base363

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.

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.

I heard last night that there may be a news letter (for airport managers) containing information on how to keep skydiving off your airport. Anyone heard of such a thing?

Yes. We claimed that this was discrimination toward skydiving. We claimed that our activity was singled out. The FAA said that they had made their decision and that if we wanted to pursue the issue we would have to file a part 16 complaint. The USPA said that while we could pursue that avenue, the FAA had given them indications that we would lose the complaint. Once a judge made that ruling, it would eliminate the only defense we have now. Claim we have the right to use the airport under the grant assurances, and hope for the best result on a case by case basis.

Your not missing anything. That is the argument we have been making all along. The FAA just doesn't see it that way. The FAA published a memo covering this issue years ago. (don't have the info in front of me now, so I'm paraphrasing) Anyway, the memo says that can't discriminate but they can require insurance and charge fees to cover the cost. The end result is, regarless of what we have been led to believe, federally funded airports can require insurance that is not available. 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. They might as well require Santa Cluaus to fly the jump plane. 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. "We find no merit in your complaint"

I'm wondering what the FAA position is regarding a funded airport providing some user groups with insurance, but not providing the same coverage to other groups. It is an interesting issue. The FAA's position is that requiring a $1 mil policy is reasonable. That's the point of the whole thing. We have been duped into believing that we have a right to use these airports. Finally, after 2 1/2 years, we have finally came to the realization we don't . If we did, we would be jumping there right now.

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 people on these city councils have no knowledge of what skydiving is all about. They make their decisions based on "Whats easiest for me right now?" emotions. Cliche's like "The waiver isn't worth the paper it's written on!" carry the weight. And if they believe they can be personally held liable for the actions of someone else, they don't want anything to do with it. The easiest thing to do is ban the activity and say it's in the best interest of the community. That way they cover their asses and it sounds like they are doing it for the public good. The FAA backs them up, or has twice in our case. The USPA hopes no one else notices and continues to espouse the claim the we have a right to use publicly funded airports

Currently, the city's policy is that no skydiving related activities will be allowed on the airport. For about 3 hours, two weeks ago, the city attorney said we couldn't even take off with skydivers! The FAA did put a stop to that, but upheld the insurance requirement. Anyway, they won't officially even let us practice exits with tandem students. Not letting us practice is a safety issue that I believe makes them more likely to be exposed to a lawsuit. The airport manager has been working hard for us, and secured access to land in a field next to the airport. So that's what we are doing. It's not the worst situation, but it also puts landing parachutes on the downwind for the 14 runway. So, by banning skydiving at the airport, they have effectively made the jump operation less safe for the jumpers and general aviation activities.

I've talked to AOPA and they were of no help either. They have lawyers who specialize in aviation, but offered no solution. Their lawyer said there was nothing he could do. Bottom line is the FAA is endorsing the airport's requirements. USPA doesn't want to act on this because they are afraid that if it goes to court, a judge will side with the FAA and that will set the precedence. Well, the precedence has already been set. In order to be in compliance with the FAR's, you must have land owners permission prior to jumping. As soon as the airport denies you access, you must cease the activity. The next step is to wait for the FAA to make a ruling. It took them almost 2 years to tell us they could legally stop skydiving. We then moved to Belle Fourche who welcomed us initially. Then, like a cancer, the insurance guy in Belle came-up with the same scenario as in Spearfish. They had obviously been talking. I'm afraid that any DZ that is not on the best of terms with the local community could be shut down just like us. We have went through the whole process only to realize that we DON'T have a right to jump at a federally funded airport. Want to shut down skydiving? Here's the recipe! Like the cancer analogy, USPA can ignore it and die a slow death, or treat it aggressively and hope to survive. I'm really wondering what I've been paying for these last 20 years? A magazine I don't read about people I don't know? Oh, and if your not a group member DZ you are treated as if you are somehow unsafe. Oh yea, you have to be a member to jump at other DZ's. Or what's going to be left of them. By the way, we require AAD's for all Jumpers. How much more restrictive could that be?

This is a group member dz. Black Hills Air Sports. We have been in operation since 1990. The USPA insurance is 50K and covers 3rd parties. Not participants. What the airports are asking for is: "suppose a skydiver gets killed, then the family sues us for damages. We want to be covered against such a suit in the amount of $1mil, and we want the jumper to pay for the insurance too". USPA will direct you to Falcon Insurance, which specializes in skydiving coverage. They do provide policies that look good on the surface, but the fine print always excludes any coverage for the jumper. Even the aircraft insurance only covers 3rd parties. Like someone's house or car as long as they have nothing to do with the skydiving activity.

Black Hills/Clyde Ice Field in Spearfish South Dakota and now Belle Fourche airport in South Dakota. The USPA has make a lot of phone calls and offers moral support, but has no power to do anything about this. The FAA simply feels requiring skydiving participants to have a $1 mil policy covering the airport is a reasonable request. The problem is that most airport liability policies exclude the act of parachuting. This leaves the airport and directors open to any suit. They claim they aren't discriminating because the other activities are covered under their existing policy. Just try to purchase a $1 mil skydiving policy? Doesn't exist.

If you think this can't happen, it already does! 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. We have been kicked-off two federally funded airports in the last two years because of this. The FAA has formally said that this insurance was a reasonable requirement, and the USPA could do nothing to help. USPA is supposed to be holding an insurance summit soon, but in the meantime all operations at federally funded airports are in jeopardy. I believe the only solution is a grass roots effort to enact legislation limiting liability exposure to these airports. Anyone else have suggestions or possible solutions to this?

http://www.blackhillsairsports.com/Fredspage.html

Fred experienced a P/C in tow. He had probably experienced the same problem before, as on the way to the DZ he had talked to another jumper about getting a new pilot chute. The main did finally deploy, however, he had cut-away while towing the P/C. The main detached at this point. (No RSL) Note: The USPA recommended procedure for a P/C in tow is to deploy the reserve without cutting away. He continued in FF for 1 to 2 seconds before initiating the reserve deployment sequence. The reserve reached line stretch just prior to impact. Fred was wearing heavy gloves, but had worn the same type for years with no problems. While this could have created a problem with pulling the reserve ripcord handle, it is just speculation. I believe the Sheriff's office used the gloves as a possible explanation because it was something they could understand. Fred was jumping a Stewart Systems Sweethog built in 1985. No RSL, No Cypress. He had over 4000 jumps and had been in the sport since 1976. Fred was always giving back to the sport, and enjoyed helping new jumpers. He will be deeply missed.

I think it's important to look at the profiles! It amazes me to see how people with so little experience can make such prophetic observations as to how things work? The problem is that younger jumpers buy into these things because they sound good, then go out to the dz and try to emulate high speed landings or fly canopies that are way above their experience level. If someone is interested in learning how to fly a canopy, sitting behind a computer is just not the way to go about it. Then again, who's to say the profiles are all that accurate anyway?

Anybody know of two girls, Karen and Mandy, from South Africa who traveled the U.S. back in the early 90's? If so please let me know. Thanks, base363

If your set on a cross braced canopy, you might want to consider the Xaos. Openings and swoops are great, and so is the price.

Cool! Be careful, and make sure you get good instruction! Not much fun when people get hurt trying to have a good time. Congratulations!!!

Over the last 20 years and 3600 Jumps ~205 Exit weight, 4000' field elevation T10 Para-commander Strato-Star Manta Unit III Raven 3 Pursuit 230 Interceptor 225 AR-7 191 Johnathon 150 Jedi 120 FX 93 Xaos 78

any information on re-sizing a hanson helmet?

looking for information on re-sizing a Hanson low-profile camera helmet. Any help?