USPA Disciplinary Actions

[PhreeZone 20]

§ 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved type and—

(1) If a chair type (canopy in back), it has been packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger within the preceding 120 days; or

(2) If any other type, it has been packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger—

(i) Within the preceding 120 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic fiber or materials that are substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, or other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or

(ii) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber, or materials not specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.

(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot in command may allow, and no person may conduct, a parachute operation from an aircraft within the United States except in accordance with part 105 of this chapter.

(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds—

(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or

(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.

(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to—

(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or

(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by—

(i) A certificated flight instructor; or

(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with §61.67 of this chapter.

(e) For the purposes of this section, approved parachute means—

(1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical standard order (C–23 series); or

(2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or AN drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation or specification number.


105.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing parachute operations conducted in the United States.

(b) This part does not apply to a parachute operation conducted—

(1) In response to an in-flight emergency, or

§ 105.3____ Definitions.
For the purposes of this part—

Approved parachute means a parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a Technical Standard Order (C–23 series), or a personnel-carrying U.S. military parachute (other than a high altitude, high speed, or ejection type) identified by a Navy Air Facility, an Army Air Field, and Air Force-Navy drawing number, an Army Air Field order number, or any other military designation or specification number.




I think the answers are all in there. As I read the FAR's is says if the jump is not an emergency it needs to be conducted on a 2 canopy harness thats certified. At issue here is more then the single canopy, also at issue is the unrated harness container that was used.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[seal_S49 0]

Quote

It does not say that a single-harness, dual-parachute system must be used.

Have you been reading PIA Forum posts regarding this issue? I have already come to this same conclusion, although it's not a popular one. The FAA may be able to bully the aviating public into compliance with non-existant regulations, but what about our USPA? I have read for years about how involved the USPA has been in proposed rulemaking, and now a blunder of this magnitude got past everyone. Worse yet, the base rig issue isn't addressed in BSR's either, so the USPA can't call it a violation of these. Of course, the BOD has the discretion to discipline any member for a dangerous act, even if no violation was involved.

IMO, enforcing it's own regulations is an appropriate responsibility of the USPA BOD. If I'd have them do anything different, it would be to identify which violation received what disciplinary action. This is more relevant to me than the names. I probably don't know these people anyway and they will have to deal with this issue next time they check in at a boogie or apply for work at a DZ. If they can find a place to jump or work that doesn't require membership, that is beyond the scope of the USPA.

[seal_S49 0]

Quote

As I read the FAR's is says if the jump is not an emergency it needs to be conducted on a 2 canopy harness thats certified.

No, your lengthy qoute simply says that part 91 addresses parachutes carried for emergency use and part 105 addresses pretty much everything else (skydiving). So read all of part 105 & quote the section that prohibits making a skydive w/ a base rig. Others have tried & failed.

Thanks.

[EDYDO 0]

Quote

Quote

If you are saying that the USPA should turn members over to the FAA for enforcement action, I couldn't disagree more. Are we going to turn in our fellow jumpers for violations, that's scary?

I was simply saying it is better for USPA to enforce FAR's within our organization, thus demonstrating to FAA that we can self regulate. That's a better option than turning those violators over to the FAA, or demonstrating no control and encouraging FAA to get involved.

-tom buchanan

Agreed, keep the FAA and other government agencies out of skydiving. If OSHA ever gets involved, we'll have handicapped handrails on our 182's.

Ed

[EDYDO 0]

Quote

As for the Air Force disciplining the pilot of the BASE rig/birdman suit/bridge accident .... also the way the world is supposed to revolve. If young pilots demonstrate poor judgement (i.e. permit passengers to violate FARs) they will never be allowed to fly big, fancy, shiny, expensive airplanes.

The world is revolving as it is supposed to.

Of course you are right, but still there is something about this and similar incidents that really bothers me. The FAR violation had nothing to do with the fatality. They (government agencies) look for someone to blame and it doesn't matter that the violation was just incidental.
Ed

[tombuch 0]

Quote

No, your lengthy qoute simply says that part 91 addresses parachutes carried for emergency use and part 105 addresses pretty much everything else (skydiving). So read all of part 105 & quote the section that prohibits making a skydive w/ a base rig. Others have tried & failed.

Some interesting issues have been raised regarding the use of a single harness, single parachute pack.

The poster believes that since 105.43 addresses only “single harness dual parachute” packs that the regulation does not apply to a “single harness single parachute” rig typically worn by a BASE jumper. It has been argued that since a BASE rig is not specifically addressed under the current Part 105, it is legal for use when making intentional jumps from an airplane. There is an assumption here that the regulation must be interpreted narrowly and may only cover that which is specifically listed.

The original Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for updating Part 105 listed a change that would add a tandem parachute system as distinct from a “single harness dual parachute” pack. The original rule, and the modification suggested under the NPRM, assumed that only dual parachute packs were to be used for intentional jumping. The NPRM included the following:

Quote

"When part 105 was originally issued, civilian parachute operations were limited to the use of a single-harness, dual-parachute pack. Since then, the parachute industry has developed new dual harness systems that support two people under a single parachute. Because part 105 allows parachute operations with single-harness parachutes only, the use of parachute equipment capable of supporting two people has only been authorized by exemption. For purposes of the exemptions, the FAA and the parachuting industry have adopted the term ``tandem'' to
describe those parachute operations that use a dual-harness, dual-
parachute system."

-NPRM, Federal Register, April 13, 1999

It looks to me like the FAA expects single parachutes packs to be used for emergencies only, and that intentional jumping must include the use of a dual parachute pack because that is all the FAA has ever recognized.

If we think about the actual violation that generated this issue, it should also be mentioned that that Part 105.5 specifically prohibits the creation of a hazard as follows:

Quote

"No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from an aircraft, if that operation creates a hazard to air traffic or to persons or property on the surface."

-Part 105.5

Tom Buchanan
Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem)
Commercial Pilot (IAMSEL,G)
Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[sducoach 0]

Tom,

I think they are missing the "type" or "TSO" def. of "approved".

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[USPA 0]

I'm no expert on US regulation, but wouldn't the TSO approval come in here?

The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

[sducoach 0]

Take a look at the "poll" guys. 79% say it is a good or great thing to police ourselves.

How about this one. Should we have the FAA establish BSR's as FAR's and contract the USPA to police and enforce by giving them some teeth?

Just a thought...........

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[seal_S49 0]

Quote

It looks to me like the FAA expects single parachutes packs to be used for emergencies only, and that intentional jumping must include the use of a dual parachute pack because that is all the FAA has ever recognized.

We all know what they expect, I'm merely pointing out that this "expectation" has been totally deleted from the FARs during the last 105 rulemaking session. I suggest that the USPA write the requirement into BSRs if they are going to enforce it. And as far as what the USPA did enforce (or the FAA for that matter), please note that I've never suggested there was anything inappropriate about disciplining dangerous acts.

edited to add:

Quote

There is an assumption here that the regulation must be interpreted narrowly and may only cover that which is specifically listed.

It would be an assumption to assert that it is illegal to do something that is not prohibited in the FARs.

[chuckbrown 0]

The FAA lawyers will say that you are only allowed to parachute if the jump is done in compliance with Part 105. In other words, a jump must be permitted by Part 105 to be legal. Part 105 permits jumps using a single-harness, dual canopy configuration. You can use the dual canopy rig if it meets the requirements of Part 105. Part 105 doesn't permit jumps using a single canopy configuration. Part 105 doesn't even make any reference to a single canopy configuration. People are making the (compelling) argument that jumping a BASE rig is permitted because Part 105 doesn't prohibit it and because Part 105 doesn't specifically state you must use a dual canopy rig. That's not how the FAA will look at it. At the hearing to pull the pilot's ticket, they'll argue that all skydiving must be conducted in compliance with Part 105 and Part 105 doesn't permit a BASE rig to be jumped from an aircraft. Therefore, the pilot violated Part 105.

The argument that a BASE rig can be jumped from a plane because Part 105 doesn't prohibit it is a good one, but I doubt it will work in front of the FAA.

[sducoach 0]

Okay Chuckbrown,

Defend your position. Give us the good argument concerning the base rig you mentioned.

A few questions to address please.

Question 1. Is base jumping skydiving?
Question 2. When base started what type of rig did we use?
Question 3. Are skydiving rigs legal for base?
Question 4. Are base rigs legal for skydiving?
Question 5. Are base rigs legal for "emergency" jumps?
Question 6. Please define a "type", "TSOed", "approved" skydiving rig, non-emergency and emergency.
Question 7. Who is responsible to determine the "difference"?

More if wanted.

Looking forward to your response.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

The poster believes that since 105.43 addresses only “single harness dual parachute” packs that the regulation does not apply to a “single harness single parachute” rig typically worn by a BASE jumper. It has been argued that since a BASE rig is not specifically addressed under the current Part 105, it is legal for use when making intentional jumps from an airplane. There is an assumption here that the regulation must be interpreted narrowly and may only cover that which is specifically listed

Don't put words in my mouth. You have no idea what I believe. I just posted what was part of the current Part 105. I then said it was something to think about. Just don't do my thinking for me.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[chuckbrown 0]

I think Seal 49 & Mojosparky have already given the reasons. Please understand, I'm not advocating taking a BASE rig out of a plane, nor do I think that it's authorized by Part 105. Read my post closer. In response to your questions:

1. No. BASE jumping involves jumps from a Building, Antennae, Span &/or Earth. Skydiving involves jumping from an airplane.

2. I'm not a historian on BASE. If you tell me when it started I could probably tell you what type of rig you used.

3. Yes. Go to Bridge Day. Having said that, they're not encouraged. Read Tom Aiello's excellent piece in the forums.

4. Didn't you just read my post? I think I said no.

5. If they are an "approved type." Maybe you should ask if emergency rigs can be used for BASE.

6. I'm not studying for my rigger's exam.

7. See, no. 6.

Blue skies

[sducoach 0]

Dog Gonne It Chuck,

Yes I read your post.

You said there was a good argument, where?

Pssst, #6 & #7 are skydiver questions, not riggers. to comply with FAR's as a skydiver.

Thanks for responding Chuck, just trying to keep up the keeping up!

Some people (not you) try to represent that omission is permission. Let them try arguing that one in court.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[chuckbrown 0]

Good thing nos. 6 & 7 weren't on any licensing tests.

[PhreeZone 20]

Side note, The FAR's state that any single parachute system must be packed and certified by a rigger right? Was this canopy? If it was where is the data card and what seal was put on the rig?

Type - Back, chest, seat, lap.

TSO'd - meets or excedes the requirements of TSO b23. There are specific requirements including drop tests, baking in an oven, freezing, etc that all must be met. Different requirements are needed for each specific grade of TSO you apply for. Thats where you get your weight and speed limits from.

Emergency and non emergency are all TSO'd the same way. Its my impression and I might be wrong that the FAA looks at all harness's and containers the same, its just that sport rigs have an extra space for a main (that does not need to be certified)

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[seal_S49 0]

Quote

The FAR's state that any single parachute system must be packed and certified by a rigger right?

Please quote the FAR that specifies this.

[seal_S49 0]

Quote

Some people (not you) try to represent that omission is permission. Let them try arguing that one in court.

Nowhere in this thread have I read a suggestion that the FAA has given permission to use base rigs for skydiving. The only assertion I've read (or written) is that those who insist that this is currently an FAR violation are mistaken.

The USPA published an incident report of the CO fatality in which they stated that the single canopy skydive was in itself an FAR violation. Ironic that the folks who were supposed to represent skydivers and "help" the FAA rewrite this section allowed this prohibition to be totally omitted, hence the ambiguity. This omission was a huge mistake and nobody seems to want to admit it.

What troubles me more is that there are some of us who seem to support (even enjoy) the concept that the FAA needn't put their regulations in writing. The whole purpose of written law is so the public can clearly define what is or is not allowed. Do you really want to give it up that easily?

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Side note, The FAR's state that any single parachute system must be packed and certified by a rigger right? Was this canopy? If it was where is the data card and what seal was put on the rig?

Type - Back, chest, seat, lap.

TSO'd - meets or excedes the requirements of TSO b23. There are specific requirements including drop tests, baking in an oven, freezing, etc that all must be met. Different requirements are needed for each specific grade of TSO you apply for. Thats where you get your weight and speed limits from.

Emergency and non emergency are all TSO'd the same way. Its my impression and I might be wrong that the FAA looks at all harness's and containers the same, its just that sport rigs have an extra space for a main (that does not need to be certified)

There is more to it than that. TSO-C23d is a 2-page document and does not spell out any required tests or testing methods. AS8015-Rev. B is an 11 page document and covers everything from “average peak force measured” the definition of a “Reserve static line”.
There are no “sports” rigs. There are 3 “Types” of system. 1. Single harness reserve parachute assembly. 2. Emergency parachute assembly. 3. Dual harness reserve parachute assembly. Now take all that shit and pitch it. Stick with what I was posting about. Part 105.43. The wording sucks. It says if you are using a single harness dual parachute system. Read it again and show me where it says you must. The wording sucks, it is weak and will be a problem somewhere down the road.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[mjosparky 4]

Question 6.
105.3____ Definitions.
For the purposes of this part—
Approved parachute means a parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a Technical Standard Order (C–23 series), or a personnel-carrying U.S. military parachute (other than a high altitude, high speed, or ejection type) identified by a Navy Air Facility, an Army Air Field, and Air Force-Navy drawing number, an Army Air Field order number, or any other military designation or specification number.

Question 7. The FAA

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Iamthebest_391 0]

mjosparky,

You are so right on. Please help me here though. Pilots rigs are single harness, single canopy. We pack them as riggers and sign off the packing card. Are they considered reserves, emergency parachutes, or do they fall under a diffrent TSO?

G.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Ironic that the folks who were supposed to represent skydivers and "help" the FAA rewrite this section allowed this prohibition to be totally omitted, hence the ambiguity. This omission was a huge mistake and nobody seems to want to admit it.

The NPRM was a huge document with tons of minor changes and a few majors. You might be surprised at some of the little things that slipped through without notice, and some of the simple things that really helped us. I think USPA did a fine job of advocating on our behalf given their limited resources and the complexity of the proposed rule. I've got to give them MAJOR credit for choking the life out of an accident reporting provision, supporting the tandem provision, and getting approval for foreign jumpers to use gear from their home countries in the United States.

With all that said, any skydiver could have taken an active interest in the changes, and some did. USPA even asked us all to review the NPRM and offer our comments to the organization, and also offer those comments to the FAA. Many of the comments were incorporated into the new rule, while others were rejected on perceived merit, or because the suggested change was not specifically included in the original NPRM. It's not a perfect process, but it does give us at least some voice.

I made the effort to share my comments with USPA and the skydiving community via rec.skydiving before sending them along to the FAA as part of the official docket. I guess I'm one of those who didn't think there was much ambiguity about single harness single parachute systems being used for intentional jumping. Heck, the intent of the regulation is clear.

For what it is worth there is a new NPRM that deals with supervision and authorization issues that are mostly related to pilots, mechanics, and commercial operators, but it also has some imapct on the skydiving world. Take the time to read it and offer your comments to USPA and the FAA before May 20 when the period is set to close.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem)
Commericial Pilot (IAMSEL,G)
S&TA
Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and easy

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

mjosparky,

You are so right on. Please help me here though. Pilots rigs are single harness, single canopy. We pack them as riggers and sign off the packing card. Are they considered reserves, emergency parachutes, or do they fall under a diffrent TSO?

G.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Emergency parachutes fall under the same TSO as skydiving rigs.
The only difference is that they are allowed to skip the TSO tests related to AADs, RSLs, main canopy releases, main containers, etc. since those components are not installed.

[EDYDO 0]

Quote

How about this one. Should we have the FAA establish BSR's as FAR's and contract the USPA to police and enforce by giving them some teeth?

This kind of thinking scares me. You obviously do not understand the thought process within the bureaucracy. It simply wouldn't work and once that pandora's box is opened, it could never be closed.

Ed