Publications

Proposed TC Amendment

Transport Canada proposed Amendment to Skydiving Exemption to Car 602.26(a)

Many parachute descents into controlled airspace are currently being conducted under an exemption which came into effect in April 2006 and does not contain a pre-determined date of termination. This exemption was intended to expire when the application of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) and standards would incorporate the details of the exemption. At the time the exemption came into effect, the Department of Justice was reviewing the Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA 1999-148) to enable parachute descents in controlled airspace without requiring a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC). Since 2006, several issues have been raised with the conditions of the 2006 exemption. These issues need to be addressed before we can review the possibility of codifying it into the CARs and standards.

The revision of the existing exemption will accomplish the following:
 

  1. It addresses concerns raised by Transport Canada regions and NAV Canada, while balancing the needs of different airspace users
  2. It eliminates conditions that were not relevant to ensuring safe parachute descents into controlled airspace vis-à-vis conditions that are not specified in the CARs for descents into uncontrolled airspace (i.e. a requirement to wear a personal floatation device when the intended landing is near water)
  3. It harmonizes requirements for parachute descents in Canadian airspace with similar requirements in United States airspace as much as practical
  4. In accordance with the Minister’s responsibilities respecting aeronautics detailed in the Aeronautics Act, it promotes legitimate commercial and recreational aeronautical activities and makes provisions Canadians of diverse backgrounds and interests, and aircraft in their various forms, to continue to share access to Canadian airspace.  

BACKGROUND 

CAR 602.26(a) states that, except where permitted in accordance with a Special Flight Operations Certificate (CAR 603.37), no pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall permit, and no person shall conduct, a parachute descent from the aircraft in or into controlled airspace or an air route. 

Prior to the initial May 2000 exemption, a parachute working group was formed whose tasks included reviewing the methodology of the departmental safety oversight of parachuting including streamlining the application process and updating the safety oversight program to reflect a more modern and mature segment of the aviation community. One of the recommendations of the working group was that the requirement for a special flight operations certificate for parachute operations in or into controlled airspace be deleted. Instead, these operations would be governed by regulations and standards that would be included in an amendment to CAR 603 and the Special Flight Operations Standards and Procedures (623). Exemptions to reflect those requirements to paragraph 602.26(a) and section 603.37 of the CARs were issued on May 23, 2000, October 30, 2001, and October 21, 2004. The current exemption came into effect on April 1, 2006, and was issued with no expiration date, envisioning imminent codification into the CARs. 

Over the last two decades, Canadian airspace has become busier and operational experience has exposed some issues. The language in the exemption is ambiguous and lacks detail as to what is meant by the phrase in paragraph 4) “the operator has notified ATC or the FSS responsible for the airspace in which the operation is taking place.” What that “notification” entails is not specified and open to interpretation. 

Similarly, the requirement to in paragraphs 5) and 6) to have “prior coordination” in controlled airspace is also unspecified. The result of this lack of clarity is that in practice there has been no process to ensure the operator has consulted with all the effected stake holders and no means to require documentation to evaluate compliance.

An example of where this results in undesirable outcomes near an aerodrome in Western Canada. The operator had been using a jump site located on the airport property, but the airport operator decided they wanted the parachute operations off the airport. The operator relocated to a piece of land in the vicinity of the airport with the agreement of the municipality and the landowner. The operator forwarded a document indicating landowner approval, and on that basis the Company Operations Manual was amended to reflect the change. However, after commencement of operations at the new field it was discovered because of a pilot report, that the jump site conflicted with the instrument approach to one of the runways at the airport. 

Discussions with Nav Canada revealed the further complication that the airspace in question was Class E and so while air traffic services and assured separation were provided to IFR aircraft, there were no services provided to VFR aircraft including the jump plane. There was also an air route for an instrument arrival to a major international airport that was in the vicinity of the new drop zone. This made the whole issue of what constituted “prior co-ordination” problematic.

There is no U.S. regulation which parallels CAR 602.26(a) regarding parachute descents in controlled airspace or an air route. Sport parachuting in the United States is regulated by Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 105. 14 CFR Part 105 also contains  information for jumpers and riggers on parachuting equipment, on-airport parachuting operations, jump pilot training, aircraft maintenance programs, parachute rigging, and procedures for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorization for flight operations with a door removed or modified. U.S. Advisory Circular AC 105-2E provides additional guidance on sport parachuting, including operating in controlled airspace, stipulations for landing at or flying over an airport, operating in the vicinity of traffic patterns operated by other aircraft, and parachute landings on airports. Sport parachuting is often conducted by Canadians in the United States and U.S. persons in Canada. The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act (CUSMA) allows cross-border trade for parachute jumping as a Specialty Air Service between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Given the cross-border nature of this activity, particularly between Canada and the U.S., there is a great operational and subsequent safety benefit in harmonizing requirements, where practical.     

The  Aeronautics Act outlines the Minister’s responsibilities for the development and regulation of aeronautics, including promoting aeronautics by such means as the Minister deems appropriate. Parachuting continues to be a popular and legitimate aeronautical activity, even though the Canadian Aviation Regulations do not require parachutists to hold a Canadian Aviation Document. As with hang gliders, parachutes are not registered in Canada. Aircraft used in support of parachuting operations are operated privately or in a club under CAR Part 6, Subpart 2, or by a Commercial Air Service under CAR Part 7, Subpart 1 or Subpart 2. 

The  Aeronautics Act defines an aircraft as “meaning any machine capable of deriving support in the atmosphere from reactions of the air, and includes a rocket.” Based on the Aeronautics Act’s interpretation, a parachute meets the definition of an aircraft.

Parachuting has certain inherent risks for all participants. Incorporated in 1956, the Canadian Sport Parachuting Association (CSPA) has developed safety guidelines, known as Basic Safety Rules (BSRs) and parachutist certifications to enhance sport parachuting safety and reduce risk to the general public. Transport Canada recommends that all sport parachutists obtain training and operate in accordance with CSPA BSRs, except where they may contradict requirements in the CARs. 

Vigilance for the purpose of detecting potential collisions, regardless of the type of flight or the class of airspace in which the aircraft is operating, is essential. Sport parachuting is generally carried out in Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions and this exemption specifies that parachute descents in controlled airspace may not be conducted through clouds for any part of the parachute descent, including free-fall, and prescribes minimum lighting requirements for conducting parachute descents between sunrise and sunset. This exemption includes the requirement specified for all aircraft in CAR 602.21 by requiring the person conducting parachute descent and the pilot-in-command to not conduct the parachute descent in a manner that creates a hazard to other airspace users, avoid collision with other aircraft, and to give way by avoiding the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation at an aerodrome. This exemption will require a parachutist to drift with an open parachute whenever operating at or below 3,000 feet above aerodrome elevation within 5 nautical miles (NM) of an airport or a registered aerodrome. Descending slowly and easy to visually acquire, parachutists and pilots of other aircraft have a shared responsibility to see and avoid each other. Modern ram-air parachutes allow the jumper control of speed and direction, similar to paraglider-type hang gliders. To reduce the potential for parachutists and pilots of other aircraft to be in proximity, and similar to the requirement for other VFR aircraft to request and compliance with an air traffic control clearance before operating into Class A, B, C or D airspace, this exemption will require a formal procedural agreement to be established between the person or organization conducting the operation and the air traffic control unit providing air traffic control service before the parachute descent, and for notification to be provided before a parachute descent in Class E airspace or on an air route in Class G airspace.

Uwe Goehl

General Flight Standards Inspector | Inspecteur en application, Normes de vol générales

Transport Canada | Transports Canada

330 Sparks Street, (AARTA)

Ottawa, ON, K1A ON5

uwe.goehl@tc.gc.ca
Tel: (343) 553-5092

CAPS response:

Thank you so much for your invitation to participate in Friday’s meeting. It was good to meet you and some of the other stakeholders as well.  Although not all issues were resolved we thought the meeting was very productive and positive and a good step forward. We appreciate being included.

Although some issues were of concern to us, most of them were cleared up in the discussions.  Our biggest concern would be the landing wind speed referred to in Section 3 (e).

Every Drop Zone has its own unique obstacles and weather environment to deal with.  DZ safety officers and management must consider these conditions to determine an acceptable risk level and make policy accordingly.  For example: at the DZ where I jump our obstacles are primarily to the west of us. Fortunately our prevailing winds are most often light and from the west, making it friendly to experienced jumpers and students as well.  

Our wind limitation for students and novice jumpers is 15 MPH from this direction. But occasionally when winds come from the east, almost any wind will shut down student jumps.  Novice jumping is kept below 10MPH. Even for experienced jumpers the limitation differs.

If people are regularly landing on other people’s private property or on a runway at an airport creating a hazard or inconvenience, it is up to the individual DZ to take that into consideration as part of risk management assessment. 

Sigma Tandem manual states optimum wind conditions are 5-20 mph. USPA has no limitation for licensed skydivers.  There are no limitations on any other type of aircraft. We feel strongly that this has no place in these conditions.

The other issue we wanted to address was from Section 5. “If the parachute descent will land at an airport or a registered aerodrome, the airport or aerodrome operator must be advised of the proposed jump and have no objection.” We must agree with a comment from another stakeholder that this should be removed or at least a provision for resolving the issue be added to the sentence.

On a personal note Uwe, Jess and I both remarked on how impressed we were with your positive attitude toward the sport and small general aviation.  Our experiences with Transport, particularly through Dave Dixon have always been positive.  It is nice to know these decisions are in good hands.

Regards,

Debbie Harper

Jess Harper