Reserve Canopies

[billvon 3,114]

>Which brings us back to the discussion about who should be making
> these type of decisions. If it's truely a safety issue with a piece of
> gear, the FAA should issue an A.D. or the manuf. should ground the
> equipment. Why should the DZO feel he has the right to ground it?

Because it's his airplane and his DZ. You have every right to ask people not to smoke in your house, or allow them to smoke cigarettes but not cigars, even if those activities are completely legal and approved by the FDA.

>I do find it interesting that skydivers generally have no problem with
> a DZO usurping the authority of the FAA or the Manufacturer as long
> as it doesn't affect their gear choice.

There's a difference between "having a problem with it" and "having the right to do it." He can do whatever he wants at his DZ; jumpers can jump wherever they choose.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Which brings us back to the discussion about who should be making
> these type of decisions. If it's truely a safety issue with a piece of
> gear, the FAA should issue an A.D. or the manuf.

Quote

should ground the
> equipment. Why should the DZO feel he has the right to ground it?

Quote

Because it's his airplane and his DZ. You have every right to ask people not to smoke in your house, or allow them to smoke cigarettes but not cigars, even if those activities are completely legal and approved by the FDA.

I wonder how the fact that many of the airports are federally funded would affect this. If an airport manager told me I couldn't fly a particular make and model of an airplane at "his" airport, would the law side with him. Would this authority extend to skydiving operations? Anybody know?

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I wonder how the fact that many of the airports are federally funded would affect this. If an airport manager told me I couldn't fly a particular make and model of an airplane at "his" airport, would the law side with him. Would this authority extend to skydiving operations? Anybody know?

Legally the DZO could probably impose gear restrictions, esp so long as they were universally applied. It might come down to which of you had better connections in forcing a resolution. Or how you brought up the concern with the regulators - if you sounded like Veter, they'd ignore it.

[peckerhead 0]

Friends don't let friends jump non-PD canopies?

Orange again?

Am I sensing a pattern?

[billvon 3,114]

>If an airport manager told me I couldn't fly a particular make and
> model of an airplane at "his" airport, would the law side with him.

In most cases, yes. Many airports have restrictions on what kind of aircraft are allowed to land there.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>If an airport manager told me I couldn't fly a particular make and
> model of an airplane at "his" airport, would the law side with him.

In most cases, yes. Many airports have restrictions on what kind of aircraft are allowed to land there.

I think you are missing the point. If I wanted to fly an aircraft that had proper certification and its flight parameters were within keeping of that particular airport (length of runway etc) could an airport manager prevent me from landing there based on his personal opinion of my plane, if he was receiving federal funds? I think not.

[billvon 3,114]

>could an airport manager prevent me from landing there based on
>his personal opinion of my plane, if he was receiving federal funds?

His personal opinion? If his personal opinion was that it was too dangerous for a private pilot to land his 100% legal, certified plane at an airport with an airshow going on nearby - yes, I suspect even the FAA would back him up. If he just didn't like you and prohibited anyone named Gravitymaster from landing there, the FAA might take notice (but still probably wouldn't, based on how often they listen to minor access issues like that.)

Again, I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make. If a DZO has a personal opinion that Swift 5-cell reserves are unsafe, he has every right to think that, since he runs the DZ. If he just wants to sell more PD reserves, then that's naughty of him - but again, it's his DZ. He does not receive federal funding, so the 'public access' thing doesn't apply.

[riggerrob 643]

Which brings us back to the discussion about who should be making these type of decisions. If it's truely a safety issue with a piece of gear, the FAA should issue an A.D. or the manuf. should ground the equipment. Why should the DZO feel he has the right to ground it?

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

Get with the times!
The FAA has not bothered to issue an Airworthiness Directive about parachutes in years.
Manufacturers are also reluctant to issue Service Bulletins about their older models out of fear that it will leave them open to lawsuits.
Issuing Service Bulletins is a very delicate legal matter.
For example, the Relative Workshop stopped making Vector I reserve pilot chutes back in the late 1980s, because they had weak springs.
RWS never publically stated that there was anything wrong with Vector I pilot chutes, however, riggers banded together and started refusing to repack reserves containing Vector I pilot chutes.
Fortunately, Vector II pilot chutes are a "drop in" upgrade. I have repacked hundreds of Vector Is containing Vector II pilotchutes.
Manufacturers hope that their oldest products will be jumped hard enough that they wear out. Closet queens can be a real headache for manufacturers and riggers. At some point, manufacturers change their policy to say "We will not make any more spare parts for your early XYZ, nor will we repair it. However, we will offer you a discount on a new ABC."

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>could an airport manager prevent me from landing there based on
>his personal opinion of my plane, if he was receiving federal funds?

Quote

His personal opinion? If his personal opinion was that it was too dangerous for a private pilot to land his 100% legal, certified plane at an airport with an airshow going on nearby - yes, I suspect even the FAA would back him up. If he just didn't like you and prohibited anyone named Gravitymaster from landing there, the FAA might take notice (but still probably wouldn't, based on how often they listen to minor access issues like that.)

OK, lets try this again without changing the parameters. Suppose I have an airplane that has a landing gear assembly that is certified and is in complete compliance with all aviation rules. Now suppose an airport manager who doesn't sell any airplanes personally, doesn't profit from the sale of any parts and generally has no interest in what assembly I use, decides, based on his experience that I cannot land at his airport with this plane. Lets further suppose that the airport is receiving federal funding and there are no airshows, carnivals, or any other reasons that he could find to prevent me from storing my plane there and using the runways or other facilities normally made available to other pilots with different aircraft and landing gear assemblys than mine? In other words,can the fact that I have a fully certified landing gear assembly be used as a reason to deny me access to a federally funded airport that others have access to even though I am in compliance with all regulations? I don't know the answer, do you?

Quote

Again, I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make. If a DZO has a personal opinion that Swift 5-cell reserves are unsafe, he has every right to think that, since he runs the DZ. If he just wants to sell more PD reserves, then that's naughty of him - but again, it's his DZ. He does not receive federal funding, so the 'public access' thing doesn't apply.

I can understand it if it is private property and a privately run operation. What if it is public property, though? In this case the DZO doesn't own anything, he's merely leasing space at a publicly funded airport.

• Quote

[billvon 3,114]

>based on his experience that I cannot land at his airport with this plane.

Again, it would depend. If you had an Ercoupe with tiny wheels and he had a gravel runway, he might decide that your landing gear was simply incompatible with his runway, and prohibit you from landing there because he didn't want to be sued. I would support such a decision (if it was up to me) but the FAA might not.

>I can understand it if it is private property and a privately run
> operation. What if it is public property, though? In this case the DZO
> doesn't own anything, he's merely leasing space at a publicly
> funded airport.

I don't think that matters. If you are a fully certified private pilot, and you try to enter a ramp area where you don't have an aircraft stored, you can still be arrested for trespassing, even if you have no evil intent and even if the land is part of a public airport. Businesses that sell sightseeing rides can refuse service to anyone for any reason. I don't see how a DZ is any different.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>based on his experience that I cannot land at his airport with this plane.

Quote

Again, it would depend. If you had an Ercoupe with tiny wheels and he had a gravel runway, he might decide that your landing gear was simply incompatible with his runway, and prohibit you from landing there because he didn't want to be sued. I would support such a decision (if it was up to me) but the FAA might not.

I thought I made myself clear when I said:

Quote

Lets further suppose that the airport is receiving federal funding and there are no airshows, carnivals, or any other reasons that he could find to prevent me from storing my plane there and using the runways or other facilities normally made available to other pilots with different aircraft and landing gear assemblys than mine?

>I can understand it if it is private property and a privately run
> operation. What if it is public property, though? In this case the DZO
> doesn't own anything, he's merely leasing space at a publicly
> funded airport.

I don't think that matters. If you are a fully certified private pilot, and you try to enter a ramp area where you don't have an aircraft stored, you can still be arrested for trespassing, even if you have no evil intent and even if the land is part of a public airport. Businesses that sell sightseeing rides can refuse service to anyone for any reason. I don't see how a DZ is any different.

Quote

Lets further suppose that the airport is receiving federal funding and there are no airshows, carnivals, or any other reasons that he could find to prevent me from storing my plane there and using the runways or other facilities normally made available to other pilots with different aircraft and landing gear assemblys than mine?

Never mind Bill, it's apparent you only want to argue. Thanks for your input.

[nate_1979 9]

Quote

I think you are missing the point. If I wanted to fly an aircraft that had proper certification and its flight parameters were within keeping of that particular airport (length of runway etc) could an airport manager prevent me from landing there based on his personal opinion of my plane, if he was receiving federal funds? I think not.

And in relply to the rest of it, I guess I'm trying to understand what point is trying to be made here.... From my understanding an airport which recieves federal funding can not discriminate between businesses or pilots that want to use the airport, (am I correct on this?) .... If that is true, allowing a dropzone to operate there would be the airport complying with the rules they must follow for federal funding.. The dropzone, not recieving any federal funding, is seperate, and would be allowed to make their own rules just like any other business..

Am I talking out my ass (probably) or am I catching the drift of what's being said here?

FGF #???
I miss the sky...
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.

[Trae 1]

sorry what was I gonna say?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

The year is 2666. You and your clone set ARE required to have a Syn-DroDom-all (SDDa) antigrav device otherwise you aint jumpin' around here.

Ask a silly ?

You said it, not me.