation or hire with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of less than 20 seats, excluding each crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of less than 6,000 pounds shall— (1) Comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements in subpart C of this part; (2) Conduct those operations in accordance with the requirements of part 135 of this chapter, except for those requirements applicable only to commuter operations; and (3) Be issued operations specifications in accordance with those requirements. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

***§119.1 Applicability. (a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to operate civil aircraft— (1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air commerce; or (2) When common carriage is not involved, in operations of U.S.-registered civil airplanes with a seat configuration of 20 or more passengers, or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more. You don't think a drop zone is a commercial operator that is exempted under this part and allowed to operate under part 91 because of 119.1(6)? If it was just part 91 why don't DZs have to get a LOA from the Feds ? Where is the drug testing requirement? Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

Balderdash. Every small airport offers sightseeing rides, and they are perfectly legal as long as it's a non-stop flight within 25 miles of the airport. Mark How's this for Balderdash. "General aviation pilots can continue to conduct for-profit sightseeing flights within a 25-statute-mile radius of their departure point under Part 91 regulations," said Luis Gutierrez, AOPA director of regulatory and certification policy. "AOPA had argued strongly to keep these operations from being lumped into commercial Part 135 operations." The biggest change for Part 91 sightseeing operators will be that they now have to get a letter of authorization from the FAA. Part 91 Commercial Sightseeing Operators Allowed to continue conducting flights under the operating rules of part 91 within the 25-statute-mile exception, except for flights over national parks, which are generally limited to a total of five per month. Impact: No change from previous regulations Must conduct passenger safety briefings on every flight and provide passengers with life preservers for over-water flights. Required briefings include the use of seatbelts, prohibition on smoking, exiting the aircraft, and use of life preservers for over-water flights. Passengers are required to wear the life preservers while in flight if the sightseeing tour is to be conducted beyond the airplane's power-off gliding distance to the shoreline. Impact: Sightseeing operators who conduct over-water flights beyond the shoreline of an ocean, sea, lake, pond, river, or tidal basin will now have to purchase life preservers at a cost of about $200 per unit and an additional $200 annual maintenance and inspection costs. Each operator must apply for, and operate in accordance with, a letter of authorization (LOA) issued by the FAA. The LOA application must include the following information: Name of operator, agent, and any d/b/a under which that operator does business; Principal business address and mailing address; Principal place of business (if different from business address); Name of person responsible for management of the business; Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance; Type of aircraft, registration number(s), and make/model/series; and An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program registration. The operator must comply with the provisions of the letter of authorization received. Impact: Sightseeing operators could encounter lengthy delays in obtaining LOAs if they wait until close to the September 11, 2007, deadline before sending in their LOA application. The FAA failed to specify in the final rule what the provisions of the LOA will consist of, which could lead to confusion and problems with some FSDOs. Any sightseeing operator who has not been complying with the existing drug and alcohol testing requirements will not be able to get an LOA until after they register their drug and alcohol program with the FAA. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

And I interpret is as being against the regs to charge someone for a ride if it's not for the purpose of conducting intentional parachute operations unless you meet the requirements of part 119. That means that if you hire a plane and pilot to do a demo that your organizing they can't fly you to the demo legally unless it's within 25 miles of take off and you jump in and not land with the plane. That means you can't charge someone for an observer ride even if they have a seat and a sport rig. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

All depends on what the man with the badge says. I would never show up at an air show demo with the jumpers on board. I would have them meet me there because I know the Feds would be there and depending on their mood it could be an issue. You can't use the "thats the way we do it" answer when it's in the regs. Industry standards do not change what the regs say. I couldn't do the ride to another airport with all the seats in, legally, if somebody was paying me. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

No age, no parachute requirement in the regs. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

I'm more confused now. What does this have to do with observer rides? Mark It has to do with the regs that cover what your allowed to do and what your not allowed to do. In the demo example we would be legal under the regs. In going to see your girlfriend we would not. Taking an observer that pays for a slot and has no intention of conducting an intentional parachute operation is a violation. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

This is from my perspective and understanding of the regs. I could be violated for my understanding of the regs but I don't think so. If I charge for the slot at a commercial dz and get ramped by the Feds and I am carrying an observer wearing a pilot rig I'm definitely getting violated for carrying a passenger for hire without complying with the regs. I might get it for the seat also cause at this point the Fed already has a hard on. Now if I take some friends up and bring along a non skydiver to observe and take some pictures, put them in a regular rig and get ramped there is no carrying a passenger for hire issue, they are engaged in the skydiving activity, I think I'm perfectly legal. Hell I could just say they got scared and chickened out, got airsickness or just had to poop and didn't jump. Not like there is any reg that says who can jump or what to do if they change their mind. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

By the rules you can hire me and my plane to do a demo jump. As long as it happens within 25 miles of where we take off from. You can't hire me to fly you to another airport to see your girlfriend. Different rules for different applications. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

There are rules that cover carrying passengers for hire. An exception to the rules is in 119.1(6)that allows commercial skydiving to happen without all of the other requirements that are in place to protect the paying passengers in commercial aviation. It's pretty complex to carry passengers for hire. Even a mom and pop sightseeing operation requires random drug testing for all involved including the mechanics that do the repairs and inspections. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

But once you charge someone for the slot it must be for the"purpose of conducting intentional parachute operations." Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

Back to Top §119.1 Applicability. (a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to operate civil aircraft— (1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air commerce; or..... A drop zone is operating as a commercial operator with the exception made under 119.1(6). Taking people for rides and charging them for it is a whole different set of rules... Part 119 says (6) Nonstop flights conducted within a 25-statute-mile radius of the airport of takeoff carrying persons or objects for the purpose of conducting intentional parachute operations. Part 91 says (ii) Use the floor of the aircraft as a seat, provided that the person is on board for the purpose of engaging in sport parachuting; Notice the difference? Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

Doing it for free or charging for the slot would make a difference in the requirements. 119.1(6) Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

"Good you came up with this one yourself. So how is the Collins Lanyard going to work, when a jumper fail to route the yellow cable through it after cleaning the release cables once a month? I've seen this not once, but twice. " That's probably because the only reference as it how to route it is in the reserve packing part of the manual. The manual for this is weak at best. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

I thought this thread was going to be about money... Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

After 6 months a first class becomes a second class and after a year it becomes a third class. So no. A first class physical is the same as a second class with the addition of an EKG. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

No your not quite understanding the rules again. You can't have an ATP without having a commercial... Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

No, you got it. The rest of the class doesn't. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

You're not about to make the "not a commercial operation" argument, are you? I believe that's been thoroughly debunked. No, commercially, like in an Otter. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

Actually a pilot doesn't actually have to have a Class two medical to fly skydivers. Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.