DZ's operating on private airport/ airfields questions

[SEREJumper 1]

I'm looking into starting a dropzone in the Southwest and wanted to see what others experiences were.

The properties I am looking at, #1 a private FAA registered airport that the owner says he does not require insurance, we can base out of there, but he doesn't want us to land there due to "liability" concerns.

The second option is a private airstrip, the land owner said we would need liability insurance before signing a lease. After all of my research, I've come to conclude that no liability insurance is available.

So the question is, anyone who run a DZ off a private airfield/airstrip and how did you and the land owner (if you are leasing) come to a solution. Could you point me to DZ's that have this arrangement?

Any info would be appreciated.

We're not fucking flying airplanes are we, no we're flying a glorified kite with no power and it should be flown like one! - Stratostar

[billeisele 130]

What is that story about being a millionaire?

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[DougH 270]

Will he be happy with trip and fall type of insurance that doesn't cover jumping?

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[Skydive2 1]

you could look into getting an airport "premise" liability policy (basically a "slip and fall" policy). It wouldn't cover anything skydiving related, but would cover up to 1$ million in the event of a slip and fall in the hangar, damage to property, ect. This usually eases airport owners minds a bit, and usually under $1500 per year....

[SEREJumper 1]

DougeH/ Skydive2,

Thanks for your constructive answers, it's appreciated.

We're not fucking flying airplanes are we, no we're flying a glorified kite with no power and it should be flown like one! - Stratostar

[BMFin 0]

Quote

The properties I am looking at, #1 a private FAA registered airport that the owner says he does not require insurance, we can base out of there, but he doesn't want us to land there due to "liability" concerns.

May I ask what sort of liability is the airfield owner trying to avoid exactly?

[SEREJumper 1]

Good question, I'm guessing that if we don't land on the property, he wouldn't be named in a lawsuit. It may be a smart move since it seems no one else is apparently open to the idea of skydivers landing on there property either, if you can't land, you can't jump...

We're not fucking flying airplanes are we, no we're flying a glorified kite with no power and it should be flown like one! - Stratostar

[BMFin 0]

Its hard to see hard to see how the airfield owner could be held liable for your actions. I dont think this would be a realistic scenario. However if you cannot convince him/them otherwise, how about landing somewhere close by?

I currently work on a DZ where we have to land on a landing zone outside the airfield. A van picks us up and takes us back to the airfield. Works fine.

[SEREJumper 1]

It's been considered and would be an option if we can find someone to lease/ let us use there land. Maybe it is easier in Finland...

We're not fucking flying airplanes are we, no we're flying a glorified kite with no power and it should be flown like one! - Stratostar

[BMFin 0]

It may be easier here. Public access to
private land may be wider in Finland, and the other
Nordic countries, than in most other countries. Everyone is basically entitled to walk, ski, cycle or ride freely in the countryside, as long as this causes no harm to property or nature. This right is limited in cultivated fields and plantations, and around people’s homes.

So we obviously cannot disturb anyone by entering their home yards, but if someone owns a huge chunk of land, we may roam this land freely as long as we wont do any damage. Using any kind of motorized vehicle on someones land also needs a promission.

A parachute is not a motorized vehicle, and therefore there are no restrictions on where you can land it. If you can go roam this land freely, you can also land there with your canopy.

But how about city property in the US? City property surely must be availeable for everyone, am I right?

The landing zone we are using is basically a park area owned by the city. So there is no issues at all about ownership.

[stratostar 5]

Quote

But how about city property in the US? City property surely must be availeable for everyone, am I right?

No way in hell over here! If city properties were open to everyone then there wouldn't be all these cases in the US of airport access fights over the use and or landing of parachutes on an City Airport.

You also can't just fly over of a town and hop out and land in the city park, it's a violation of a couple laws if you don't have permission or proper paper work filed with the FAA to do it.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[DougH 270]

Quote

But how about city property in the US? City property surely must be availeable for everyone, am I right?

Here in Connecticut it is very common to see signs that say "State Property: No Trespassing" on areas of forest or open space.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

You also can't just fly over of a town and hop out and land in the city park, it's a violation of a couple laws if you don't have permission or proper paper work filed with the FAA to do it.

There may be airspace issues with that, but that's not what this topic is about. The question is if landing in a public park is trespassing, and I think it is not. The public is welcome there, and it matters not if you arrive by car, on foot, by boat or by parachute. As long as you don't endanger anyone while doing it.

I'm reminded of a "bandit" jump someone made once into the Disney World park. He was smart enough to purchase an entrance ticket and carry it with him on the jump. Once he landed, park security arrested him, but they couldn't make trespassing charges stick because he had paid his fee to be there.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Its hard to see hard to see how the airfield owner could be held liable for your actions.

It doesn't matter. A successful legal defense can be enough to bankrupt some one and it's usually less expensive to settle.

Quote

I dont think this would be a realistic scenario.

I think it's very realistic. When there's a plane crash due to pilot or maintenance issues everyone tangentially related is named as a defendant including the engine manufacturer.

Quote

I currently work on a DZ where we have to land on a landing zone outside the airfield. A van picks us up and takes us back to the airfield. Works fine.

It works fine for tandems.

Given a choice I and other experienced skydivers will take an on-airport landing so we can make more loads.

Obviously, where there's no nearby competition a dropzone off the airport is better than no dropzone at all.

[5.samadhi 0]

Quote

But how about city property in the US? City property surely must be availeable for everyone, am I right?

In fact there are laws strictly forbidding landing a parachute on federal national park land

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Quote

But how about city property in the US? City property surely must be availeable for everyone, am I right?

In fact there are laws strictly forbidding landing a parachute on federal national park land

Interesting, maby you could point out those laws for me? (even though I wasnt suggesting to land on a federal national park land per se)

[grimmie 186]

Some cities will make you go through a conditional use permit process. Be prepared to spend $20,000 to obtain it.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Its hard to see hard to see how the airfield owner could be held liable for your actions. I dont think this would be a realistic scenario. However if you cannot convince him/them otherwise, how about landing somewhere close by?

I currently work on a DZ where we have to land on a landing zone outside the airfield. A van picks us up and takes us back to the airfield. Works fine.

Quote

But how about city property in the US? City property surely must be availeable for everyone, am I right?

Property laws and liability issues are significantly different here in the US.

Anyone allowing use of their land (and ''anyone" includes cities and publicily owned land) is open to being sued if there is an accident of any kind, not just skydiving. So someone allowing others to use their land is pretty limited.

And privately owned airports are just that. Private. The owner(s) can pick and choose who they allow on their property.
FAA registered private airports that are open to the public are a little bit different. My (limited) understanding is that allowing the private airport to be open to the flying public limits the liablity of the owners somewhat (not entirely).
My old DZ was on one of those. W34 if anyone wants to look it up. The airport was owned by a club and the club was specifically named in the waiver. Being incorporated as a club, the individual members who owned the airport were sheilded even more.
The DZ had a pretty good relationship with the leadership and we had pretty free reign.
The fact that the DZ probably had 50% or more of the takeoffs and landings helped too (it got the usage numbers up).
Being a quiet little place, we even landed on the (grass) runways. Best student landing area ever. All the room you could want.

We operated with no insurance (except fire/theft on the hangar and contents), but the airport club required us to get "slip and trip" liability any time we had a large crowd of non-waivered spectators. We did a couple of fundraiser jump events over the years and those weren't a big deal to get.

Hope this helps.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo