Skydiving banned from all federally funded airports

[sducoach 0]

Base,

Quote

Them memo also mentions that the requirements must be "reasonable". Our question to the FAA was this: "Is it reasonable to require something that is not available?" The answer was yes.

Quote

The FAA said they were not in the business of setting insurance limitations and that our inability to obtain coverage that is available to all other users was our problem.

There seems to be a conflict in your statements. Is the insurance required for all other aviation operations and, is it available?

We went through this back in 94 in Harrisonville MO. with the City and the FBO. At that time we were informed by the FAA that they could not require "special" or "additional" insurance from the DZO. Long legal battle, many nights at the city counsel but, the DZO decided to give it up. Closed down and sold out.

You mentioned USPA in another post. If Ed is working on it you have the best help available on your side. Good luck.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[base363 0]

The airport is covered for general liability with an exclusion to any skydiving related claim. So, they say all the other users have the required coverage. I have requested an official FAA ruling as to whether an airport can require skydiving insurance. (which to this point is not available anywhere) Should expect a timely written response from the FAA within the next two years.

[PhreeZone 20]

Is the airport only concerned about the liability insurance or are there other reasons that they are pushing this issue?

It recently came to my attention that a group of local pilots felt that skydivers were "taking over" an airport and were causing them delays by making them waste fuel holding in a pattern away from the airport while waiting on jumpers to decend and land. The pilots basically went to the FBO and said that if the FBO did'nt get rid of the jumpers they would all pull their aircraft from the field and would take their business else where. Simple business decision for the FBO at that point. From that time on I guess the FBO did everything to encourage jumper/pilot conflicts to get justification not to renew leases for the DZ.

In addition to just pushing the legal reasons have you pushed the benifits that having jumpers on the airport will bring? I know a few small airports around here that would welcome a jump operation if nothing else for the increased number of take off's and landings that count towards getting more federal money the next year. Have the jumpers done anything to provide value to the airport like clean litter, plant bushes, little things like that? If you can make the FBO lose interst in fighting you since he sees other benifits to keeping you there, you might not have to fight the FAA.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[base363 0]

I believe the members of both airport boards have a genuine concern for there own liability. They have all voiced concern for their own assets in the event of a suit. This is driving the train in Belle Fourche.

In Spearfish, as far as what the jumpers bring to the table, the airport see this as negligible. They are in the final stages of securing an FAA grant, with the dollar figure between 10 to 18 million. Thats OUR tax dollars!

The plans include an airpark, industrial park and they are also negotiating on a 50 passenger commercial flight each day. Coincidentally, the president of the board is a real-estate developer.

Skydivers on the airport don't fit into these plans. Insurance is just the excuse to get rid of us.

Regardless of all the particulars, it still comes down to whether an airport can require unavailable insurance, and still receive federal funding!

The FAA's answer to us has been yes. If thats the case, then all skydiving at publicly funded airports is in jeopardy. Thats why I renewed this thread. I'm trying to find out if anyone knows of a letter to airport managers, with instructions on how to shut down skydiving at their airports?

Another operation in Billings MT was just shut down for the same reason.

[WrongWay 0]

Preach on my brother!!! Viva le revolution!!!

Seriously, I couldn't agree more with what you just said. We need to teach the public through the media and demos. Hell, hold seminars!! We need to do all we can to provide info to the general public about just how safe skydiving really is. We need to tell them how "What if your chute doesn't open?" is practically a thing of the past. We need to explain to them the freedom and love that comes with our sport, the family atmosphere everywhere you go, and the bonds we form with all skydivers along the way. I personally have been able to come to skydivers I didn't really know with problems that I wouldn't tell my own family, and have received nothing but love and support from everyone. I want to be able to share this feeling with the world, whuffos and jumpers alike, as I'm sure you all do. We need to make an effort to promote our sport, the way it really is and not just the "Real TV" version, so that the general whuffo public may better understand us, and therefore support us in our efforts to stay in the air.

SlotP, very well spoken, bravo.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

If a federally funded airport simply requires all skydivers to hold a $1mil insurance policy covering all skydiving activities and naming the county or city as additional insured, the FAA will allow them to shut down all skydiving activities.

Anyone else have suggestions or possible solutions to this?

I ran a DZ on a federally subsidized field and the issue of liability insurance came up during our initial talks. Here's the lowdown straight from the feds (in our case).

The airport owner may require the skydiving operation to maintain liability insurance with the same coverage of all other commercial airport users. However, this coverage MUST BE AVAILABLE for the airport owner to demand it. What this means to a skydiving operation is that the airport owner may require GENERAL LIABILITY (slip and fall coverage, no pun intended), but cannot demand that the operation buy liability coverage for actual skydiving activities, since no such coverage exists for DZ's. They may also require the DZ or aircraft operator to maintain liability coverage on flight operations, although this insurance does not cover any claim that occurs once the jumpers begin to exit the plane (this is the point when - according to the insurance companies - we become jumpers and no longer passengers). In lue of a skydiving liability policy purchased by the DZ, they may require that ALL jumpers maintain USPA (or other) membership that offers individual liability protection, since that insurance is readily available.

The key to this controversy is that the airport owner MUST BE NON-DISCRIMITORY. In other words, they cannot do 2 things:

1. They cannot require the DZ to maintain any "activity specific" insurance that they do not require of other commercial airport users.

2. They cannot require insurance that is not available. Doing so constitues unreasonable and discrimitory demands, which is not allowed of federally funded or subsidized airports.

Remember, if an airport - whether private or municipal - accepts a single dollar of federal funds, they are locked into the anti-discrimination (and other) clauses for 22 years! (unless that has changed since 1997). Maybe you guys should look at some privately-owned-but-federally-assisted airports.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Remember, if an airport - whether private or municipal - accepts a single dollar of federal funds, they are locked into the anti-discrimination (and other) clauses for 22 years! (unless that has changed since 1997). Maybe you guys should look at some privately-owned-but-federally-assisted airports.

I suspect they could buy themselves out of it, like Daley did when he closed Meigs Field in Chicago. FAA huffed and puffed, but did nothing.

...

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

• Quote

[SkydiverRick 0]

Remember, if an airport - whether private or municipal - accepts a single dollar of federal funds, they are locked into the anti-discrimination (and other) clauses for 22 years! (unless that has changed since 1997). Maybe you guys should look at some privately-owned-but-federally-assisted airports.

[steve1 5]

I don't know all the details, but jumping at Laurel, Montana, is now shut down. It's a municipal airport with some dip-stick managers. The owner of the jump operation has been in touch with USPA but to no avail. They too are being told they have to have a million dollar insurance policy. Arrangements were made to land outside the airport on a farmers land and then travel back to our clubhouse. This was thought to be a solution to the problem. The airport managers then decided this would be a breach of airport security. So the club owner is now faced with a legal battle he probably can't afford. It sounds like the airport board hates skydiving for whatever reason. I'm just wondering where the USPA is when you really need them........Steve1

[base363 0]

Quote

Here's the lowdown straight from the feds (in our case).

Chuck: Do you have any documents or points of contact regarding the FAA's position?

If we could get something in writing, it may be a big step forward for us! It sounds like you make have set a very positive precedence with your case!

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

If they receive federal funding these rules apply to any airports that they own, not just the one getting the funds.

You're right Rickster - I forgot about that...old age maybe?

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

They too are being told they have to have a million dollar insurance policy.

Several counties in Eastern Washington state who operate public airports under port district entities want nothing less than a $2-million dollar indemnity policy meaning that a small weekend-only club operation is out of the question. In addition, the skydiving season is only 22-weeks long up here, but the insurance folks want theirs all year round! Bottom line, our "joint and several liability" tort laws, which were supposed to keep us safe with reliable products, are being systematically abused to extort for financial gain.

[sducoach 0]

Have you talked to Ed? He knows the people at the "head shed" for the FAA and is a good man that will help in any manner if he knows what you need is. Or, he is straight forward enough to tell you when it's time to bail.

I keep going back to the point we made and were advised by the KCMO FISDO supervisor, don't recall the name, that the Airport Manager, i.e. the board, could NOT require special coverage for one operation, (aviation operation of which we are) and NOT the other operations.

Call Oak City, call Ed, and call all of us through the forum. I'll write, call, fax, any letters you request to help back you up.

Keep us posted.

Blues and Good Luck,

J.E.

James 4:8

[dbattman 0]

We're on the edge down here as well. City won't renew our lease so we're stuck going month to month. No one wants to pump too much into improving the facilities since the future is cloudy. They've already gotten rid of the ultralights by requiring them to have hull insurance. The rest of us (gliders, skydivers, probably small GA as well) are on the hit list.

The city has this weird pipe dream that they're going to tack on 1000' to each end of the runway and launch corporate jets. Never mind the high-tension power lines and school at one end and the recent subdivisions that have sprung up next door. We're also too far from downtown to make this practical from a corporate executive viewpoint, since the whole point of having corporate jets is to get the senior management where they need to be quickly.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

The waiver may keep you from losing a lawsuit, but it doesn't prevent someone from filing one. So, you still have the legal costs of fighting such a suit.

If it was somehow illegal to file a suit once you had signed a waiver "frivolous lawsuit protection?" then the waiver might have some weight.

The waiver I had to sign stated that if I filed a lawsuit that I would be responsible for all legal costs incurred by the dropzone, so basically, I'd have to pay not only my own legal bills, but THEIRS as well, for a lawsuit I'm not gonna win.