An Air Traffic Control (ATC) facility insisted that the notification required by Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 105.25(a)(3) when parachute operations are conducted in Class E or G airspace was subject to their authorization, in the same way that it is for jumps into Class A, B, C and D airspace. Part of this required notification includes the radius of the drop zone around the target. When a Group Member DZ submitted a change to the radius of its drop zone from 2.0 nautical miles (NM) to 2.5 NM, ATC tried to reject the change and did not forward it to the National Flight Data Center. This resulted in inaccurate data being published in the Parachute Jumping Areas (PJA) section of the FAA Airport/Facility Directory. Pilots and GPS manufacturers use the PJA data to determine the locations of active drop zones. USPA worked closely with the Air Traffic Organization at FAA Headquarters, insisting that a drop zone in Class E or G airspace is required only to provide the notification; ATC does not have the authority to approve or reject it. The FAA agreed and sent guidance to the local ATC facility, which then corrected its error. Most DZs operate within a 2-3 NM radius around the parachute landing area.

A bill that would have required state regulation of skydiving in Indiana went nowhere by the February close of the state’s legislative session. The bill would have required the state’s Office of Aviation to inspect and certify DZs, funded by new fees placed on those DZs. Within days of the bill’s introduction by a state senator, USPA Executive Director Ed Scott convened a meeting in Indianapolis among the four Indiana DZs, their USPA Safety & Training Advisors, and Amy Romig and Brett Nelson, two USPA members who are Indianapolis attorneys and experienced lobbyists. After an unfruitful meeting with the bill’s sponsor, USPA supplied the chairman of the Senate Commerce and Economic Development Committee with an explanation of existing USPA requirements and Federal Aviation Administration regulations, arguing that additional state regulation was unnecessary. The chairman agreed, and did not allow the bill to move through his committee.

An ATC facility insisted that FAR Part 105.13(a)(2)(i) required a DZ’s jump planes to remain airborne until they reported that all skydivers were on the ground. FAA enforcement action was threatened if the DZ did not comply. When the issue was resolved one week later, the DZ’s aircraft-related costs exceeded $7,000. USPA advised and worked to educate Air Traffic Organization at FAA Headquarters about the issue, with a resulting FAA finding that the last required jump pilot radio call is when the last skydiver exits the aircraft.

Following the September 16, 2008, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) hearing regarding its Special Investigation Report on jump plane operations, the NTSB issued several recommendations to both the FAA and USPA. Had the FAA chosen to fully respond to the recommendations, the result would have been new and onerous FAA regulations on jump plane maintenance and jump pilot training. USPA chose to be proactive by devising a program that would educate jump plane operators about existing inspection and maintenance requirements and verify compliance. The USPA Board of Directors endorsed the requirement for a completed Aircraft Status Sheet for every jump plane at a Group Member DZ, starting with the calendar year 2010 Group Membership.

More recently, USPA has provided updated aircraft operation manuals, to include a pilot training syllabus. USPA encourages DZs to focus on improved jump pilot training and recurrency training.

USPA notified the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that the skydiving association was “adamantly opposed” to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a new Large Aircraft Security Program. The proposal would have required security programs for all operators of aircraft that have a maximum takeoff weight of more than 12,500 pounds. The skydiving aircraft included in this category are primarily the CASA 212 and the DC-3, but occasionally other specialty aircraft, as well. USPA responded that the requirements may well mean the withdrawal of those aircraft from use for jumping. “Loss of use of these larger aircraft would also negatively affect the ability to support major skydiving events and to support national and world skydiving record attempts,” wrote USPA Executive Director Ed Scott. USPA proposed that TSA could exempt jump aircraft or alter the requirements due to the regulatory and operational constraints already imposed on jump aircraft.

USPA also expressed concern over the lack of specifics regarding the TSA’s proposed requirement for additional security measures at the nation’s 270 designated reliever airports. USPA pointed out that 10 drop zones are among the hundreds of businesses located at those airports and asked, “What exactly are the plans to accommodate the operators at these airports?” USPA also stated that “these TSA requirements will alter the very purpose behind the creation of the Reliever Airport Program decades ago.” Finally, USPA urged the TSA to form a government/industry advisory committee to assist the TSA in dealing with the issue, much like the advisory groups the FAA has formed to deal with other complex issues. TSA’s revised rule is due to be published shortly.

Following USPA’s early 2008 formal comments in response to the FAA’s proposal for the Next Generation ATC system, USPA has arranged with Air Traffic Control to receive frequent updates on this ongoing program.

On the heels of USPA’s success (with help from USPA member Tom Buchanan) in getting the FAA to enter DZ data into the National Flight Data Center, nine of Garmin’s aircraft GPS units have the ability to display DZ locations and altitudes. USPA continues to push for DZ data inclusion by more GPS manufacturers.

Working with USPA, FAA Flight Standards has developed a tool for assessing the compatibility of skydiving at airports. This was needed, since FAA inspectors had no clear FAA guidance on how to conduct an assessment and often applied their own subjective opinions. The assessment tool contains a range of mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce compatibility concerns identified by the matrix.

FAA Advisory Circular 105-2 has not been revised since 1991, even after the 2001 revision of Part 105. Some of the guidance was outdated and/or irrelevant. The AC also had no guidance on newer aspects of the sport like tandem skydiving, AADs, etc. The FAA relied on USPA for input in creating the revision and coordinating input from PIA. The public comment period ended on February 4, 2011, and publication of the new AC is expected soon.

Following a fatal accident where an AAD was present, the FAA faced political pressure to develop and impose certification standards for AADs. USPA was instrumental in helping the FAA understand how AADs operate and how they function as only one component of a parachute system. USPA shared concerns about the lack of FAA expertise with AADs, how certification could increase AAD cost and actually reduce AAD use, and how it could make obsolete or ground thousands of AADs in use. For now, the FAA has dropped consideration of AAD certification.

An individual requested the FAA’s interpretation of FAR Part 105.23(c), which was being erroneously used to claim that the DZ was violating the FARs. The allegation claimed that skydivers jumping at an airport approved for skydiving were in violation when descending through the traffic pattern. Fortunately, the FAA attorney assigned to research and write the interpretation knew USPA and called. USPA was able to provide historical and operational perspective, resulting in a correct interpretation that 105.23(c) applies only at airports where skydivers do not have approval to land on the airport.

In late August 2008, two USPA drop zones were affected by Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) imposed for the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. USPA negotiations with the FAA and Secret Service led to an agreement that minimized the restrictions on Mile-Hi Skydiving Center during the Democratic National Convention in Denver. The drop zone operated within the TFR under tight security procedures while hosting the USPA Canopy Piloting Nationals. Skydive Twin Cities conducted conditional operations just outside of the TFR during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.