Should a USPA member who is suing to shutdown a USPA Group Member Drop Zone be allowed to jump at any USPA Group Member Drop Zone?

[JohnRich 4]

Update. The previous court hearing had been continued because it ran out of time and testimony wasn't completed. Sept. 4th was a continuation of that injunction hearing, whereby the homeowners continue to try to get the judge to shut down Skydive Houston.

The hearing lasted all day, and I sat in as a spectator. Testimony still wasn't completed, and has been continued to yet another day. The good thing about this lengthy process is that as long as things keep getting continued, the judge won't issue a shut-down order.

There were several good things to come out of the day.

Number one is that the judge FINALLY understands that it is not a violation of the FAR's for skydivers to land on the drop zone airport. This is the FAR 105.23 issue, where the rule is written in a very confusing manner. So that one is no longer a weapon for the homeowners, and that was a big one. A small victory.

Number two was the issue of the jump plane making a long straight-in approach to the runway, instead of flying a left-hand pattern. Once again, the judge was made to understand that a left-hand pattern is only a recommendation by the FAA, and is not required. Pilots can use their discretion to fly a different approach, and it is not a violation of the FAR's. Another small victory.

The homeowners continue to use this landing pattern as an alleged safety issue. I would argue that flying a left-hand pattern when there are parachutes descending onto the airport is MORE dangerous, because that routes the aircraft through the parachutes, increasing the chances of a plane/parachute collision. By making a long straight-in approach, the jump plane is away from all parachutes, and can clearly see them all up ahead. That's the justification for varying from the norm, I believe, and it needs to be spelled out to the judge that there's a good reason for this.

On the negative side.

The plaintiffs won a discovery issue, requesting jump manifests from the drop zone, going back maybe several years. So the DZO will have to turn over computer lists of everyone who jumped, when, how often, their names and contact info, etc. The drop zone argues that this is a trade privacy issue, because one of the plaintiffs is jumping at the competing drop zone in town. Overruled, on the condition that these records are sealed for court use only, and not to be released to anyone else. No telling what the heck the plaintiffs intend to do with all that data. They'll be fishing for trouble, for sure.

So-called "aviation expert" Erik Rigler was back (see message #35) with more of his BS. It's clear he does know a lot about aviation, but not about skydiving. The problem is, he's acting as an expert on skydiving. He was out on the drop zone property twice, conducting "inspections" and observing operations. He did so without property owner permission or notification, as required by discovery rules in court. Defense objected to such tainted testimony. Overruled. An example of how he's clueless to skydiving details, is that he testified that "some parachutes, such as tandems, open as high as 3,000 feet."

Rigler alleges that he never heard the two minute warning calls on his aviation radio, although he couldn't tell us to which frequency it was tuned, as there are two used in the Skydive Houston area. And of course, this is unsafe if the pilot doesn't give the required radio warning. However, he also defends the right of the general aviation pilots to NOT have radios in their planes, because the FAA doesn't require them. Well, um, doesn't that then make the pilots unsafe, since they can't hear the required radio calls? There's a double-standard going on here.

Rigler also researched NTSB and USPA accident databases, and found three incidents of aircraft/parachute collisions. Of course, his assumption was that it's always the skydiver's fault when such things happen. I am familiar with these incidents, as I read about them when they happened, and several were the pilot's fault, not the skydiver's fault. The three incidents mentioned were: A recent low pass in Virginia, a C-208 in Dec. '08 in Homestead, Florida, and a chute that hit a propeller in Rhode Island causing the jumper to lose an arm.

Rigler's "expert" opinion is that it is impossible for skydivers and GA aircraft to share the same airport and operate safely. He parroted the party line that the skydivers should have to land off and shuttle back and forth to the airport, or just move somewhere else to a private airport. This is contrary to the fact that parachute and GA operations like this happen all over America every weekend, without any problems. So much for his research and "expertise". We need USPA experts to testify to this on behalf of the DZ, to counter the homeowner BS.

As you can see, the issues raised here go far beyond a private contract dispute - they strike at the heart of nearly every skydiving operation in America.

The second witness was most interesting. Guess what folks: we have another traitor in our midst. Yes, it's another skydiver who is testifying that skydivers and other aircraft together on the same airport are unsafe and shouldn't be allowed to co-exist. I'll identify this wonderful fellow for you tomorrow, and talk about his testimony.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The second witness was most interesting. Guess what folks: we have another traitor in our midst. Yes, it's another skydiver who is testifying that skydivers and other aircraft together on the same airport are unsafe and shouldn't be allowed to co-exist. I'll identify this wonderful fellow for you tomorrow, and talk about his testimony.

Continuing from yesterday. Here we go with the promised revelation.

The plaintiffs introduced Dennis Monell Smith to the witness stand.

He is a pilot that claims to currently own three planes: a Piper Cub, a C-172, and I forget the other. He says he has flown 75 different types of aircraft in his life. His aircraft registration records are difficult to locate due to his common name and numerous addresses:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=368DS
http://www.aircraftone.com/aircraft/models/smith-dennis-monell-mini-500-05604qc.asp

Interestingly, "Mr. Safety" here seems to have crashed several of his former airplanes, as they were de-registered to him after being destroyed:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=335DS
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=10DH

He sure seems to have destroyed a lot of aircraft for someone seeming to be so safety-conscious.

His airman certificate info is attachment 1.

Smith works as a Houston chiropractor, here:

Dr. Dennis Smith D.C.
Chiropractor
10694 Jones Rd Suite 110
Houston, TX 77065
281-890-2225

Smith lives on the airport property, buying a home there in 2002:

Dennis Smith
32106 Windrose Ln
Waller, TX 77484
936-372-3695

Property info for his listed home address in Waller County at the airport:
http://www.txcountydata.com/datasheet.asp?County=237&PropertyID=R27661

He also shows up at the address 13614 Pristine Lake Ln., Houston, Texas. Go to this Harris County property search screen: http://www.hcad.org/records/Real.asp?search=acct, and enter account # 1243280030009

So, he lives in a $600k, 5,600 sq. ft. house in Houston that is owned by his wife, who also owns a $100k house in her maiden name on the airport property. Neither house is in Dennis Smith's name.

Smith says he has been a skydiver and USPA member for 35 years, holding expert license D-6018.

He also claims to have owned four drop zones: 1) Suffolk, Virginia; 2) Hockley, Texas; 3) LeMarc, Texas; and 4) Conroe, Texas.

I've been jumping in the Houston area for 20 years now, and I've never heard of these three Houston area drop zones. Furthermore, the aircraft he talked about were things like a Lodestar, T-Bo and Twin Beech, and those aircraft haven't been used in skydiving for decades. So I think his drop zone experience is long ago.

Okay, that's the identity information. If anyone has a photo of Dennis Smith, please post it or send it to me. I'd like the skydiving world to know who this guy is.

Next up, I'll talk about his actual testimony.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Number one is that the judge FINALLY understands that it is not a violation of the FAR's for skydivers to land on the drop zone airport. This is the FAR 105.23 issue, where the rule is written in a very confusing manner. So that one is no longer a weapon for the homeowners, and that was a big one. A small victory.

Another issue came up regarding this point. If the FAA says it's okay for an established parachute center to land on the airport drop zone, what exactly constitutes the "drop zone"? Does that include the entire airport area, to include taxiways and runways? Are the airport and the drop zone the same thing? Or must this mean some other defined sub-section of the airport property excluding the taxiways and runways? I don't think the FAA really says what the official definition of a "drop zone" is, do they? The judge still wants to know if his order forbidding skydivers from landing on taxiways and runways is legal, or contrary to FAA rules...

[yoink 321]

Is this Dennis still a current jumper?

[JohnRich 4]

Note: Dennis Smith is not one of the named parties in the lawsuit, but he was present to testify on their behalf.

Here's the kind of things to which Dennis Smith testified.

Two of the four drop zones he operated were at private strips, and two at public strips. At only one of them, the Conroe, Texas, location, did he have conflict issues with other pilots. Because of this, they landed their skydivers off the property and shuttled them back to the airport. The pilots still complained, so he moved his operation to another location.

His claimed safety concerns about Skydive Houston are that jumpers land on the taxiway and runway, bust clouds, and land off airport.

His biggest complaint is that he feels it is unsafe to take-off in his plane anytime a jump aircraft is airborne, or parachutists are descending. Therefore, the only time he can safely take-off in his personal plane is when the jump Otter is fueling or taking-on the next load of passengers. And since turn-around time is short, this gives him a very limited safety window to get off the ground, according to him. He says this makes the airport unusable for about 25 minutes out of every 30 minute period.

He also made a point that its unsafe for piston engine aircraft to idle for minutes at a time because it fouls their spark plugs. Gosh, don't they have to do that at regular airports without jumpers?

It was also argued (maybe it was Rigler that said this) that the plane fuels and loads with the engines running, and that is dangerous. Suggesting that the jump plane should shut down the engines after each load. And that, of course, requires a 20-minute cool-down period for the turbines, before re-lighting them, seriously impacting turn-around time, and the number of loads that can be flown in a day. Do you reckon this would seriously impair turbine jump operations around the country?

Smith also said that the drop zone should acquire property away from the airport upon which to land the jumpers. When asked if this might create an undue financial burden upon the business, he claimed that farmers will just let you use 100 acres or so for free, if you ask them. Yeah, right.

He also argued that the "intensity" of the Otter operations cause domination of the airport and airspace. He contrasted this with a Cessna 182 operation where the plane takes off only once every 30 minutes, and drops only four jumpers. But an Otter can take off every 20 minutes, and drop 20 jumpers, and is therefore unsafe. An Otter is just "too powerful" and "too fast". His drop zones were always safe, of course, because he flew smaller, slower aircraft.

He called the drop zone "unsafe" and "cowboyish", said "it's just a matter of time before they kill someone", and that "Skydive Houston is an offensive and unsafe commercial operation" (referring to the property covenants restriction).

He claims that he was once accused of causing a plane/parachute collision during the days of one of the previous owners, several years ago. Sour grapes revenge, perhaps?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Is this Dennis still a current jumper?

I don't know. He claimed that all of his licenses and ratings were current, and he claimed to be an instructor with static line and tandem ratings. USPA data, to the contrary, doesn't show all those to be current. He also claims to have made several jumps at Skydive Houston, two to three years ago, but no one seems to remember him. Whether he is really active or not, I don't know. If anyone has knowledge of him jumping somewhere recently, let us know. My gut feeling is that he's no longer still a regular, active participant.

And isn't it ironic that someone who once ran a drop zone where he was run off the airport by other pilots, is now on the other side of the fence, as a pilot himself, trying to run off skydivers from an airport.

[yoink 321]

What does someone have to do in order to become an unreliable witness?

If someone is caught lying about their experiences in relation to a case, is just that part of their testimony dismissed or can their whole contribution be binned?

Is there a 'hierarchy' of expert witnesses? Can these morons that the plaintiffs have bought in be top-trumped?

[stratostar 5]

I sent you the documents that clearly Show/say a parachute is an aircraft once deployed and in flight! Parachutes are afforded the same rights and lattude as any other aircraft this info is right from the general counsel, you can't get ny higher then that for a rule meaning!

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

[likestojump 3]

Quote

I sent you the documents that clearly Show/say a parachute is an aircraft once deployed and in flight! Parachutes are afforded the same rights and lattude as any other aircraft this info is right from the general counsel, you can't get ny higher then that for a rule meaning!

got a citation ? I'd like to look it up, as I am sure some others may.

[billvon 2,989]

>Parachutes are afforded the same rights and lattude as any other aircraft . . .

No, they're not. The rules covering maintenance, airworthiness, pilot's certificates, ATC clearances etc are completely different.

Lots of legal precedent covers this. A few cases were over whether it was legal for BASE jumpers to jump in a lake where it was legal for seaplanes to land. Their argument was that they were aircraft too, with the same legal right to use the lake. The judges disagreed.

[likestojump 3]

Quote

>Parachutes are afforded the same rights and lattude as any other aircraft . . .

No, they're not. The rules covering maintenance, airworthiness, pilot's certificates, ATC clearances etc are completely different.

Lots of legal precedent covers this. A few cases were over whether it was legal for BASE jumpers to jump in a lake where it was legal for seaplanes to land. Their argument was that they were aircraft too, with the same legal right to use the lake. The judges disagreed.

the cases you are referring to, both federal ( U.S. v. Gravity Sports, Ltd. which was decided citing U.S. v. Oxx ) the appelate court judge decided that as the NPS has a regulation in place against delivery by parachutes, the defendants were still in violation regardless of how the parachute is classified.
here's the case : http://openjurist.org/127/f3d/1277

what I am reading from that, is that it should have no bearing on skydiving, as there's no prohibition and we are not dealing with NPS rules.

just speculating. not a lawyer.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I sent you the documents that clearly Show/say a parachute is an aircraft once deployed and in flight! Parachutes are afforded the same rights and lattude as any other aircraft this info is right from the general counsel, you can't get ny higher then that for a rule meaning!

Yes, and this was discussed, about how non-powered aircraft have the right-of-way over powered aircraft. If there are parachutists descending, and an aircraft wanting to land, the aircraft has to wait for the parachutists. Whether the plaintiffs like it or not.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

What does someone have to do in order to become an unreliable witness?

If someone is caught lying about their experiences in relation to a case, is just that part of their testimony dismissed or can their whole contribution be binned?

Is there a 'hierarchy' of expert witnesses? Can these morons that the plaintiffs have bought in be top-trumped?

It's up to the defendant to put people on the stand to testify that what the others said is wrong.

It's all kind of frustrating for me, because the judge, the plaintiff lawyer, and the defense lawyer, all of them are non-aviation folks, and don't really understand things the way skydivers and pilots do. I find myself wanting to stand up and scream out the obvious, that they all seem to be missing. Ack!

[billvon 2,989]

>Yes, and this was discussed, about how non-powered aircraft have
>the right-of-way over powered aircraft.

========================
FAR 91.113: Right-of-way

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.

(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories --

(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;

(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, airplane, or rotorcraft; and

(3) An airship has the right-of-way over an airplane or rotorcraft.

However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.

(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.

(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
=================================

At best we might be considered ultralights, which is perhaps an even bigger problem, since they are prohibited from operating in areas we now jump in.

[stratostar 5]

Compilation of Selected Aviation Laws
As Amended Through April 1, 2009
Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation
U.S. Department of Transportation
May 2009

Quote

http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/compilation/


***§ 40102. Definitions

***(6) ‘‘aircraft’’ means any contrivance invented, used, or designed
to navigate, or fly in, the air.

Lot of good reading in there.

Might also want to read the skydive Paris TN vs Henry County TN case, you can find the doc on www.uspa.org and if you don't find the whole case file ask USPA for it, to large a PDF to upload here.

In that case the FAA made it very clear "we" have the right to use the grass between the runway & taxiway the same as any "other aircraft".

Many airport sponsors like to claim we can not use that space or taxi & runways, the space between the two are "safety zones" to be free of obstructions. The FAA general counsel says NO we can and have the same rights as any other "aircraft" to land there if need be and we don't cause a hazzard by doing so.

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

[futuredivot 0]

Just a snippet - Anyone that automatically considers pilots experts in aircraft operation has not spent as much time talking to pilots as I have

Quote

unsafe for piston engine aircraft to idle for minutes at a time because it fouls their spark plugs

Not so much if you know what you're doing. And, as a matter of fact- I AM an expert

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Number one is that the judge FINALLY understands that it is not a violation of the FAR's for skydivers to land on the drop zone airport. This is the FAR 105.23 issue, where the rule is written in a very confusing manner. So that one is no longer a weapon for the homeowners, and that was a big one. A small victory.

One of the ironic things about this is that it was the homeowner's themselves who shot themselves in the foot. You would think that these eight pilots would be able to read the FAR's and research the issue and figure it out for themselves. I did it, and I'm not even a pilot. Paul Kates is the principle instigator of the lawsuit against the drop zone, and he wrote the FAA asking for a legal interpretation of FAR 105.23. Here is the FAA's response, in pdf format.

That sunk their battleship, in trying to claim that parachutists can't land on an airport. Of course, all of us skydivers knew that to be wrong all along. But these eight guys, with their collective minds and experiences, were unable to comprehend it. And one of them, Bill Green, is even a skydiver who knows full well from personal experience that skydivers are approved to land on an airport drop zone.

The only alternative to them being just plain stupid, is that they knew what was correct all along, and were trying to subvert justice by trying to make the judge believe something that wasn't true. And that's even worse then being stupid.

The next court date is Thursday, Sept. 10th, 9:00 am, Waller County Courthouse, Hempstead, Texas. This is the 2nd continuation of the injunction hearing. The plaintiffs have a dog and pony video show for the judge, alleging to show instances of unsafe conduct and FAR violations by skydivers. They had all their equipment set up last time, but didn't have time to get to it.

[billvon 2,989]

>§ 40102. Definitions

>(6) ‘‘aircraft’’ means any contrivance invented, used, or designed
>to navigate, or fly in, the air.

That's where you start to get into trouble. Because by those rules ultralights are aircraft and they are very specifically NOT allowed to land at some airports. So go down that particular road and you leave yourself open to "well, they weigh less than 155 pounds, so they're ultralights, and the FAA says they can't land here."

If you _do_ want to go down that road, here are a few rules we'll have to follow:

==========
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.

Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft.

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft.
===========

So the "we're airplanes" angle may not be wise to pursue.

Better to stick to the "we're parachutes" angle, since there is an entire part of the FAR's dedicated to us.

[yoink 321]

*this isn't the post you were looking for...

[billvon 2,989]

You may be right, and I edited that post.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The next court date is Thursday, Sept. 10th, 9:00 am, Waller County Courthouse, Hempstead, Texas.

Oops. Apparently not. A scheduling conflict for one of the lawyers. Then they told me it would be the following day, Friday. But phone calls show that not to be true either. The court clerk says the next scheduled hearing is Sept. 21st.

So, nothing new to report today.

[JeffD 0]

Wouldn't a parachutist be considered a 'glider'? Since Far 91.113 references a 'powered parachute' but not parachute individually I would assume they would already be covered under a different category in this case glider. In that case a skydiver under canopy would take right of way over everything except other gliders or balloons. I included Weight-shift-control aircraft for reference.

I read the definition of 'parachute' as a round canopy. We are aircraft depending on the definition of 'flight' which the FAA does not define. So I say we are jumping foldable gliders.

Circular logic is making my head hurt. Just trying to help if I can.

=======================
Far 1.1 General Definitions

Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

Glider means a heavier-than-air aircraft, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces and whose free flight does not depend principally on an engine.

Weight-shift-control aircraft means a powered aircraft with a framed pivoting wing and a fuselage controllable only in pitch and roll by the pilot's ability to change the aircraft's center of gravity with respect to the wing. Flight control of the aircraft depends on the wing's ability to flexibly deform rather than the use of control surfaces.

Parachute means a device used or intended to be used to retard the fall of a body or object through the air.

================
Far 91.113 (updated 8Sep2009)

1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;

(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

[billvon 2,989]

>Wouldn't a parachutist be considered a 'glider'?

If you go by definitions OTHER than part 105, then the closest definition that fits is ultralight - and then everyone has right of way over us.

[danielcroft 2]

Wouldn't a parachute fall into the category of glider because it's unpowered? It's pretty hard to give way when you don't have full 3 dimensional control of your vehicle.

[pilotdave 0]

A parachute is a parachute. Nothing else. The rules for gliders, ultralights, planes, helicopters, blimps, or anything else do not apply to parachutes. We have our own set of rules. Parachutists are not aircraft.

Dave