On May 4, the FAA issued its Director’s Determination in the Part 16 formal complaint submitted by Skydive Sacramento and supported in part by the USPA Airport Access Defense Fund. The determination addressed several specific complaints by Skydive Sacramento. On the most important complaint—that an airport cannot impose a requirement that is “unattainable”—the FAA agreed with the DZ and USPA. This is a major, positive development for skydiving, because it means that federally obligated airports may no longer require operational liability insurance for skydiving, which is not available and therefore unattainable. Those insurance requirements by airports will no longer prevent new DZs from opening on such airports.

Skydive Sacramento had been trying to access the Lincoln, California, Regional Airport since June 2007—and has been leasing a hangar since August 2008—but had not gained approval for skydivers to land on the airport because of the insurance requirement in question. USPA staff members had been looking for the right airport access issue to test the FAA’s “attainable” language and were convinced they had found it with the Skydive Sacramento case. The USPA Board of Directors agreed and, at its February 2010 meeting, voted to support Skydive Sacramento’s Part 16 complaint with an allocation from the USPA Airport Access Defense Fund, which ultimately totaled $9,000.

The FAA determined that the unattainable insurance provision constituted an unreasonable denial of access and gave the airport 30 days to submit a corrective action plan that would allow Skydive Sacramento airport access for its drop zone. The complete Part 16 case may be downloaded here.

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.

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.

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.