USPA and FAA reg violations

[exnavykds 0]

I'm in a spot and not really sure what, if anything, I need to do. I was wondering if anyone here has been to a dropzone where BSRs and FAA regs (major ones) were being violated and what did you do (?). Approaching the DZO didn't do anything but piss him off.

[larsrulz 0]

Without knowing the seriousness of the violations, the people who are concerned with such violations are:

FAA regulation violations should be reported to your local FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). Address and phone number can be found here.

USPA BSR violations should be reported to your USPA Regional Director. Check out this to find your RD based on state/region. I might suggest contacting your USPA RD first, as they might be able to put the violation into perspective, but if you disagree with them and feel strongly about it, then of course let your FAA FSDO know.

Also, your S&TA should be spoken to, as BSR violations are that individuals responsibility more so than the DZO. I've personally never had to report a violation, but in a sport where student safety could be at hand (in which students may not realize the danger that is involved in a violation that they aren't expected to know) some violations can be very serious.

I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF

[piisfish 140]

are you talking about clouds ??

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[AndyMan 7]

You may wish to send a PM to HooknSwoop. I believe he left a certain Texas dropzone out of frustration with their lack of attention to rules.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[exnavykds 0]

Thanks for the helpful information. It should be noted that the DZO that got pissed off IS the S&TA.

[exnavykds 0]

No, clouds aren't the issue here.

[exnavykds 0]

Thanks for the note Andy, I may PM HooknSwoop anyway, but it should be noted that the DZ in question is NOT in Texas. Still, he may have some good advice for me.

[riggerrob 643]

Reporting violations is dangerous political ground.
Tread cautiously.
Start by asking local instructors why they are not following BSSs.
Remember that USPA's Board of Directors can waive some BSRs.
Your second step should be to ask the local S+TA.
Your third step should be to ask the local DZO.
Your fourth step should be to ask the USPA Regional Director.

Your last step should be asking the FAA. Generally the FAA does not want to be bothered by the !% of the population that skydives. If skydives are not endangering airliners or innocent bystanders, the FAA does not care. However, if you file a written complaint, they are obliged to investigate. Which consumes time and manpower they would prefer to chasing Al Quida.

Sometimes your only recourse is to tell the DZO why you are taking your money to his competitor.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Thanks for the note Andy, I may PM HooknSwoop anyway, but it should be noted that the DZ in question is NOT in Texas. Still, he may have some good advice for me.

There is nothing you can do.

The FAA doesn't care. The USPA is paid by the DZ's and doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds it. (The fox is guarding the henhouse). As you discovered, talking to the DZO just makes him mad. This is because DZO's aren't 'policed' by anyone and are used to doing whatever they want. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. (ego and money) Your peers either don't want to know
(apathetic), don't want to make waves and keep quiet, or got sucked into the whole 'dropzones are a family' b.s. and wouldn't believe a FAR violation if they saw it firsthand. (It's like a cult mentality)

You have 2 choices:

1) Live with it the way things are and keep quiet, or

2) Quit skydiving.

I made my choice.

Derek

[Tink1717 2]

Since clouds aren't the issue, what is? We could be of more help if we had the details of your complaint. What is going on?

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Thanks for the note Andy, I may PM HooknSwoop anyway, but it should be noted that the DZ in question is NOT in Texas. Still, he may have some good advice for me.

There is nothing you can do.

You can take your business elsewhere, and maybe that of your friends. Not all DZOs are in violation.

One thing that wasn't mentioned is what the problem is. To make an analogy, is it like driving at 31mph in a 30 limit, or is it like driving drunk and stoned?

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You can take your business elsewhere, and maybe that of your friends. Not all DZOs are in violation.

I haven't been to one that isn't.

Derek

[justinb138 0]

Quote

You can take your business elsewhere, and maybe that of your friends. Not all DZOs are in violation.

I know a few people from the DZ in question that have, and I'm glad they did. I've got a few more friends to jump with now.

Quote

One thing that wasn't mentioned is what the problem is. To make an analogy, is it like driving at 31mph in a 30 limit, or is it like driving drunk and stoned?

From what I've heard from people that used to jump there, it probably isn't the 31 in a 30 thing.

[exnavykds 0]

If we are dealing with ONLY the violations I witnessed first hand, we can start with these...

BSR section H, item 3 states that manned ground-to-air communications are to be present on the dropzone during skydiving operations.

BSR section K, item 2.d states that all students are to be equipped with a functional automatic activation device (AAD) that meets manufacturer’s recommended service schedule (this is also mandated in FAA regulations, section 105.43.c).

BSR section K, item 2.f states that a steerable reserve canopy appropriate to the student’s weight be provided.

BSR section K, item 2.g states that a freefall student must be equipped with a ripcord-activated, spring-loaded, pilot-chute-equipped main parachute or a bottom-of-container (BOC) throw-out pilot chute.

FAA regulations, section 65.111 clearly sets forth the criteria as to who can and cannot pack a main parachute.

FAA regulations, section 105.43 states that a reserve parachute must have been packed by a certifificated parachute rigger within 120 days before its use.

[mattjw916 2]

BSRs aren't laws, like HnS said, if you don't like what goes on, leave.

In reality, most paid packers aren't riggers and aren't supervised.

In reality, reserves get pencil-packed a lot. Personally, I always follow the rules on this one.

I think you are overreacting, IMHO. I've seen plenty of violations too, but most are of the 31mph variety as kallend described.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[nicknitro71 0]

Quote

In reality, most paid packers aren't riggers and aren't supervised.

True on 99% of the DZs especially the big ones.

Quote

In reality, reserves get pencil-packed a lot.

Also very true.

You can take your money somewhere else just to find out that the same and other violations are being broken.

Memento Audere Semper

903

[justinb138 0]

Quote

FAA regulations, section 105.43 states that a reserve parachute must have been packed by a certifificated parachute rigger within 120 days before its use.

Was this on student gear or sport gear?

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Quote

FAA regulations, section 105.43 states that a reserve parachute must have been packed by a certifificated parachute rigger within 120 days before its use.

Was this on student gear or sport gear?

Does it matter, student gear is sport gear.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[rasmack 0]

Quote

BSR section K, item 2.d states that all students are to be equipped with a functional automatic activation device (AAD) that meets manufacturer’s recommended service schedule (this is also mandated in FAA regulations, section 105.43.c).

BSR section K, item 2.f states that a steerable reserve canopy appropriate to the student’s weight be provided.

BSR section K, item 2.g states that a freefall student must be equipped with a ripcord-activated, spring-loaded, pilot-chute-equipped main parachute or a bottom-of-container (BOC) throw-out pilot chute.

If these regs are violated that is just plain scary. Be they law or not

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[MarkM 0]

Quote

BSR section H, item 3 states that manned ground-to-air communications are to be present on the dropzone during skydiving operations.

They don't have radio com with the plane?

Quote

BSR section K, item 2.d states that all students are to be equipped with a functional automatic activation device (AAD) that meets manufacturer’s recommended service schedule (this is also mandated in FAA regulations, section 105.43.c).

They don't have ANY AAD on the student rigs???

Quote

BSR section K, item 2.f states that a steerable reserve canopy appropriate to the student’s weight be provided.

What does this mean? They putting all the students out under 300's, or are they using 170's on first time jump students?

Quote

BSR section K, item 2.g states that a freefall student must be equipped with a ripcord-activated, spring-loaded, pilot-chute-equipped main parachute or a bottom-of-container (BOC) throw-out pilot chute.

What kind of deployment system are they using, exactly??

Quote

FAA regulations, section 65.111 clearly sets forth the criteria as to who can and cannot pack a main parachute.

What are they doing to violate this?

Quote

FAA regulations, section 105.43 states that a reserve parachute must have been packed by a certifificated parachute rigger within 120 days before its use.

This one might piss off the FAA, actually.

[exnavykds 0]

Quote

I think you are overreacting, IMHO.

I'm not sure I'm clear on how you can make the assumption that I'm over reacting since, up to this point, we are talking in hypothetical generalities.

[exnavykds 0]

Quote

They don't have radio com with the plane?

Yes but its not manned.

Quote

They don't have ANY AAD on the student rigs???

They have four or five Sentinel AAD's shared between approx. 15 student rigs. Some of the student rigs are not equiped to install an AAD. The AAD's are NEVER used on student rigs until the student reaches freefall status (static line course) which would normally be their 5th jump.

Quote

What does this mean? They putting all the students out under 300's, or are they using 170's on first time jump students?

For example, a student with an exit weight of 230lbs, jumping a 270 sq ft canopy with a 180 sq ft reserve.

Quote

What kind of deployment system are they using, exactly??

Leg pulls with vinyl pouches.

Quote

FAA regulations, section 65.111 clearly sets forth the criteria as to who can and cannot pack a main parachute. What are they doing to violate this?

Unsupervised students packing for other students.

[MakeItHappen 15]

I suggest calling the RD for the DZ in question.
I have a feeling the RD already knows about this.
I *think* this is a DZ that USPA is trying to get to comply with the rules and regs.

A couple of other comments:

It's ok for the radio operator to get a can of Coke during climb to altitude.

SL used to be considered an AAD. It's only the latest FAR revision that said they had to be on the reserve. The DZ may be a throw back dz to the early 90s and only a recent GM. It was ok then and probably still is today. Today's standards are higher than yesterday's.

On the students packing for other students. The 'supervision' part means that a rigger is available. It does not mean a rigger has to stand watch over each and every pack job.

I have a strong feeling that this dz is already being 'modernized' by the RD efforts.
It may take a bit of time, but that would be better than what the DZ has been doing.

It is better for USPA to open a dialog with DZOs and 'convert them' to modern standards than to toss them out and have them stay in an early nineties mode.

Call the RD.

PS-
About the Sentinels---
I do know of a rigger and former DPRE that would actually testify in court that it is negligent to use a Sentinel today, given all the other available AADs. Technically, you can use them, but from an industry standard practice, it's way below standards.

Given all the things you listed, I would ask for better AADs first before fixing the other problems. Sentinels actually meet all the rules.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[nvanduyn 0]

To not have an AAD on a student rig is just scary. If a student were to freak out, trying to remember everything, and loses altitude awareness...

splat

------
-Nick

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I *think* this is a DZ that USPA is trying to get to comply with the rules and regs.

How? By asking nicely? Are you saying they signed the gm 'pledge' knowing full-well they were in violation of it? Seems hollow to me.

Quote

SL used to be considered an AAD. It's only the latest FAR revision that said they had to be on the reserve. The DZ may be a throw back dz to the early 90s and only a recent GM. It was ok then and probably still is today. Today's standards are higher than yesterday's.

The latest revision is 5 years old now. Not really an excuse anymore that the regs were changed. Just because it used to be OK and legal, doesn't mean it is OK to do it now.

Quote

On the students packing for other students. The 'supervision' part means that a rigger is available. It does not mean a rigger has to stand watch over each and every pack job.

Actually, it does. In the latest revision, the FAA added the word "direct" preceding supervision. This is to clarify that the rigger isn't just supposed to available, but actually supervising.

"(a) The main parachute must have been packed within 120 days before the date of its use of a certificated parachute rigger, the person making the next jump with that parachute, or a non-certificated person under the direct supervision of a certification parachute rigger."

Quote

I have a strong feeling that this dz is already being 'modernized' by the RD efforts.
It may take a bit of time, but that would be better than what the DZ has been doing.

The USPA considers it better to have a DZ violating FAR's and BSR's that is paying GM dues and requiring their jumpers to pay membership dues, than to have a DZ that is violating FAR's and BSR's? Hmmmm, figures.

Quote

It is better for USPA to open a dialog with DZOs and 'convert them' to modern standards than to toss them out and have them stay in an early nineties mode.

The information is available to bring them out of the nineties, it doesn't take a RD to bring them that information. If they have not updated, and are not updating, it is by choice, not ignorance.

Derek