stratostar 5 #1 July 5, 2012 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-07-03/html/2012-15912.htm As many people now know the FAA has now released for public comments their proposed "Parachute Landing Area" requirements. There is another thread going about this subject, the problem is that thread is already so full of off subject crap it's no longer worth reading it to wade through all the crap in order to get the good info. So where did this all come from? And why is the FAA doing this? Well some of you here may remember this thread "Know your rights" and a few other airport access threads I have been following for the last 5 yrs and posting on. All of this PLA stuff is not new, it's been an on going study for 2 yrs. now. Four years ago I tried to do some jumping and was told a whole host of lies as to why I couldn't jump in whole county wide area of class E airspace and use a federal funded airport for parachute operations, this lead to filing a part 13 informal with the FAA. After many months of work & back and forth with the airport board/airport manger & the FAA... a safety study was done and found in favor of skydiving, the airport was told to comply or not. They choose the or not and drafted a letter to the FAA telling the FAA to stick it and they "the FAA" didn't know what they were talking about. (for example) one of the areas I said would be well suited for a LZ, a 470 yrd x 470 yrd x 370 yrd triangle in the middle of the airport..... the city, to the FAA, quoted the sims that says: "parachute landing areas must/should not be in areas with power lines" then they marked on an aerial all the under ground power lines to all the runway lights on the airport property. You should note, each and every grass area large enough to comply with the current rules, all contain some form of under ground wires, like all airports do! Here we are four years later, and a two year study on PLA's done by the FAA.... USPA has been working hard on this issue, like it or not the table is set and your invited to dinner and let them know how you like the taste of the dish being offered. The Why: Why did the FAA do this study and now try to make this change? Last I knew there were 12 airport access cases in the US still pending a directors ruling. Two years ago the FAA got sick of dealing with the kind of crap and game playing (example above) that airport sponsors have been doing to "limit, ban or restrict" types, kind & classes of approved activities, like skydiving. Seeing how skydiving is the most "picked on" by pilots, airport boards and airport management and it most likely one of the top informal complaints towards airport sponsors??? So now the FAA (two yrs ago) stopped all rulings, findings, or action on any part 13 cases, there is no time limit anyway on those, unlike a part 16 formal complaint. $$$$ The FAA told all ADO's & FSDO to not take action till this study was conducted, a 24 month process, pretty much. So every one here who is getting off topic over on the other thread, the fact of the matter is your all wrong, and while all those topics you are bringing up are important and don't help matters in how wuffo's, pilots, airport sponsors & board members, and YES even the FAA, all see our activities. The bottom line on this, is that, this is all about the ongoing conflicts with those seeking to operate on federal funded airport and or airport sponsors kicking off dz's via harassment & violations of the grant funding contract. It's a very complex issue, we have even seen FAA field inspectors over stepping their bounds in enforcing, or making statements of fact out of the scope of thier duties, or not understanding the FAR's or under taking actions and statements that are ATC's area of control. This has made some cases I know of more difficult because a airport sponsor is told wrongly they were correct "it would NOT be safe for skydiving on the airport" only to be over ruled later by higher up's, but the city still thinks the DZO is paying off someone or pulling a fast one some how..... see Cresswell Org. http://www.kxl.com/02/15/12/Skydivers-Arent-Falling-For-This/landing_lars.html?blockID=587404&feedID=10628 It's all about airport access people and we've talking about this for sometime. Listen up, pay attention to USPA on this one and then in a professional manner and after careful review of the info, use the USPA guidance to draft your reply to the FAA. Get educated people & Choose your words wisely!!! 1. http://www.uspa.org/NewsEvents/News/tabid/59/Default.aspx#28587 2. http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/News/FAAProposal070312.pdfyou can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #2 July 5, 2012 Well, it sounds like the rules then could help with airport access. As long as teh airport has an area that meets the requirements then the airport sponsor no longer can attempt to prohibit skydiving on the basis of "don't have a suitable landing area" Whether the proposed landing standard is the right one or not, I don't know and haven't yet looked into it enough. I would say that if we think the requirement is too large, it would be good to suggest an alternative and the basis on which that alternative is based."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #3 July 5, 2012 Hi SS BingoSome jumpers don't get it and never willThis isn't about jumpers running into ea other in the air or hurting themselves because they can't land a perfectly good canopy. The USPA GMDZ's can take care of that themselves The PLA issue is a trojan horse to get around the airport access problems. That is the real issue. Now that the cards are on the table maybe this problem can finally be resolved and clear the "backlog" of the pending Airport access cases in favor of the DZ's. Good luck R. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deisel 38 #4 July 6, 2012 Thanks for posting this. Funny how a couple of facts get in the way of all the other bullshit.The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #5 July 6, 2012 Quote Hi SS BingoSome jumpers don't get it and never willThis isn't about jumpers running into ea other in the air or hurting themselves because they can't land a perfectly good canopy. The USPA GMDZ's can take care of that themselves The PLA issue is a trojan horse to get around the airport access problems. That is the real issue. Now that the cards are on the table maybe this problem can finally be resolved and clear the "backlog" of the pending Airport access cases in favor of the DZ's. Good luck R. Have you thought about the "facts" that the anti-skydivers have been using as their ammo? Do you think it hasn't been a point of discussion for those pushing their agenda? One brick at a time our house of skydiving is being dismantled and we are our own worst enemy.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #6 July 6, 2012 The future of skydiving in this country is private property. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #7 July 6, 2012 QuoteWell, it sounds like the rules then could help with airport access. As long as teh airport has an area that meets the requirements then the airport sponsor no longer can attempt to prohibit skydiving on the basis of "don't have a suitable landing area" Well yea that it in a nut shell.... In my current case, the city would be screwed big time. However, this could kill or be a major hurt to other operators. What if this forced some place like Deland to close? Would you support that? If I could have a win for me, but it forced Deland to close, we then I can't support that change. Not sure at this point how I will respond, but respond I will. Currently, I think this is utter bullshit and a total waste of tax payer monies and time and this lack of enforcing the current rules has kept a number of people unemployed for the last 5 yrs. I think the FAA needs to stop wasting time and money and enforce the rules we have on the books of airport compliance.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #8 July 6, 2012 What are the landing area sizes required by this proposal for students and experienced jumpers? I can understand not wanting to include active runways in that size, but disagree with excluding taxiways.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SethInMI 174 #9 July 6, 2012 the landing sizes are in this draft AC: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/draft_150_5300_13_chg19.pdf I attached a screen shot of the relevant page. For students, it is the equivalent area to a 200m diameter circle, for tandems a 100m diameter circle, and for experienced (licensed) jumpers a 24m circle, if this goes through, it most likely only a problem for student programs. At one DZ that I jump at under the new rules the main landing area would have a PLA of approx 200,000 sq feet, (a 620x330 ft rectangle), so students would not be able to land there, and would have to land a long way away, a logistical PITA because the radio person would have to be driven out there. I don't see much good in the new rules. A circular area PLA is best because it is independent of wind direction. A larger area that is a narrow rectangle is going to be LESS safe if the wind is cross wind, and if it is farther from the hanger it could involve more runway and taxiway crossings by walking or riding jumpers heading back to the hanger. SethIt's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #10 July 6, 2012 338,000 square feet is 7.7 acres. That seems way way overkill for students. As I stated in the other thread they appear to have landing area confused with landing pattern area.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hillson 0 #11 July 6, 2012 Notwithstanding the "shape" issue for student landing areas this is the same as the current BSR. 100m radial distance is the same as a 200m diameter circle. In the appendix where the FAA describes how they developed the proposal they state something to the effect of: we incorporate the BSR for the least experienced jumpers into our reg for PLA sizes for the least experienced jumpers. I tend to agree with the USPA that the real issue is the classification of runways and taxiways (ie: asphalt) as hazards. When they looked at the regs for uk/Canada/Ireland it looks as though the FAA ignores the larger PLA requirements for those countries (our BSR is smaller) BUT incorporated the asphalt hazard requirement of NZ and SA. I think the key to understanding the access fight and the proposed "solutions" can be found in the surveys they gave to airport operators, dzos, and jumpers. Outside of basic questions about the PLAs there are some pointed ones: have you / are you aware of jumpers running into parked aircraft; how long does it take you to un-ass from the LZ once you've landed, do you have to cross and active runway or taxiway; do most jumpers hit the LZ; how often do you have jumpers land off the designated LZ; and perhaps most importantly: what is the PLAN when jumpers land off the LZ near movement areas - have you been briefed on what to do in such instance - is there an agreement with the airport for jumpers crossing movement areas etc To ensure that the active airport surfaces are NOT included in radial hazard requirements I think these are the key questions that need to be answered. On phone so sorry no clicky but all the data can be found here where the FAA explains how they determined the proposed "fixes" - a bit more instructive than the proposed circular I think... http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AR11-30PLAAirports.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hillson 0 #12 July 6, 2012 Maybe it does double the area...now not sure. I was just making a 100m radius circle...as I was assuming 100m in every direction which I don't know is actually the case...but I assume it is a good assumption. Who know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TampaPete 52 #13 July 7, 2012 Approximate dimensions for rectangular and triangular LZ's. Dimensions are feet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #14 July 17, 2012 Everyone been reading their USPA news letter today and getting up to speed on this issue? Has anyone commented yet to the FAA?you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #15 July 17, 2012 Quote Everyone been reading their USPA news letter today and getting up to speed on this issue? Has anyone commented yet to the FAA? You know some of us have. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #16 July 17, 2012 The FAA needs to act. To act, they need to have standards to follow. Those that think the govt is the solution to every problem need to understand how the govt operates. This is a prime example."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #17 July 17, 2012 We have standards in place now that the FAA has not been enforcing or selectively enforcing in some parts of the country. We don't need additional layers of crap to wade through in order to get permission to jump, that will take up to months to get approval or a denial. Also, no reason change years of standards by now making new hazards out of what is now a non hazard. This whole PLA study has been nothing but a waste of tax payer money and a waste of time for all involved. The FAA only needs to enforce it's current standards on airport sponsors and hold them accountable to the grant funding contracts they singed and agreed too in exchange for our tax dollars. A simple mandate or FAA order of compliance sent to each and every airport sponsor that makes clear to them skydiving is an approved use and denials for unjust reasons will result in no funding and repayment of funding would be mandatory, would change a great deal of current airport sponsors who are causing problems and not complying with their agreed contracts for funding.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Divalent 147 #18 July 17, 2012 If I'm reading the proposal (as summarized in the USPA information) and the discussion/opinions here correctly, the good thing about the FAA doing this is that it proposes to put in place an *objective* standard for what is a safe landing zone, as opposed to the *subjective* one that EXISTS NOW. (i.e., if a proposed LZ meets the dimensions in the new standard, then it is, by definition, safe, and airport folks can't come up with silly/trivial/bizzare/phony reasons why it is unsafe). So it should streamline the approval process with regards to this one issue. But that the bad thing about what they are proposing is the specific standard for what a safe landing zone has to be. (e.g., the proposed dimensions are not reasonable, and it excludes areas (such as taxiways) that aren't a problem now). Is that a fair assessment of what is at play here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #19 July 17, 2012 pretty much. However, there is the not much "streamlining" of anything, this will add a great deal of time for approval to jump, unlike now a verbal from airport manger is all that is needed. Also, like in my pending case the airport sponsor, has just spent 350K to draw up a new airport master plan.... now if they have to go back a redo a part of it to add in a PLA, how much do you think that will cost? Do you think that cost wouldn't passed on to any operators currently operating or any new DZ seeking to access a FFA. Also the marking of a PLA, not needed and could also become another cost to pass along to operators..... SO just how much are you willing to pay for a lift ticket in the future? 35, 40, 50 bucks?you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #20 July 17, 2012 Quote we have even seen FAA field inspectors over stepping their bounds in enforcing, or making statements of fact out of the scope of thier duties, or not understanding the FAR's or under taking actions and statements that are ATC's area of control. Seattle used to have a FSDO supervisor (whom I knew) that hated skydivers and skydiving and used his resources to harass one of the most reputable DZ's for quite some time. Those FAA inspectors are often enamored with pilots and couldn't care less about skydivers. I agree with every bit of your statement. Please, everyone, email the FAA with input on this Notice of Proposed Rule Making for the PLA. It's your chance to make your voice heard. We've defeated other goofball proposals over the years. I sure want this one defeated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #21 July 17, 2012 QuoteNotice of Proposed Rule Making John, please note this is not a NOPRM. I made that mistake before too in post about 4mos ago and..... well lets just say Randy O's phone started ringing off the hook @ HQ and he was not real happy about it, at the time. This is just "new standards" and not a rule change (for now). However as USPA has pointed out in their letters to the FAA, what they are proposing would in fact require such rule making, in order to change 105.23B. This is still open to public comments, as it should be.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #22 July 17, 2012 Thanks Strat, for keeping people informed on what's real and what isn't. Letter(s) to FAA sent from here. Many people thought this was a NOPRM here, too. I'm glad you made it clear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #23 July 17, 2012 Negative NPRM, check. I've already sent my email. Our DZ is planning a push to get a lot of jumper response to this one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #24 July 17, 2012 QuoteWe have standards in place now that the FAA has not been enforcing or selectively enforcing in some parts of the country. *We* is the USPA and not the FAA. What I said was the *FAA* needs standards to regulate. If you think otherwise, then you know nothing about the FAA or government in general. QuoteWe don't need additional layers of crap to wade through in order to get permission to jump, that will take up to months to get approval or a denial. *We* clearly DO need something since you are having problem getting access to an airport and others are having problems on other airports. QuoteAlso, no reason change years of standards by now making new hazards out of what is now a non hazard. You falsely think the FAA is going to blindly accept the USPA's standards. Here is a hint.... When a guy with a new 182 has spent 400k and even the guy with a ragged out 182 has paid 40k dollars to be on the airport.... They have more pull than a skydiver. You should have already learned this with your dealings with local politicians. QuoteThis whole PLA study has been nothing but a waste of tax payer money and a waste of time for all involved. Welcome to govt involvement! QuoteThe FAA only needs to enforce it's current standards on airport sponsors and hold them accountable to the grant funding contracts they singed and agreed too in exchange for our tax dollars. Again THE FAA HAS NO CURRENT STANDARDS related to parachute landing areas. The USPA has some standards but that is not the same thing."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #25 July 29, 2012 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4350624;#4350624 Everyone get and read the Aug. parachutist mag on this pressing issue? So, who all is still thinking your play ground are safe? Time to comment is limited, get your ducks in a row people.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
