SkyPiggie

Every comment gets tagged onto the end, so that means nothing. To see the trend of "getting the last word" one has to look at the pattern over time, not just the last message.

Do you need more convincing? Item #3 Look at FAA Advisory Circular AC-90-66A, "Recommended Standard Traffic Patterns for Aeronautical Operations at Airports without Operating Control Towers" Source: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf Page 4, paragraph e - "Parachute Operations", sub-paragraph 4:"When a drop zone has been established on an airport, parachutists are expected to land within the drop zone. At airports that have not established drop zones, parachutists should avoid landing on runways, taxiways, aprons, and their associated safety areas..."This clearly indicates that when an airport is a drop zone, then the parachutes are EXPECTED to land on the airport. In other words, it might be considered unsafe for them NOT to land on the designated airport. Thus, once again, paragraph 105.23(c) is irrelevant and does not create a FAR violation. That paragraph only applies when airport management has not granted permission to land there. Is there still anyone out there that remains unconvinced?

Item #2 And to go along with that old version called 105.17, and supporting my interpretation in the last message, here is FAA Advisory Circular 105-2C - see the attached image, below. Source: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/c96c33525870370c862569de005bd7aa/$FILE/AC105-2c.pdf See page 12, paragraph 16. If you have management permission, you can jump over or onto an airport. "Onto an airport" doesn't mean flying 2,000 above it and landing somewhere else - it means just what it says - landing ON the airport. Plain and simple. Perfectly legal! Anyone disagree now?

I've had time to look into this matter in more detail now, and I have three new items to enter into evidence. Item #1 Look at this older version of the same rule, when it was numbered 105.17 - see the attached screen image, below. Source: http://www.std.com/obi/Fly-Old/ASCII/far105.txt The way that one is written, it is very clear that "(b)" alone, "with management permission", is all you need to land a parachute on an airport. That last paragraph has now morphed into a "(c)", and confused everything. But as previously written and shown here, it's clear that the last paragraph only applies if you don't have permission. And that last paragraph, or the new "(c)", just says that if you don't have permission, you can't land there, but you can still fly over it, 2000' above the pattern altitude. So if all of that intent is still true, carried forward into the way the new 105.23 is written, then airport management permission is all you need to land a parachute on an airport. The new "(c)" is then irrelevant, and not binding. It is therefore NOT a violation to land a parachute on an airport, with permission.

If the pattern was filled with aircraft, I would agree. What if the airport is a private one, owned and managed by the DZ, 95% of the air traffic is the DZ plane, and it were rare for any other aircraft to use the runway. Would that be a violation of this FAR to land on your own runway property, which is only rarely used by other aircraft, whose pilots are fully aware of DZ activities? In other words, does rare non-DZ traffic have the right to force skydivers to land off their own airport, when the skydiving operations constitute the large majority of the airport usage?

Okay, I can see that interpretation too. Leave it to the government to put things in such confusing language! So now the opinions we have, in boolean logic, can be summed up as: A or B or C A or (B and C) (A or B) and C And if you're correct, then doesn't that mean that most of the drop zones in America are in violation of this FAR? That's what makes me think there must be something more to this story... Either there's something else that makes drop zones legal with this FAR, or else it's the most widely broken rule in skydiving and the Feds have always ignored it.

I think you two guys have defined the controversy over this FAR. Depending upon how you read it, it could go either way. But putting on my bureaucratic legalese hat, I go with diverdriver on this one. I think it should be interpreted exactly as it's written, and not as someone may think it was intended to be written. The fact is, there are three categories here: (a), (b) and (c). (a) is an airport with a control tower. (b) is an airport without a control tower, with management permission to jump there. (c) is an airport without a control tower, without permission to jump there. As written, I see that it says, if you are in category (b) with permission, then that's all you need. No other requirements are placed upon you, and you can fly through the pattern as necessary. And that makes sense because in that case it would be well known and advertised (NOTAM) that parachute operations occur there, and the pilots who fly there will be aware of that. If (c) was to be a condition associated with (b), then it should be a (1) instead, just as category (a) has conditions (1), (2) and (3). But it's not written that way. So, in the case of (c), that's separate and distinct from (b), and not related to it. That would be for flying a parachute over an uncontrolled (no tower) airport where you do not have permission to land. And in that case, the parachute flight restrictions also make perfect sense, because the pilots would not be expecting parachutes at such an airport, so they shouldn't be unexpectedly appearing in the pattern. I think there may be a tendency when reading this to connect (c) to (b), because it's a bit confusing. Indentation would make it more clear, as Tom did. But the paragraph lettering clearly separate these two as different. I would re-write is as follows, for clarity:Federal Aviation Regulation Parachute Operations Sec. 105.23 Parachute operations over or onto airports. No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft, over or onto any airport unless-- (a) For airports with an operating control tower:(1) Prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport. (2) Approval has been obtained from the control tower to conduct parachute operations over or onto that airport. (3) Two-way radio communications are maintained between the pilot of the aircraft involved in the parachute operation and the control tower of the airport over or onto which the parachute operation is being conducted.(b) For airports without an operating control tower, where prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport. (c) For airports without an operating control tower, without prior approval from the management of the airport, a parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground.Therefore, at an uncontrolled airport, with management permission to land there (case (b)), it is NOT a violation of this FAR for skydivers to be flying their parachutes through the pattern, or landing their parachutes on or near the runways. That's my take on it. There are bound to be some FAA rulings to this effect out there, or otherwise skydiving would be shut down at many locations all over the country. Can anyone cite any such FAA rulings? Now I'm taking that hat off, because thinking like a bureaucrat hurts my head. - SkyPiggie signing out

I would like some knowledgeable people to comment upon FAR 105.23(c), as shown below. Federal Aviation Regulation Parachute Operations Sec. 105.23 Parachute operations over or onto airports. No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft, over or onto any airport unless-- (a) For airports with an operating control tower: (1) Prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport. (2) Approval has been obtained from the control tower to conduct parachute operations over or onto that airport. (3) Two-way radio communications are maintained between the pilot of the aircraft involved in the parachute operation and the control tower of the airport over or onto which the parachute operation is being conducted. (b) For airports without an operating control tower, prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport. (c) A parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground.Let's say that the uncontrolled airport has a traffic pattern of 1,000'. Therefore, skydivers would be forbidden anywhere underneath 3,000' around that airport. How can this be so, when there are parachute centers conducting operations all over the country at uncontrolled airports, and landing on airport property? What am I missing?

If you are talking about Spaceland then the runway is 3400 feet. I've said repeatedly that I'm not talking about any specific drop zone, but rather, just a specific set of circumstances. When I said "length available", I was referring to the amount used for the downwind takeoff, starting from the boarding point, not the total runway length. Everyone please quit trying to attribute this to a specific DZ.

Actually, the DZ I was thinking of doesn't operate a Caravan. So, once again, I'm not picking on any particular DZ. But your interpretation of circumstances just goes to show that the scenario described can fit at many different drop zones. So this issue is not about any one place in particular, but about a general practice at many places. Therefore, we shouldn't be singling out here any one place as the target for negative inferences. I don't want this to be an attack piece on one drop zone. I want it to be a generalized discussion about the pros and cons of this kind of procedure.

I've added the following comment to my original post: I'm intentionally omitting the name of the dropzone, as I'm not here to cast negative images at anyone. And thinking about my description, it could describe numerous dropzones that I've visited in my career. So let's just keep it generic.

Let's say the worst case scenario, on a 100-degree day, with 2500 feet of runway, and a full load. What wind speed would be too high for a down-wind take-off? I'm not sure what a "unicom field" means. It's a private strip with no tower, where the pilots handle traffic control on their own over their radios. There's almost no other traffic besides the jump plane.

I haven't actually measured it. There's the end of the runway, then a strip of grass, a road, and the power line on the far side of the road. Maybe it's more like 200 feet. But I don't think it's 400. The power line has those orange balls clamped on it for visibility, where it goes past the end of the runway.

I have a situation upon which I would like some opinions, regarding whether or not a common practice is deemed safe. The particulars: A dropzone flies a Super-Otter, fully loaded with 22 jumpers aboard. It often takes off down-wind for convenience, to avoid a long taxi to the far end of the runway, saving cycle time between loads. It does this on light-wind days, when the wind is 15 mph or less. The runway length available is 2,500 feet. There is a power line 100' off the far end of the runway, about 20' high. There is an additional 700' of runway at the near end that is unused, again to save taxi time. In other words, the total runway length is 3,200'. The boarding area is 700' from one end, and 2,500 from the other end. Instead of taxiing from the boarding area to the far end of the runway so it can be into the wind, it just takes off from the boarding area using the 2,500' stretch, down wind. Nor does it taxi down to the closer end of the runway, for the additional 700' of length for a down wind take off. The Otter is always airborne within 1,000' to 1,500', leaving plenty of runway to spare, and clears the far end of the runway at an altitude of 500' to 750'. The Otter is designed to do short-field take offs. It's a Super-Otter with additional horsepower engines over a standard Otter. The fuel load is kept light, re-fueling every 2nd load, with about 60 gallons. The runway is paved, and there are flat pastures beyond the end of the runway, on the other side of the power line. Question: Do you consider a down-wind take-off in these conditions to be safe, or unsafe? I'm intentionally omitting the name of the dropzone, as I'm not here to cast negative images at anyone. And thinking about my description, it could describe numerous dropzones that I've visited in my career. So let's just keep it generic. I'm an active jumper at this DZ. I'm not a lawyer or whuffo trolling for negative opinions. I just want honest opinions from experienced jumpers and pilots.

One of the meanest men on Texas' death row is scheduled to be walked to the execution chamber tonight. Leon Dorsey, does not plan to die quietly. In the more than eight years since a jury sentenced him in the execution-style murders of two White Rock-area Blockbuster Video store employees, he has earned a reputation as a violent, uncooperative, dangerous death row inmate. Among his 95 infractions during his time on death row, Mr. Dorsey, 32, was cited for possession of weapons, assaulting and threatening to injure staff, refusing to obey orders and starting a fire outside his cell. His history of misbehavior has kept him at the highest level of lockdown... http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/081208dnmetdorsey.43a6cf8.html Let's see if the anti-death penalty liberals care as much about this American prisoner as they did about the executed Mexican. Attached: Photos of the murderer, and of his two victims. (I can't find a photo for the 51-year-old Oriental female who was his previous murder victim.)

Attack kills 16 police In an audacious and deadly attack just days ahead of the Beijing Olympics, two men from a mainly Muslim ethnic group rammed a truck and hurled explosives at jogging policemen in China's restive far west Monday, killing 16. The attack bore the hallmarks of local Muslim militants. Two Uighur men rammed a dump truck into 70 border patrol paramilitary police as they passed the Yiquan Hotel during a routine early morning jog in the city of Kashgar. After the truck hit an electrical pole, the pair jumped out, ignited the homemade explosives and "hacked the policemen with knives." Fourteen officers were killed on the spot and two others died on the way to the hospital, while another 16 officers were wounded. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jf4L5ib03dPJ1ov5Vv6jQTQqmMFAD92BQ1C80 Feel the love!

"Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican national convicted of the 1993 rape and murder of two Texas girls, was executed Tuesday night in Texas after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant a reprieve. "Medellin was 18 when he and five fellow gang members raped Elizabeth Pena, 16, and Jennifer Ertman, 14, then beat and strangled them. Medellin later boasted to friends about the deed..." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-execute6-2008aug06,0,2738895.story Adios, asshole.

What does "blagged" mean?

From the Wall Street Journal: What Bush and Batman Have in Common A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . . Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W." There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past. And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell. "The Dark Knight," then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror... Complete article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121694247343482821.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

So how come the governor thinks that help from the National Guard is necessary if you've got all those fancy gun control laws in place? Are you going to be happy seeing soldiers patrolling the streets with M-16 rifles?

Quote: "The overall crime rate has been on a general rate of decline... following a long-term downward trend that began in the mid-1970s."What a coincidence. That's the same crime trend that we've seen in America. And America doesn't have the same strict gun control measures that Canada has. So that kind of destroys your theory that strict gun control is responsible for the downward trend. Oh well... There is no causal correlation between gun control measures and crime rates, anywhere. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html

Is that respect tempered any by the fact that he was an illegal drug runner and did felony prison time?

A viola is a musical instrument. Did you mean "voila"?

Self defense IS a human rights issue. If you're willing to ignore rights abuses in other places, then you don't have room to complain when those same abuses come to your own home town. You need to "nip it in the bud", like Barney Fife used to say. Then there is this quote: "In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then, they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics. I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up." - Reverend Martin Niemoller, German Lutheran pastor arrested by the Gestapo, 1937, a decorated U-Boat skipper during WWI.If gun owners don't fight these abuses, wherever they occur, then it allows the abuses to spread unchecked, until one day, they end up like Rev. Niemoller. Quade: Are you really afraid that cute little ole' Nightingale is going to murder someone with her concealed handgun?

Obama on guns, from Reason Magazine: http://www.reason.com/news/show/125180.html He does the usual namby-pamby liberal politician double-talk: First he says he supports the 2nd Amendment constitutional right. Then he says he approves of local jurisdictions banning guns if they want to. You can't have it both ways. If local jurisdictions can ban them from law-abiding citizens, then it's not a constitutional right, and the 2nd Amendment means nothing. So I guess, according to Obama, you have the right to own a gun, as long as somebody doesn't object to it, then you don't have the right to own a gun. Okay, have you got it now? Oh, by the way, he's also supported a ban on all handguns, and also on all semi-auto long guns. Yeah, just like England has done. And this is who this gun organization supports? These guys are wolves in sheep's clothing. They're just pretending to be pro-gun, when in fact, they're about as anti-gun as you can get. And anybody that thinks that Obama is the best candidate to protect your gun rights is an idiot.