Skydiving and FAA regs

On May 21, 1:21*pm, Ricky wrote:
I just got through watching several skydiving videos trying to
motivate myself to plunk down the money to continue my AFF jumps.

As a pilot/mechanic, I have continually been alarmed at the seeming
disregard for federal regulations in the sport, or are they?

Do jump planes operate under a waiver that permits such things as
aerobatic maneuvers, cloud clearance violations, altitude violations,
oxygen violations, and others?

How about jumpers? Do they get a waiver to bust through clouds and
otherwise bust FAA regs as they see fit?

Is skydiving just something where the regs are "swept under the rug"
and not really paid too much attention to and that's just an "accepted
part of the sport?"

I am a somewhat law-abiding and FAA reg-concious person (I'm an a/c
mechanic, too) so perhaps I am being overly-alarmed at the violations
I have witnessed. It's amazing the amount of busts that are freely
videoed, as well.

Any input ya'll may have on this would be appreciated.

Ricky

Define please "aerobatic maneuvers, cloud clearance violations,
altitude violations,
oxygen violations"?

Regs state that oxygen shall be used above 15,500', no bail out bottle
req'd for 22K and below....there is no lower limit except for ground
impact. I've never seen an aerobatic maneuver either in or outside of
a jump aircraft so that's a new one (most jumpers would happily kill
the pilot afterwards though). Cloud clearance issues are usually
unintentional but I've seen that one stretched.

One fine May morning in SE texas we had a clear blue sky on exit but
at some point during the 60 second free fall went from clear to socked
in ground fog. That was a very hairy, scary canopy ride since we
could not see anything on the ground, had no idea where the DZ
was...and of course couldn't see the houses, trees or power lines.

On May 24, 6:47*pm, wrote:

Define please "aerobatic maneuvers,

Aerobatic flight—

No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight

Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
Over an open air assembly of persons;
Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class
C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an
intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s
attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not
necessary for normal flight.

Ricky

On May 24, 10:13*pm, Ricky wrote:
On May 24, 6:47*pm, wrote:

Define please "aerobatic maneuvers,

Aerobatic flight—

No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight

Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
Over an open air assembly of persons;
Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class
C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an
intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s
attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not
necessary for normal flight.

USPA 'best practice' requires a minimum exit altitude of 2K'.

I've never seen or heard of anyone performing what is typically
thought of as aerobatic maneuver, i.e., exiting a pitts special, where
proper authorization had not been obtained.

I think you're reaching on the aerobatic. Do you have a specific
incident?

On Mon, 25 May 2009 05:24:45 -0700, the.sargon wrote:

I think you're reaching on the aerobatic. Do you have a specific
incident?

What about "climbing" as an altitude violation for a jumper?

- Andrew

On 26 May, 03:01, Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2009 05:24:45 -0700, the.sargon wrote:
I think you're reaching on the aerobatic. *Do you have a specific
incident?

What about "climbing" as an altitude violation for a jumper?

Here is a near miss - in UK I believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHA0zvFfH9U

In article
,
bod43 wrote:

On 26 May, 03:01, Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2009 05:24:45 -0700, the.sargon wrote:
I think you're reaching on the aerobatic. *Do you have a specific
incident?

What about "climbing" as an altitude violation for a jumper?

Here is a near miss - in UK I believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHA0zvFfH9U

Might have been in the UK, but the Chipmunk had maple leaf markings on
the wings.

Surely scary enough for all concerned.

On May 25, 9:01*pm, Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2009 05:24:45 -0700, the.sargon wrote:
I think you're reaching on the aerobatic. *Do you have a specific
incident?

What about "climbing" as an altitude violation for a jumper?

* * * * - Andrew

What the heck is climbing?

If you mean BASE jumping then that's not skydiving out of an aircraft
which was the OPs original subject.

What about "climbing" as an altitude violation for a jumper?

- Andrew

What the heck is climbing?

If you mean BASE jumping then that's not skydiving out of an aircraft
which was the OPs original subject.


Best I can tell he was humorously alluding to the fact that skydivers cannot
go back up and that "climbing" would be some sort of altitude violation (or
at the very least a violation of the laws of physics.) ;-)
Of course I could be wrong......

tp

"good grief" wrote in message
...
"climbing" would be some sort of altitude violation (or at the very least a
violation of the laws of physics.) ;-)
Of course I could be wrong......

You are wrong (well, sort of). My gliding instructor was also an avid
skydiver. He took great delight in guiding his jump plane upwind of the
best thermals before he jumped so he could fly into them and circle within
them . He was able to greatly prolong his parachute "flights" and on
occasion, actually climb back up to cloudbase; just like he taught me to do
in the sailplane.

Vaughn

On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:46:36 +0000, good grief wrote:

Best I can tell he was humorously alluding to the fact that skydivers
cannot go back up and that "climbing" would be some sort of altitude
violation (or at the very least a violation of the laws of physics.) ;-)
Of course I could be wrong......

You were right. Oh, well; *I* thought it pretty funny.

- Andrew