stratostar

I paid 25 bucks to make a currency jump last year ON safety day, and was told no discount for a hop n pop @ 4 or 5 K because it cost the DZO more in tac time to slow down so I could get out on a tandem with video load. That was a pretty clear message to a fun jumper IMHO. I should have gong to the other DZ for a 15 to 5. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Based on the text about the request for money & fuel tank for jet A, I would say yes Mr. Mann is the FBO owner. The denial for Jet A has two meanings. As said once before some of you may want to start reading and understanding "through the fence". (hint) Not because you ARE a "through the fence" operator, BUT because more then likely this airport sponsor is going to start making such claims as ONE reason for denial of airport access to "other skydivers". (a common claim seen under the right conditions) This airport sponsor may? have a legal right to boot off ASC, the minutes of the meeting cite no facts for the lease denial. This sponsor may or may not be in violation of grant assurances. We would need more info to have a clear idea. While it's clear to most of the skydiving industry ASC's owners are low class white trash con men who give the sport a black eye by ripping off a lot of people. (fact) However they still have industry support for a lot of BIG dz's. With that aside, you as a skydiver need to ask yourself, 1. Do I want to see ASC kicked off even if violations of grant assurances are used to get rid of them, and the airport sponsor gets away with on the FAA level? or 2. I only want to see ASC kicked off under legal means without any violations of the grant assurances and if grant assurances are in fact being violated under the grant assurances by the airport sponsor, I do not believe they should get away with it and the FAA will need to be involved to settle the matter, regardless of my personal feelings towards ASC and it's owners business model. If you answer #1, well then you have no room to bitch when your own DZ starts getting shut down and kicked off in violation of federal law. Just food for thought. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Clearly you've never met Bob. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

1. Yes in fairness to you, because your the one who said YOU remembered the guy and he had a spinal issue. 2. I emailed the video poster via youtube, that person called me personally and provided facts as to their medical conditions and their jump. 3. I will not apologize to the TI, not because he works for scumbags, but because I have not bashed the TI in question. I saw a very little flair if any, that is MHO like it or not, seen the same shit at a lot of places not just ASC. 4. I stand by my posts, I checked your facts and reported what I found. I have bashed the video guy in this thread, I still stand by my post, that video flying sucks ass and is rookie at best, and if this SOP for that dz, then your ripping off people by selling sub par videos. I will hand it to you though it's not the worst example of shit video I seen sold to people, just last night I found way worse being sold regularly some where over the rainbow . you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Here is how it works: 1. Do nothing other then collect a DZ's money to join GM program. 2. If someone complains, do nothing, but talk the party line on phone or emails. 3. Once more then one person complains, still do nothing 4. Once enough people and maybe even the FAA take notice and complain, then Glen Bangs will seek out one of his golden butt buddies to go to "look in to it" with the following instructions: 1. Get big push broom 2. Lift closest rug 3. Sweep under rug 4. lay back down rug 5. Walk away as if nothing happened 6. If FAA asks more questions, claim self policing and hope they go away happy. 7. Report to BOD "it been handled" you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Ok there is this dude down there named TKHayes, he has been known to be a nice guy, but thats all a rumor. I've seen him post once back in 84 and he said: Maybe you should take his advice and call the dz @ (813) 783-9399 and ask for him by name, he'll take your call if his is not flying, jumping, or TCB or not on the DZ, if you have to leave your name and number and will call you back, unlike a lot of big DZ DZO's. If anyone knows what is going on on Z-hills it would be TK. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Yea, the new "conditional AFF ratings". you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Ok in all fairness to you, I checked. The young man in the video in fact has spina bifida and he spoke with his doctor before making a jump. He went on to tell me, he lives in western NC about 45 mins from pigeon forge TN. He told me that he was told ASC was the nearest place to jump to him. As we talked he told me he thought he had made an appointment to jump at "skydive the farm" but was given directions to ASC. He also said his instructor told him to hold the harness on landing and he then heard a feet up and an "oh shit" & "next thing I knew we were on the ground". In all fairness to you, he stated he felt the instructor did nothing wrong, he dose not wish to bad mouth ASC, at this time. However after he gets done reading all the threads and watching the news stories about the skyride scam, he may change his tune like so many other people have done. He had no idea about this website or that people in skydiving would be watching the video, he posted so all his family who wanted to know how he got broken, could see it. He was surprised to learn in fact there were closer dz's to his location and how he was like many others told to drive many miles to a "closest location". So in summery, yes the guy had spinal issue, spina bifida, but in his own words, his condition is not life limiting and he rides a crotch rocket motor cycle daily and has no problems walking or moving about. Was sold a lie, and in fact was swooped from the farm, most likely from the many websites that use trickery to steal other peoples business, like "skydive Arizona" VS "Arizona Skydiving" & "Skydiving Arizona". you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

post your own truth ads you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

I think he is talking about the dudes second jump, after they broke his back on that first landing. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Cuz the play back heads are rounded in your camera dude and if the pixels were square they wouldn't fit through the play back heads and your video output ports would get all jammed up in there and clog up your camera....... DUH! you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Sorry, your right I totally miss understood what you were saying. Thanks for clearing that up. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

So your saying that people like me who start an on going thread like "KNOW YOUR RIGHTS AT FEDERAL FUNDED AIRPORTS" A thread that is on going because of 1. the FAA moves slowly and we're awaiting their findings in a real airport access case currently under way. 2. the thread covers a vast amount of info, that in fact has been changed and updated by the FAA after the first post was made. 3. you will see additional info posted once the letters and info from the FAA and USPA is mailed out and can be made public. Had it been limited to 4 posts total there is no way all the need info could be posted. Also (as said) I'm awaiting currently additional findings from the FAA to add to that thread in the very near future. I have been personally called via the phone from USPA HQ in regards to that thread, I was told not only was it very well done and provide a huge amount of info that every USPA member should know, understand and care about, and one HQ person was happy to see the issue addressed here by someone outside of USPA in a factual manner. Do we need 2000 post by a nut case named Mark, NO but the mods already have tools to deal with those types of posters. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Why is that? Because your instructors suck and can't teach how to handle an in tow? Or your not able to handle yourself in that type of event? 1. Student was not trained right or was asleep during the part of class that teaches you what to do in such an event. 2. The student fucked up by pulling the reserve. 3. The DZO, Pilot, and jumpmaster are all at fault for not making sure there is a hook knife in a ready to access location in the aircraft. Over all not that big of a deal to be towed behind the plane via S/L. Also with IAD there are a few ways one could end up being dragged behind the AC too, such as, your container opens early and drops the D-bag around the step or wheel and in a panic you jump off. (rare chance put possible) Not likely, however a wise old man once said, if you can think it up, it's happened before or it will happen in time. In other words skydiving has killed a large number of people in the weirdest and wildest ways you haven't begun to think up, you are not immune because your doing IAD. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

There was a flair? Pretty shitty video flying over all IMHO. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

It's all in how you look at it, but close don't count on this tally card. It's still a big sky out there, till you run out of all the room in it. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

That pretty much sums it up out of the total in the USA. 1. The C-130 in SD CA (freefall) 2. The piper in Conn. (freefall) 3. A demo jumper hit by biplane circling (under canopy) 4. Texas formation flight jumper hit chase plane. (freefall) 5. Gus Wing (under canopy) 6. The guy in Orange this year (under canopy) (from a trusted database) Narrative: Fatal Skydiver/Aircraft Collisions In the history of skydiving in the U.S., there have been only two fatal collisions between a skydiver and a non-participating (non-jump plane) aircraft. 1. August 23, 1980, a skydiver in freefall was struck by the tail of a Lockheed L-100 (civilian C-130) as it flew near the Borderland SPC near San Diego. The jumper was killed; the aircraft proceeded unknowingly to its destination. 2. November 21, 1993, a skydiver in freefall was struck by a Piper Cherokee that was enroute over the Airborne Adventures DZ near Northampton, MA. The Cherokee went out of control and crashed, killing the pilot and three passengers. The skydiver was injured, but deployed his parachute and survived. The NTSB determined that the probable cause of this accident was failure of the Air Traffic Control (ATC) facility to identify and provide the required traffic information to the jump aircraft before release of the jumpers. There were three other fatal accidents involving skydivers and “participating” aircraft. 3. July 24, 1993 at an airshow at the Lebanon Airport in Maine, a demo jumper under canopy was killed during his descent when he was struck by a Christen Eagle biplane that was circling him with smoke. The skydiver was killed and the aircraft crashed, killing the pilot. 4. May 27, 2001 at Skydive San Marcos near Fentress, TX, a skydiver exiting a King Air was struck by a Twin Otter and killed. The two aircraft were flying formation parachute operations. 5. April, 23, 2005 at Skydive DeLand near Deland, FL, a skydiver under canopy was struck by the DZC-6 Twin Otter he had exited at higher altitude. The collision occurred at an estimated 600 feet, and killed the skydiver. The aircraft landed safely. The NTSB determined that the probable cause of this accident was the pilot's inadequate visual lookout. 6. On June 13, 2009, about 1945 eastern daylight time, a Dehavilland DHC-6 Twin Otter, N204EH, operated by Skydive Factory Inc., impacted a skydiver’s parachute while maneuvering near Orange County Airport (OMH), Orange, Virginia. The certificated airline transport pilot was not injured and the airplane was not damaged. The skydiver was seriously injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the local skydive flight conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The flight originated from OMH at 1925. According to the pilot, after the 20 jumpers left the airplane, he “descended and entered at a 45-degree angle for the downwind leg for landing on runway 08.” Once on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, the pilot stated that the “windshield began fogging up.” The pilot decided to make a 360-degree turn to the right while he wiped the window with a rag. The pilot further stated that the last altitude he remembered being at was 2,000 feet mean sea level. Many of the skydivers had landed in a predetermined landing area, which was a field 0.25 nautical miles northwest of the runway. They reported that the airplane was conducting a “low-pass” about 30 feet above the ground, when its propeller struck a descending skydiver’s parachute. The skydiver was seriously injured when he fell approximately 20 feet and hit the ground, but the airplane landed without incident. A few of the skydivers stated that the jump was a memorial exercise to release the ashes of a friend that recently died. They added that the airplane's low pass was part of the memorial exercise. The OMH weather recorded at 1943 included calm winds, clear skies, and visibility 10 miles. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

It's all worth knowing, and more so in your case as a " commercial operator" and a skydiver/ pilot. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

There is more to it then just one report. And just showing up to make a few jumps won't cut it, your going to have to be a commercial operator. As you and I know, your "events" are a commercial operation! You will need to find and read the Min. Standards for the airports you seek to use, some airport sponsors will have them on the city/county websites, po dunk UsA you may need to pay a personal visit to get them. You also need to understand, most airport sponsors always try to use Min. standards in violation of 5190 150-6 &-7 or grant assurances #22 & 23. when they don't want you there. You'll see in case after case, the words used are the same over all. For someone who runs large commercial operations as events, I'm sure Mr. Ottinger would be more then happy help you understand clearly how your personal interests and the FAR's and grant funding, would or would not all jive. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

I must have missed that. Another thing that comes to mind under all this, ok lets say they could say fuck you keep out and off our property there is nothing open to lease and we don't like skydivers anyway. You show up and try to fly out for a demo one day, and they try to have the cops haul you off for trespassing because they told you before your not allowed to use the airport. And try to claim your a "through the fence operator" to the FAA when you call to file a complaint. Some of you people reading this thread might want to read up on "through the fence operators" because it may become a future issue for you. Because when a county/city airport decides they don't want you there is a number of things they will try to claim, best to be ready for them and well versed. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

To be a little more clear, in the FAA order 5190-b airport compliance manual and follow up AC's 5190/150-6 and 5190/150-7, it talks about this stuff. For example, you try to go to Pell city, a public (federal funded) general aviation airport and try to open a dz. On the airport is a nice 5 acre plot of open field area to make a LZ. The airport manger and Board members, say nope you can't use that space or any other space to land your parachutes on the airport property. Why can't we land in that grass area? The FBO has that leased and has first right to refuse in his lease. That is a violation of grant funding contracts! So is saying your not allowed to land on airport property! In the last few weeks I had a phone call with a current part 13 inspector conducting a informal part 13 safety study, who asked me about "where did you propose to land your parachutes" The answer was "every place I proposed to use the Airport sponsor said I couldn't land there because it was leased crop land or in the OFA's" (OFA) Object free area The inspectors reply back to me was "I see nothing in the reg's that says you can't land on the runway if you want too!" In AC 90-66A operations at uncontrolled airports, is the only document that makes any note of parachutes should avoid active runways and taxiways when landing. It also says that in the BSR's and the FAA views the BSR's for guidance in dropzone operations. The point of the inspectors statement about being able to land on the runways and be legal, was to state to me, the bullshit excuses and reasons for denial are not covered under the FAR's and the grant funding contract, period, no gray area, and his report will make clear the operational limits of skydiving on the airport. (see FAR 105 & AC 90-66A) you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

That is right, but they also CAN NOT play the sorry we've leased all the usable space to other users and there is no room for you here. Or you can have your business here and fly your airplane here, but you can't land your parachutes here. If you act like a total asshat they are free to kick your ass off. (see Yazoo MS vs USPA, A part 16 win for USPA, but a loss to a DZO) They are required to allow access to the airport of all types, kinds & classes, under contract for federal funding. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

If it is a federal funded airport, correct ???, the contract for getting the funding states, it is a PUBLIC airport and they agree to not discriminate against any type kind or class of aeronautical activity. There is also all kinds of wording about offering leased space and use of the airport property to one group, person, business and not to all comers. (see Exclusive Rights and Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities) If the FBO and life flight and a flight school are allowed to operate on that field and skydivers are not allowed to land on field or use the airport at all, that is a violation of the grant assurance # 22 and 23. in most cases.(Exclusive Rights and Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities) It is clearly stated in the AC linked, it is NOT the place of the airport sponsor and it's board members to decide what approved aeronautical activities get to use the airport and what ones don't. ONLY THE FAA HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO MAKE THAT CALL< UNDER FEDERAL LAW. The airport sponsor is required under the 5190 contract for federal funding to contact the local ADO or regional airports office and request and safety study be done by the local fSDO office and ATC should they seek to f. Skydiving. Skydiving is an aeronautical activity. Any restriction, limitation, or ban on skydiving on the airport must be based on the grant assurance that provides that the airport sponsor may prohibit or limit aeronautical use for the safe operation of the airport (subject to FAA approval). If you still fail to read and understand the info, then you may need to try to reach Mr. Ottinger at USPA's HQ and check a few of the facts I've stated, however please keep in mind he is a busy guy keeping us in the air and on fields across the country and educating members who seek to operate and access the national airspace system and provide people like you a place to jump and should not be bothered because of some post on dorkzone.com that you choose not to understand or believe. It's not an easy mess to read and understand, try reading it slowly a few times over and it will sink in, trust me I know, call your ADO airport compliance orricers and ask them, you write their pay checks! http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/overview/ Could they kick off ASC in PELL and be legal, hell yes, it is legal to tell you that you can't open a place on Pell now because of those assholes, NO it's not if it's on a federal funded airport. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

You mean you guys get paid for demos? Hell we always just do those for free, ya know for local press and all, people really dig the BIG FLAG..... never thunk to charge money. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

5190 also talks about airport sponsors leasing all the usable space to one user and saying no to another, in other words, for example, an airport sponsor can't lease all the undeveloped airport property that is to be used for aeronautical activities, to a farmer to grow crops on and tell you a dropzone owner, the reason you can land on the airport is because there is no usable area thats not crops. In fact skydivers can land in the OFA areas next to and between runways. Many airport sponsors try and do this stuff all the time and unless you call the ADO and report it, then nothing will be done to stop it. It's pretty clear in the Paris Tn vs Henry County part 13 & 16 cases as to what the office of fAA general counsel has had to say on the matter, this is why in time most all the airport sponsors called out on the grant assurance violations are for in violation by the FAA and skydiving wins. This has happened a number of times now (triangle skydiving, skydive columbus, Paris Tn, Yazoo MS)and a number of pending one are out there. As for my sig line, that is not about leasing, it's about who gets to say you can't use an airport for skydiving......... THE FAA NOT THE AIRPORT SPONSOR! The FAA has made clear it affords skydivers the same operational lattitude as any other aircraft in flight or taxing. Skydiving is an aeronautical activity, commonly found on airports, Any restriction, limitation, or ban on skydiving on the airport must be based on the grant assurance that provides that the airport sponsor may prohibit or limit aeronautical use for the safe operation of the airport (subject to FAA approval). Airport sponsors are REQUIRED to contact the ADO and seek a safety study. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo