Jump Pilots and PEP's

[fcajump 164]

OK, I know this one has made the rounds of discussion, but I am not finding a definitive answer...

Is there an FAR (in USA) that requires the jump pilot to wear a rig?

If so, is there a stipulation for a size or configuration of plane in which they are not required to wear one?

Please note: I personally would argue that they should wear one, but this question is: Are they (legally) required to...

Jim

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

[mark 107]

Quote

Is there an FAR (in USA) that requires the jump pilot to wear a rig?

No, even though many people (including some FAA inspectors) think so.

Sometimes, but not always, the STC for door removal/modification includes a requirement for the pilot to wear a parachute; compliance with the STC is mandatory.

Mark

[chuckbrown 0]

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I seem to recall a FAR that required pilots to wear a rig any time they intend to open a door in flight or exceed 60 degrees of bank.

Edited to add: 14 CFR 91.307 requires pilots to wear parachutes where they intend to exceed 60 degrees of bank. It makes no mention of the door being open. I guess I was dreaming.

[lug 4]

Mark is right as far as understand it.

The requirement for a jump pilot to wear a parachute are placed in the STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) when the modifier of the aircraft applied for STC. From what I understand the owner of the aircraft that has a STC has to keep a copy on record.

You can check out the FAA web page about STC, but I have not found full documents regarding a particular STC.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

I believe 14 CFR 91.307 refers to aircraft performing aerobatics, I think.

Memento Mori

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I seem to recall a FAR that required pilots to wear a rig any time they intend to open a door in flight or exceed 60 degrees of bank.

It is discussed in this thread.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2173537;#2173537

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

Mark is right as far as understand it.

The requirement for a jump pilot to wear a parachute are placed in the STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) when the modifier of the aircraft applied for STC. From what I understand the owner of the aircraft that has a STC has to keep a copy on record.

You can check out the FAA web page about STC, but I have not found full documents regarding a particular STC.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

I believe 14 CFR 91.307 refers to aircraft performing aerobatics, I think.

It’s my understanding that the door modification, step, and seatbelt configuration for a 182 (and I imagine most other mods are the same) is not an STC, but rather a “Field Approval”. A Supplemental Type Certificate requires someone to do considerable testing, etc, and be issued the STC. Once the STC exists they own it, and can sell rights to others to use. The Field Approval is a one off thing, and is checked and approved by the local FSDO. Granted that the C182 Field Approval is based on previous paperwork, and dates back to the first one, again as I understand it was the “Snohomish” modification. This is also why some jurisdictions are harder than others to get the field approval, some FSDOs just will not issue one.

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

AC DZ

[skyflyerh 0]

It makes sense for a pilot to have to wear a rig if he is going to be able to get out of the plane but say if it was an Islander and the tail has just been ripped off, the pilot would never get out as if he got out his door he would jump right into the prop and he would never make it to the back of the plane with the G forces. So therefore it would really only make sense for it to be a legal requirement if the aircraft pemitted easy escape. Not that it would be easy in any case.

[skyflyerh 0]

It makes sense for a pilot to have to wear a rig if he is going to be able to get out of the plane but say if it was an Islander and the tail has just been ripped off, the pilot would never get out as if he got out his door he would jump right into the prop and he would never make it to the back of the plane with the G forces. So therefore it would really only make sense for it to be a legal requirement if the aircraft pemitted easy escape. Not that it would be easy in any case.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

It’s my understanding that the door modification, step, and seatbelt configuration for a 182 (and I imagine most other mods are the same) is not an STC, but rather a “Field Approval”.

Here are just 2 STC's for door removal for jumping. There are a whold bunch more.

Supplemental Type Certificate

STC Number:
SA481SW
This certificate issued to:
Fusilier Ervin J
STC Holder's Address:
9617 Fulton Street
Houston TX 77002
United States
Description of the Type Design Change:
Removal of door for parachute jumping.
Application Date:
Status:
Issued, 01/01/1961
Responsible Office:
ASW-190 Ft. Worth Special Certification Office Tel: (817) 222-5190
TC Number -- Make -- Model:
2A13 -- Piper Aircraft, Inc., The New -- PA-28 Series
Full Text of STC:
Exact date unknown.

Supplemental Type Certificate

STC Number:
SA4-1593
This certificate issued to:
US Parachute Association
STC Holder's Address:
1440 Duke Street
Alexandria VA 22314
United States
Description of the Type Design Change:
Removal of door for parachute jumping and aerial photography operations.
Application Date:
Status:
Reissued, 10/18/1995
Responsible Office:
ANE-170 New York Aircraft Certification Office Tel: (516) 228-7300
TC Number -- Make -- Model:
A-802 -- Aeronca Aircraft Corporation -- 15AC
Full Text of STC:

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[bob.dino 1]

Quote

...he would never make it to the back of the plane with the G forces. So therefore it would really only make sense for it to be a legal requirement if the aircraft pemitted easy escape. Not that it would be easy in any case.

Bet? Tail taken off by a reserve deploying in the door. Pilot got out at under 1000ft.

[fcajump 164]

Quote

Quote

...he would never make it to the back of the plane with the G forces. So therefore it would really only make sense for it to be a legal requirement if the aircraft pemitted easy escape. Not that it would be easy in any case.

Bet? Tail taken off by a reserve deploying in the door. Pilot got out at under 1000ft.

Great summary, sorry to hear of the jumper, but
glad the pilot got out (and had the option)!

Never give up, but that doesn't mean not to fall back on plan B.

Jim

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...