ltdiver 3 #1 May 30, 2002 This sucks!Just listed on USPA's web site today:-----------------------------------------------------------USPA Asks to Update Regulations (05/29)The U.S. Department of Transportation could ban some items commonly carried on aircraft for jumping as "hazardous material." To prevent problems, USPA is working with DOT to expand the current list of items jumpers may take up. Currently 49 CFR 175.10 (a)(9) allows only "smoke grenades, flares, or similar devices carried only for use during a sport parachute jumping activity." Though the provision had rarely, if ever, been enforced, it has the potential to eliminate skydiving with any powered device that could be deemed to be a hazardous material.Specifically, USPA is asking DOT to revise the regulation to include portable light systems, oxygen systems, flotation devices, and automatic activation devices. ____________________________________________LightDiverCam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 May 30, 2002 That doesn't suck -- that's GREAT!That's exactly the sort of thing that the USPA is supposed to do for us -- find parts of the regulations that might give us problems and lobby to get them fixed.It should be noted that if at any point any FAA inspector worth their salt walked onto a dropzone, they could probably find something they could use to close down the operation. Fortunately, generally speaking, FAA / DZ relations are pretty good and the USPA does a pretty damn good job of keeping them off our backs as far as regulations go.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #3 May 30, 2002 Guess I shoulda clarified. I thought this problem had already been fixed last year with USPA's dialogue with the FAA. Publications on the subject were listed and printed.So....my comment about 'this sucks' wasn't against USPA (yeah, they are on the ball with this one...and thanks!). It was a comment against the DOT and their long arm that seems to be reaching into our rigs again.Hope this explains,ltdiver ;^)____________________________________________LightDiverCam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 May 30, 2002 And I don't think that's really much of an issue either.For the most part, these regulations were made in a much simpler time and over the years and things have come up they have been interpreted to include all sorts of exceptions. I think what the USPA is doing is asking to have them changed to reflect what is in reality already being allowed. The legal interps carry the weight of law, but they're kind of a pain in the ass to look up. Sort of like another issue we've been talking about, only turned WAY up.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #5 May 30, 2002 Quoteit has the potential to eliminate skydiving with any powered device that could be deemed to be a hazardous material.So...are they going to do away with the requirement for strobes on jumpers at night? A strobe is usually powered by a Lithium battery which is definately a hazardous material. I think they will be walking on egg shells with this one. "Here I come to save the BOOBIES!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 May 30, 2002 Strobes don't have to be powered by lithium batteries. Mine for instance is powered be a single D-cell.However, I don't think any of these folks are going to do anything too rash and throw out commonly accepted practices. They really are pretty reasonable. Hell, they said a Cypres cutter wasn't hazarous!quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
