Skydiving firms get tighter rules

[Widow]

Skydiving firms get tighter rules
Owner says regulations will make no difference
Eva Ferguson, Calgary Herald
Published: Tuesday, March 18, 2008

CALGARY - Almost 10 years after the skydiving death of a young Calgary woman that led to a fatality inquiry and promises by Transport Canada to improve safety regulations, the federal government has come forward with changes they say will improve the safety of parachuting activities across the country.

While one victim's family welcomed the changes as a long-time coming, industry experts working in skydiving centres around Calgary say the announcement makes no significant change to their operations which have been following a stringent code of safety standards for years.

"It's ludicrous, ludicrous for the taxpayer to have to be paying for something like this.

"It will make no difference to our operations, or the operation of other centres just like ours," said Ian Flanagan, owner of Alberta Skydivers Ltd., in Beiseker.

Transport Canada announced that safety standards put out by federally recognized groups like the Canadian Sport Parachuting Association, will now be mandatory instead of voluntary, as they have been in the past.

But Flanagan says he and other operators have been voluntarily following the CSPA's standards for years, and will continue to do so under the mandatory regulation.

Robert Hutchinson, owner of Vertical Extreme in Didsbury, says in his 25 years of skydiving he has always followed national safety guidelines. Although Vertical Extreme has only been running for a year, they too follow the standards.

"Procedurally, I don't see a ton of things changing in the way we operate," Hutchinson said.

But because of Alberta's past and the series of deaths this province has seen: "We know there's a certain level of skepticism here. The bigger issue is that nothing new has been produced here that will change anything except maybe giving people a false sense of security."

Existing safety standards voluntarily followed by the skydiving community include details from a 34-page safety manual put out by the CSPA, and list a wide-range of rules, like ensuring all first-time jumpers take a full-day course and ensuring all trainers are properly certified and experienced with jumping.

Flanagan argues that skydiving will always have risks and will sometimes result in accidents simply because of human error, not whether a centre is following certain safety guidelines or not.

"The risk is sometimes people panic and they don't react well to a dangerous situation. Whatever standards you teach, have little to do with that.

"Skydiving is a voluntary thing, and you can't have the government outline safety procedures for every high-risk activity that's completely voluntary.

"Do we need national guidelines on skuba-diving then, or mountain climbing? They're dangerous too."

Promises of change to federal government regulations came during a 2005 fatality inquiry into the skydiving death of Nadia Kanji. The 18-year-old plummeted to her death in July 1998, when her parachute failed to open, sending her spinning to the ground.

Testimony during the inquiry suggested a litany of failures by the now-defunct Skydive Ranch to follow safety standards, including the sloppy packing of Kanji's parachute.

As a result, the federal government at the time started to draft regulations to force skydive operations to meet standards set by the industry's national body, the CSPA, or face stiff penalties that could force them out of business.

No word on that draft came until Tuesday, when Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, announced the mandatory measures.

"The Government of Canada has worked with stakeholders to clarify the regulations and provide enforceable standards," Cannon said Tuesday. "These changes will help ensure that individuals and organizations are accountable for parachuting safety."

Still, the family of 19-year-old Stuart McMaster, a British soldier who died in 2002 during adventure training in Beiseker, say the mandatory safety regulations should have been introduced sooner by Transport Canada.

Stuart's father Jimmy McMaster, reached in Northern Ireland, said "The instructors weren't right, the equipment wasn't right. There were just too many things wrong there."

Stuart's mother Saran said mandatory safety standards probably would have saved her son.

"They were necessary then, and should have been made necessary a long time ago."

Kanji and McMaster both died during the years when the Skydive Ranch was operating at the Beiseker site.
Alberta Skydivers Ltd., run by Flanagan, took hold of the operation in late 2004.

Last September, another British soldier fell to his death, Pte. Kevin Mitchell was killed after plummeting into a wheat field northwest of Alberta Skydivers Ltd. Six people have died at the site since 1989.

But Flanagan argued it was not because of a lack of safety protocol.

"He was taught like everyone else in his class. He just released his parachute at too low of an altitute, so that the reserve couldn't open."

Transport Canada's proposed amendments were released in the Canada Gazette Tuesday. Interest groups have 60 days to respond with questions and concerns.

Department spokesman Patrick Charett said the consultation may take weeks or months to complete. And after that time, the mandatory regulations will be put in place.

http://www.canada.com:80/calgaryherald/ ... 19&k=68205

[Morav]

What does Transport Canada know about skydiving??? Maybe if the general public enducated themselves about what jumping out of an airplane really involves, it might filter out some of the nit wits. Its not a#%$ amusment park ride.

People will continue to die skydiving end of story. It's not for everyone! SO if your incompetent and dont think you can handle making decisions while burning up 1000ft every 5 seconds or faster, stay away from our sport. This is nothing but useless paper work and a big waste of money!

[CD]

The proposed regulatory changes were published in the Gazette on Saturday... Here is the background and a link to the Working Group on Regulations Respecting Parachuting Activities and Gazette publication:

Vol. 142, No. 11 — March 15, 2008

Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I and VI)
Statutory authority

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Description

The main provision of this regulatory proposal to amend the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I and VI) responds to recommendations of coroner’s inquests that the Government of Canada should introduce provisions to protect the public against parachute training schools that are unable to satisfy stringent parachute training standards. The proposal will also respond to recommendations made by the 1998 Working Group on Regulations Respecting Parachuting Activities.

The objectives of these proposed amendments to Part VI are

— to introduce regulatory oversight of parachute training unit organizations and student parachutist operations;

— to extend the applicability of the existing regulations to include parachute descents in uncontrolled airspace (airspace that is not controlled, as opposed to controlled airspace, which is an airspace of fixed dimensions as specified in the Designated Airspace Handbook and within which air traffic control service is provided); and

— to clarify/streamline the regulations regarding parachuting.

Schedule II to Subpart 103 Administration and Compliance of Part I Designated Provisions contains administrative provisions applicable to all parts of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). These proposed amendments will introduce maximum penalties which may be assessed for non-compliance with new sections proposed in this amendment to the CARs.

Sport parachuting (skydiving) is a high-risk sport that is currently unregulated in Canada, except for the access to controlled airspace to make parachute descents, for the aircraft and the pilots of the aircraft used in the sport, and for parachute descents made over or into built-up areas or open-air assemblies of persons.

At present, the two parachuting organizations in Canada (Canadian Sport Parachuting Association and Canadian Associates of Professional Skydivers) and the parachute training units assert that the student parachutist training units voluntarily comply with the standards, procedures and technical recommendations of the parachuting organizations. However, currently these organizations have no right to monitor or enforce compliance with their standards. Inquests into deaths of student parachutists have indicated that the training units at which those students who died obtained their training and conducted their first solo jumps may not have been following the standards of the organizations. This is an unsafe situation. These proposed Regulations will serve as a deterrent to those who may be tempted not to comply with the standards established by the parachuting organizations.

Under the proposed Regulations, parachute training will be required to be conducted in accordance with the current standards, procedures and technical recommendations established by one of the parachuting organizations that has been recognized by the Minister and is referenced above. The Minister may recognize a new parachuting organization if recognition of the parachuting association is in the public interest and the current standards, procedures and technical recommendations established by the parachuting association are not likely to adversely affect aviation safety or the safety of the public. This proposal will also ensure regulatory oversight by requiring any student parachutist training unit

— to notify the Minister of the operation;

— to notify the Minister of the name of the parachuting organization whose current standards, procedures and technical recommendations will be followed during the training;

— to train the students in accordance with those standards, procedures and technical recommendations; and

— to advise students of the risk of serious injury or death.

Training unit and student parachutist operations

A student parachutist will be identified as a person who does not hold a certificate, licence or other document intended to provide proof of proficiency in parachuting issued by a parachuting organization that has been recognized by the Minister.

Before a student parachutist is permitted to make a parachute descent, the student must have signed a written declaration stating that he or she has been advised of the risk of serious injury or death associated with making a parachute descent and has been trained in accordance with the current standards, procedures and technical recommendations of a parachuting organization that has been recognized in writing by the Minister.

This declaration, combined with the oversight measures described above, protects parachute students from the risk of not having adequate information and training required to make an informed decision about participating in parachuting activities.

Requirements applicable to all parachute operations including those in uncontrolled airspace

Section 603.36 Application will be revised to state that Division III applies to all parachute descents conducted by a person from an aircraft in flight. As a consequence of this revision, the requirements applying to the conduct of parachute descents in or into controlled airspace (e.g. both pilot-in-command and parachutist have communicated with and advised each other about the nature of their activities respecting the parachute descent, both are capable of carrying out their respective duties and responsibilities), will now also apply to parachute descents in or into uncontrolled airspace.

Proposed section 603.37 Parachute Operations will state requirements that apply to parachute descents in all airspaces and introduce, for safety reasons, requirements specific to parachute descents in uncontrolled airspace (e.g. notification of air traffic control, two-way radio capability).

Demonstration parachute descents

These proposed amendments to sections of Subpart 603 will add demonstration parachute descents to the list of events that are considered special aviation events. Consequently, the need for application for and issue of a separate special flight operations certificate — parachuting, when a demonstration parachute descent is included as part of another defined special aviation event, would be eliminated.

Alternatives

These proposed amendments to the CARs will address recommendations made by several coroner’s inquests (the most recent being in 2004) with respect to regulatory oversight of the training of novice parachutists and will incorporate recommendations of the Working Group on Regulations Respecting Parachuting Activities. There is no alternative to regulatory action which will achieve this outcome.

Benefits and costs

Training unit and student parachutist operations

No statistics are readily available as to the rate of mortality at student parachutist training units. However, the evidence presented at the coroner’s inquests cited above suggests that training units that are not in compliance with an organization’s standards have fatalities that could possibly have been prevented by compliance. These Regulations will create a deterrent to training units that may be tempted not to comply with the standards of either parachuting organization and will introduce a level of regulatory protection for student parachutists which, at present, does not exist.

Sport parachuting is an “extreme” sport and, as such, entails an acceptance of known risk on the part of the participants. However, it is necessary to ensure that parachute students receive training and instruction that allows them to achieve the necessary level of competency to make a parachute jump safely. Moreover, parachute students who may lack information regarding acceptable training standards deserve protection from the unknown risk that the training unit with which they are training is not in compliance with parachute organization practices. Regulatory oversight of parachute training units will protect students by ensuring that these units meet the standards.

There will be minimal financial impact upon parachute training. Those training units in compliance with the organizations’ standards will not need to make changes to their procedures and will incur no costs. Training organizations that are not compliant with the organizations’ standards now will face minor costs, comprised mainly of the cost associated with the keeping of records for a period of two years.

Requirements applicable to all parachute operations, including those in uncontrolled airspace

The new requirements which will be applicable to parachute descents in uncontrolled airspace will provide users of uncontrolled airspace with the same protection as is already in place for users of controlled airspace. They reflect current industry best practices and will not be a cause of additional costs.

Demonstration parachute descents

The proposed amendments to include demonstration parachute descents among other special aviation events will simplify, for event organizers, the inclusion of these descents with other defined special aviation events. There will be no additional cost as a result of this change.

Consultation

These proposed amendments were developed through a working group mandated by the General Operating and Flight Rules (GO&FR) Technical Committee of the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) in 1998. This working group included representatives of government, parachuting organizations (Canadian Sport Parachuting Association [CSPA], Canadian Associates of Professional Skydivers [CAPS]) and parachuting operators.

The proposed amendments were reviewed and accepted by the members of the GO&FR Technical Committee in 1999. The GO&FR Committee included representatives of government, parachuting organizations (CSPA and CAPS), aeronautical associations (e.g. Air Transport Association of Canada, International Council of Air Shows), the recreational aviation community (e.g. Canadian Balloon Association, Canadian Owners and Pilots Association) and organizations of industry employees (e.g. Air Canada Pilots Association).

In 2005, the Government of Canada felt that enough time had elapsed since the last consultation on these proposed amendments to warrant further consultation, so a risk assessment was mandated to re-evaluate their pertinence. The risk assessment team was composed of federal government officials from Transport Canada and National Defence, as well as representatives from parachute organizations (CSPA and CAPS) and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (Alberta).

The conclusions of the risk assessment recommended a non-regulatory solution involving an education program and the creation of a sport parachute advisory body. The Government of Canada has decided to pursue both the regulatory solution and the creation of an advisory committee to provide additional safety information and resources to the industry. This advisory committee, the Sport Parachute Advisory Committee, includes representatives of the parachute community, provincial and territorial coroners and medical examiners.

The National Chief Coroners and Chief Medical Examiners held an extensive discussion on the issue of sport parachuting at their annual meeting held in the summer of 2007. They passed a resolution unanimously supporting the current efforts of the Government to regulate the sport parachuting industry.

Link to complete proposal here...

[CD]

Parents desire 'real' parachuting changes

Valerie Fortney
Calgary Herald

Outside her home in Ballymena, Northern Ireland, on Tuesday, Saran McMaster enjoys a splendid view of spring tulips in bloom.

But on this day, as has happened on so many others these past six years, her thoughts drift back to a part of the world an ocean away, where snow still covers the brown grass and flowers are nowhere to be found.

The memories are anything but easy.

"You get up and get on with life because you're still breathing," says the 49-year-old mother. "You smile, but the smile can barely hide the heartbreak."

On June 15, 2002, Saran's middle of three children was at the Skydive Ranch near Beiseker. Stuart McMaster was only 19, but already a soldier in the British military. As part of his training, the handsome teen had previously taken several successful skydiving jumps at the facility.

But on his second jump on this fateful day, things went horribly wrong. His parachute didn't deploy properly, and the young man spiralled to earth, the force of his body's impact leaving a depression in the ground. Witnesses said they saw his reserve chute come out, but it was too close to the ground to properly deploy and slow his descent.

On Tuesday afternoon, I ring up Saran and her husband Jimmy, a warm and good-humoured pair, to let them know of an announcement by the federal government of proposed amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations. In a nutshell, the proposal would see previously voluntary standards, procedures and technical recommendations developed and maintained by the parachute community become mandatory.

Forgive the McMasters for not jumping for joy over the news.

"It's just a proposal? A recommendation?" asks Jimmy, a 49-year-old former soldier who retired four years ago from his job with Ballymena's water department.

"And if it all goes ahead, then when? Soon, or in 10 years from now?"

Blame their skepticism -- or what Saran calls "My Doubting Tomesina" -- on battle fatigue. After Stuart's death, the McMasters pushed for a public inquiry into his death.

Yet the British military not only didn't support their plea, in 2003 it renewed its contract with the Beiseker operation for another three years.

The McMasters say they've seen something like this latest news before, and that's why they have to suspend their excitement for now.

"After Kerry Pringle died, there was all sorts of talk about change," says Jimmy, referring to the subsequent inquiry into the Calgary accountant's death at Skydive Ranch in 1993.

"Nothing really came out of that one, did it now?"

The McMasters' friends, Diamond and Nury Kanji, got a little further in their pursuit for some semblance of justice. Their daughter Nadia Kanji died at the same facility in 1998, in the same horrifying manner at the school where five people died over a 15-year period.

In 2005, a public inquiry was held into Nadia's death. The final report from that inquiry determined the Skydive Ranch -- now run by different owners under the new name Alberta Skydivers -- had, among other problems, inadequately trained staff, inadequate equipment, along with inadequate training of first-time jumpers. It recommended that Transport Canada regulate parachuting, from licensing to standardized training.

"They got a little further than us, but really, not much further," Jimmy says of the Kanji family, with whom he and his wife forged a bond after their son's death.

"But I suppose time will tell. We should try to reserve judgment -- it would be nice if it worked out and made things better for the future."

When the McMasters' son left for Canada in 2002, the future indeed looked rosy.

"He saw his Canada training as a bit of a fun holiday, he was so excited," says Saran. "We didn't expect him to be brought back home in a box."

Along with trying to remain positive that this time, change will finally come to prevent others from experiencing such a tragedy, the McMasters are doing their best to move forward with life.

"I have two other children, and you have to be happy for them," says Saran, as she and Jimmy prepare to leave the next day for a holiday in Portugal. "You do all those things you're supposed to do, put one foot in front of the other."

And as so many of us find in our time of grief, the McMasters have also been the recipients of magical acts of kindness. One couple from Alberta, whose Canadian soldier son was at the same training area, took a video of the military band just days before Stuart's death. "They realized Stuart was playing drums in the band and made sure it found its way to us," says Jimmy. "We've since become friends and they've been here to visit."

But it's one thing to move forward, the other to "get over" a loss that even six years later, doesn't make sense.

"It was no accident, it was entirely preventable," says Jimmy. "It's been very hard, so all we can hope for now is that someday, something real gets done.

"But for us now, all we can hope for is to wake up every morning and get through it the best we can."

[CD]

New federal skydiving rules slammed by national sport parachute group

21 Mar, 8:27 PM

EDMONTON - The president of a national skydiving organization says the federal government is taking an unprecedented step toward regulating leisure activities by announcing new proposed rules on the sport which the group says could actually make it more dangerous.

Transport Canada announced earlier this week that it's taking steps to tighten up safety standards for the training of student parachutists and instructor certifications at skydiving schools.

The new rules come in the wake of the deaths of at least two parachutists in recent years, who both died at the same Calgary-area skydiving school.

While the industry has been governed by a set of voluntary standards, on things like procedures and technical recommendations, proposed amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations would make those things mandatory.

Tim Grech, president of the Ontario-based Canadian Sport Parachuting Association, is dismissing the new proposed regulations as unnecessary.

"The government would be starting to regulate something they know nothing about," he said in an interview Friday from Dunnville, Ont.

He argues the industry, and its voluntary model of drafting safety and training standards, is better equipped to respond quickly to emerging safety trends.

Grech said if the current experience is any indication, it could take years for new safety proposals to be approved by federal government.

"It would literally handcuff us as far as our ability to change, to promote safety," he said.

Grech said the government first proposed changing the rules on the skydiving industry in 1999, and while that initially received some industry support, the new proposal has evolved into something so vague it has left the industry puzzled about how it may affect the country's approximately 56 training schools.

"We have no idea what it will take for our organization to become approved to train skydiving in Canada," Grech said.

Transport Canada spokeswoman Nicole McNeely stressed the regulations are just proposals at this point.

"They will provide enforceable standards to ensure individuals and organizations are held accountable for complying with the safety standards of national parachute organizations," she wrote in an e-mail.

As for Grech's assertion that the government can't adapt quickly to changes in standards and safety, and will hurt the industry, McNeely said Transport Canada will "work as quickly as possible with the industry and parachuting organizations/groups to respond appropriately."

Industry groups or individuals have 60 days to respond to the department on the proposed amendments.

Regulation of the skydiving industry is also a slippery slope for other leisure sport companies, like scuba diving or helicopter skiing, Grech argues - industries that are also partially regulated by Transport Canada.

'(It) currently regulates the helicopters that take people to the top of the mountain to go skiing, but as soon as the skier or snowboarder gets out of the helicopter, Transport Canada no longer regulates them, nor should they," Grech said.

Worldwide, out of over six million skydives in 2005, 67 of them were fatal, and only three involved students, Grech said.

An Alberta judge recommended national skydiving regulations after a 2005 fatality inquiry into the death of Nadia Kanji.

In July 1998, she plunged to her death at the Skydive Ranch, a Calgary-area training facility, after her parachute malfunctioned.

Another woman who jumped before Kanji also had problems with her parachute and spent two months in intensive care.

Provincial Court Judge Brian Stevenson, who oversaw the fatality inquiry into Kanji's death, determined that both malfunctions were caused by mistakes made by "untrained parachute packers operating under inadequate supervision by qualified personnel".

He also found there was "inadequate training of first-time jumpers" and that the jumpmaster in the aircraft paid "little attention to the obvious problems" being encountered by the two women.

Stevenson made 10 recommendations, including that Transport Canada establish regulations governing sport parachuting and that the agency, along with industry, should establish uniform teaching methods and standards.

Kanji's family in Calgary couldn't immediately be reached for comment on the new proposed regulations.

Her father Diamond has said in the past that he was frustrated by the agency's lack of action.

Last fall, Kevin Mitchell, 23, a soldier with the 4th Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland, was killed at the same facility while performing training exercises with fellow British soldiers.

[CD]

Parents fear industry will axe skydive rules

Eva Ferguson, Calgary Herald
Thursday, April 03, 2008

Almost a decade after losing their daughter to a skydiving accident, Diamond and Nury Kanji are welcoming safety regulations being proposed by Transport Canada -- hoping consultation with the industry doesn't derail the new rules.

"I fully expected industry to object and fight this, but my hope and prayer is the government doesn't cave in," Diamond Kanji said Wednesday from his northeast Calgary home.

"They took 10 years to do this. That's a long time coming, and they should know this is the right thing to do.

"It makes operators more accountable, more responsible, so that if there is an accident, Transport Canada will investigate and find out whether the rules were actually followed."

Kanji's daughter, 18-year-old Nadia Kanji, plummeted to her death in July 1998 when her parachute failed to properly open during her first jump.

Testimony at a 2005 inquiry into her death suggested several failures by the now-defunct Skydive Ranch near Beiseker to follow safety standards, including the sloppy packing of Kanji's parachute.

The Kanjis were vocal at the time about the lack of mandatory regulations. Promises to change federal rules came during that inquiry, but the proposals didn't come until two weeks ago.

Transport Canada announced March 18 that safety standards designed by federally recognized groups such as the Canada Sport Parachuting Association will become mandatory instead of voluntary.

The proposal allows interest groups 60 days to respond with questions and concerns. The process is expected to take months to complete.

Many industry experts are against the change, saying they've voluntarily followed existing guidelines for years.

Ian Flanagan, who has run the Beiseker drop zone under the name Alberta Skydivers Ltd. since 2004, said the new guidelines will turn regulation into a "bureaucratic nightmare." He said they won't allow for rules to be improved or updated as technology changes.

Flanagan has written a four-page letter to Transport Canada criticizing the proposal, and he expects others like him will do the same.

"This is a political move, it won't make any difference," he said of the rules. "It will only freeze any new development of technology . . . and it will only end up making things more unsafe."

Kanji fears if Transport Canada hears too much opposition during the consultation process, it may abandon the idea of mandatory regulations.

"There are times when government has to step in. . . . Self-regulation doesn't work. There's no accountability, no responsibility."

Industry experts have also criticized the regulation of a recreational sport simply because it's risky, asking whether the government will one day regulate other high-risk activities, like mountain climbing.

But Kanji argues mountain climbing "is a sport where you are not relying on someone else for your safety."

Calgary Herald

[...]

I'm not going to get into a whole thing here but it's ABOUT PHAQUING TIME SOMEONE LASSSSOOOED THIS NICHE IN THE INDUSTRY.

..BRAVOH....BRAVO

I HATE meat-bombs....I hate 'em ALL...phucking idiots. However...now that they may be regulated...I may now think about jumping out of an airplane instead of shoving them with my foot out the door years ago. There is nothing like blowing a newbie off of your strut with full power when he/she is hanging on for dear life because he/she changed his/her own mind.

PS: Once you step out and hanging on the strut...it's unsafe to try and crawl back in because on various reasons, hence the reason we 'blew' them off. I used to call it ...."Blowin' Off the Stink"

[CMank]

I was at Beiseker DZ the day that Stewart McMaster died. He wasn't a first jump student and didn't receive his first jump training at that drop zone. I believe he was on his 11th or 12th jump, and had received the emergency retraining required by the British Army that morning. (...which we feckless civvies never got) It was an accident, pure and simple. His fellow soldiers accepted that. I'm sorry that his family hasn't brought themselves to that point yet. I would note that, had he survived, since he was in the army, he likely would have ended up in Iraq, Afghanistan or some other dangerous, god-forsaken place -- and as a mother, I have to wonder what his family was doing allowing him to join the military if they felt his life was so precious.

I'm also sorry (and probably incredibly politically incorrect) to say it, but same thing with Kanji. This is a tough one for me because Nadia was my daughter's age when she died, and her mother was about my age. Like them, my daughter and I are the very best of friends and I can't imagine what my life would be like without my daughter in it every day. But it must be remembered that the Kanjis bought their daughter her first jump course and drove her to the drop zone. When our daughter was 18, we told her that if she wanted to do something as risky as skydiving, she'd have to do it on her own.

But that said, my daughter travels extensively, world-wide, and could be a victim of anything from a car wreck to a plane crash to terrorism over these past ten years. I don't delude myself. She's living her life to the fullest -- but with that comes some risk. I took my risks as a young woman, and now I have to accept her taking hers.

What I do wonder about is what we, as a sport, did wrong. I don't believe that Kanji died as a result of the negligence of the drop zone -- no other drop zone in Canada was as tightly regulated or inspected as Beiseker was at that time. The only reason they were so regulated was because they had a contract with the British Army to provide adventure training. No other centre in Canada had to meet the rigorous obligations that they did at that time. (so much for bureaucracy, eh?)

But I do think that we, as a sport, have gotten a bit big-headed. This ISN'T a "safe" sport -- like knitting or croquet. It's a sport where small mistakes can have HUGE consequences. This isn't a sport where the only people who die are victims of negligence -- many of our best and brightest have died.

My question is are we doing something wrong in the way we present ourselves? Are we giving people a false impression that we're safer than we are? Are we perhaps deluding ourselves that we're safer than we are?

I don't believe that the regulations introduced by Transport Canada will make the sport safer. On the contrary, the working group of community stakeholders gathered by Transport Canada to examine the need for regulation of student training came to the conclusion that regulation would be "counterproductive" to that end. Skydiving is a relatively young aviation sport, has an excellent relative track record for safety, and many believe that it has only achieved such a good safety record because innovators were able to introduce safer equipment and methodologies without having to prove themselves to some moribund bureaucracy.

If there's one regulation that I think Transport Canada should have adopted, it was to make it illegal to train or facilitate any under-aged person to make a jump.

But that didn't happen. And although I don't know why it didn't happen, I've been told that it was because so many Transport Canada officials have teen-aged kids in Air Cadets or other pilot training programs. I can believe that. Over the years, I've known so many skydivers who pushed their kids into jumping just so they can be "a chip off the old block." Frankly, I think it stinks. Our kids have their entire adult lives to fly and skydive and take risks. It's only for our own vanity that we push them into it before they reach adulthood and before they're ready to accept the consequences of what must be any aviator's adult choice to participate.

At various points in my involvement with the CARAC process, we were threatened with the Ontario govt's threat to put up billboards advising people that skydiving was dangerous. Frankly, I never saw the problem with this. In Ontario, the saying used to be "A Bounce Is Good For Business." Shortly after news of a skydiving fatality hits the press, first jump enrollment surges. I personally don't see that there's anything wrong with the government stating the obvious, that skydiving is potentially dangerous -- not necessarily from one drop zone to another (that's just a myth that drop zones foolishly try to promote to gain a larger market share -- and it always backfires) -- but that it's dangerous in general. Other times, in CARAC meetings, we were threatened that Transport would make skydiving illegal across the board. Yeah. Right. Just like many forms of BASE jumping is illegal and they're able to stop that. I always felt that we'd be better off being illegal than regulated -- and perhaps the general public would be better off too. At least it wouldn't sugar coat the dangers.

A lot of sport association and regional competitive politics went into the whole regulatory process. It was all about politics and not at all about safety, as far as I was concerned. If anything, my involvement in the CARAC process with respect to the regulation of sport skydiving made me cynical about government regulation in general. Some dude from Transport once accused me of being anti-regulation -- but really, that's not the case at all. If anything, I have a very high regard and respect for regulation -- so much so that I cringe to see it used frivolously.

We'll see how it goes. Transport pushed it through -- but we'll see how they live with it as time goes by. Public ignorance was used to push it through, and surely public ignorance will be a source of regret.

..c..

[CD]

I don't believe that the regulations introduced by Transport Canada will make the sport safer. On the contrary, the working group of community stakeholders gathered by Transport Canada to examine the need for regulation of student training came to the conclusion that regulation would be "counterproductive" to that end.

As linked above, here is what the working group recommended:

The participants were:

Pat Floyd, Working Group leader
Wayne Benson-Harper & Arlo Speer, TC-Special Flight Operations
Gerald Harper -- Abbotsford Parachute Centre & CAPS
Debbie Harper -- Abbotsford Parachute Centre & CAPS
Graham Brown -- Abbotsford Parachute Centre & CAPS
Bob Wright -- Grand Bend Sport Parachute Center Inc. & CSPA
Joe Mercier -- ParaAero Services & CAPS
Frances Mercier -- ParaAero Services & CAPS
James Mercier -- The Skydive Ranch Ltd. & CAPS
Mike Soboren -- CAPS
Jim Van Dewark -- Calgary Skydive Centre & CAPS
Ian Flanagan -- Pacific Skydivers Ltd. & CSPA
Mary Watson -- CSPA
Paul Ellis -- Nav Canada

...

It is the unanimous opinion of the Working Group that the proposed regulatory regime (attached) replaces the existing parachuting regulations. The proposed regulation includes four areas that are regulated directly, and one of which is regulated by the parachuting industry.

1. With respect to General regulations with respect to parachuting

There are general regulatory requirements that apply to all aspects of parachuting. In the existing regulations there are matters that are also adequately covered in the parachute industry standards. The regulatory replication of existing or out-dated industry standards added limited value. In addition, the inflexibility of the current regulatory regime inhibited the parachuting sport and industry. It is proposed that the redundant regulations should be removed. The parachutists themselves are adequately protected by current standards and practise. It is the opinion of the Working Group that the risk to the experienced parachutist by participating in the sport is acceptable and would not be further reduced by additional regulation. The proposed regulations are based on the requirement to protect the public.

The parachuting sport and industry are sophisticated and have very extensive standards. The extensive expertise of the domestic parachuting industry principally the two organisations involved, with close co-ordination with the US organisations, keep up-to-date and adjust to positive and negative trends in parachuting.

The intentions of the proposed general regulations are:
a. to minimise the safety risk to other aircraft and persons on the ground;
b. to restrict parachute activities to airspace clear of cloud;
c. to outline the illumination requirements to conduct parachute activity at night; and
d. to require co-ordination parachute operations with airport operators and landowners.

...

5. With Respect to additional regulations for ab initio or novice training
Both the national organisations have comprehensive student training, instructor training, and general safety standards addressing the safety risks for students. Each of the national parachute organisations claims 100% parachute centre operators’ compliance with the industry standards.

The two national organisation have manuals they publish and use for parachuting. The extensive expertise, resources and commitment of the two organisations involved, with close co-ordination with the US and international organisations, keep up-to-date of positive and negative trends in parachuting.

The Working Group reviewed the coroners reports and statistics to ascertain if the fatalities concerned could have been prevented by additional regulations. The provincial coroners reports were studied since the coroners did not attend or make written submissions. It was the unanimous opinion of the Working Group that regulations in addition to the existing industry standards for student training was not required and were counter-productive to the parachuting sport and industry.

In addition, there is no likelihood that Transport Canada will commit the resources to adequately replicate the standards, expertise, commitment, and resources found in the two national organisations in a regulatory regime. As well, the Transport Safety Board does not consider parachuting incidents, accidents, and fatalities worthy of investigation. If the parachuting accidents are not worth investigation by the federal body delegated to investigate aviation accidents, then Transport Canada’s justification for extensive regulation and incorporated standards to govern parachuting activities is extremely weakened.

The industry adequately regulates by the compliance with industry standards, and regulations in addition to the industry standards in the opinion of the Working Group are not required and would be counter-productive.

Working Group on Regulations Respecting Parachuting Activities

[yycflyguy]

I must admit I just skimmed the thread but wanted clarification that there will be a regulatory body monitoring skydive activities in Canada and on that board are these coconuts:

Joe Mercier -- ParaAero Services & CAPS
Frances Mercier -- ParaAero Services & CAPS
James Mercier -- The Skydive Ranch Ltd. & CAPS
Mike Soboren -- CAPS
Jim Van Dewark -- Calgary Skydive Centre & CAPS

These 5 were all co-conspirators (aka employees) with at least 3 deaths at Beiseker. Please tell me that they are NOT on this board to oversee safety and regulation.

[CrimsonSkies]

I wonder if they are still turning off the "aad's" as they did years ago........... as "they" as mentioned above post would say...... the biggest problem with one going off would have been "a pain in the a$$ cause we didn't bring a spare because there was no master rigger's capable of re-packing the reserve chutes" ..... when they did satellite schools! I remember... we all did.

[CMank]

I must admit I just skimmed the thread but wanted clarification that there will be a regulatory body monitoring skydive activities in Canada and on that board are these coconuts:

Joe Mercier -- ParaAero Services & CAPS
Frances Mercier -- ParaAero Services & CAPS
James Mercier -- The Skydive Ranch Ltd. & CAPS
Mike Soboren -- CAPS
Jim Van Dewark -- Calgary Skydive Centre & CAPS

These 5 were all co-conspirators (aka employees) with at least 3 deaths at Beiseker. Please tell me that they are NOT on this board to oversee safety and regulation.

There's the "sport association and regional competitive politics" I referred to.

I don't think there is any "board." I think the regulation takes the pretty much standard approach of making people apply for certifications, keep records, assign scapegoats.. er, I mean, persons who can be held accountable, inspecting, and issuing fines. You can read the new regs for yourself online in the Canada Gazette -- I think around March 2008 issue.

I'm not really sure what this will solve. I think it will hamper innovation and progress -- although of course it will still occur in countries that don't have regulation to interfere with it. Canada will still progress -- but hand-me-down, and long after the rest of the world gets it. I'm just not sure how that will make the sport safer. Too bad. Canada was always on the leading edge of sport innovation.

My husband and I quit jumping a couple years back, with more than 50 years combined years in the sport. I miss jump run and exit. I miss freefall and dumping. Weirdly, I even miss packing.

I don't miss this "let's cut off our noses to spite our faces" mentality.

..c..

[bodyflyer]

Re: the 5 'co-conspirators'

The working group meetings were set up by TC to consult with industry & other stakeholders. CAPS was a recognized industry group, given status by TC just like the CSPA as representing skydivers in Canada. So CAPS could send anyone they liked to the meetings.

TC consulted with the groups that attended, a report was produced (as referenced in the thread), and TC went off and did its own thing, not seeing much merit in the working group report.

I don't know what the status of TC's proposed regulation currently is, that went to the gov't for approval (NPA 99-148), but everything has been quiet in the last half year. It basically said that all of CSPA's rules & recommendations would have to be followed FOR STUDENT TRAINING ONLY. I can't recall for sure, but they also may have recommended some sport advisory group be set up from within the industry. Since Mr. Mercier skipped town during the one fatality inquest, and sold his DZ, I kind of doubt he'd show up in any such group. (As for my stance, I think some bad things said about Jim Mercier are untrue, and some are true...)

Following CSPA rules and recommendations sounds all very good, but there are a couple big worries among skydivers. One is that things that the CSPA publications relating to students recommend a lot of things that are typically good, but nobody expects them to apply 100% of the time, by law. Another is that TC inspectors could walk in and cause a lot of disruption if they see things that seem odd when they don't understand skydiving. In the end I figure the main reason for the proposed rules is to take heat off TC. After a student related accident they could swoop down, find some rule or other that was busted, fine a few people, and be able to tell the newspapers they were doing something.

[CMank]

First let me say that Jim Mercier is a friend of mine -- andyour assessment of him is accurate. Some of the things said about him are true, some aren't.

Transport really had no choice but to recognize CAPS. Initially, the intention for CAPS was for it to be more of an advocacy group, similar to COPA. Transport demanded that CAPS become a certification-issuing body in order to participate in the CARAC process. (I still have a copy of the letter around here somewhere.) There was only one director of the original association that wanted that (Mr. Mercier, in fact). Perhaps Transport thought it was a good way to dissuade anyone who might say what they didn't want to hear. I believe they already had a solution in mind, before going through the CARAC process, but not everyone was happy with that solution. And that's why there was a need for them to have their own recognition in the process.

I'd note too that I never believed it was legal for Transport to put this requirement upon us. We should have been able to participate as an advocacy group -- and it would have been in the best interests of everyone involved.

It's also interesting to note that the CARAC Technical Committee neither accepted nor rejected the Working Group's report. A mysterious page appeared in the meeting materials that looked (with respect to page layout) like a third page to the report -- a summary of the recommendations. All the recommendations were identical to those of the Working Group except the one for student training. This summary made a recommendation that was 180-degrees opposite from what the Working Group recommended. And it was this that was accepted by the Technical Committee.

A grievance was made at the CARAC plenury meeting that year. We were assured that it was all just a big accident. Only a Working Group chair can submit or modify a Working Group report. The mysterious third page was simply something Arlo Speer, Chief of Recreational Aviation (I believe), put together to be helpful -- although the question begs how a summary of the recommendations of the Working Group with one of them reversed could be helpful.

We were told by DG Art Laflamme basically *we didn't do it, we're sorry and it will never happen again.* But they refused to reverse the Technical Committee decision. When we asked why, they said because it had already been decided by CARC. ??? If that was true, why did they task a Working Group with looking into the necessity for such regulation? Rumour has it that some ADM put his foot in his mouth and stated that such regulation would be introduced, when "buttonholed" by the press. And that Transport was trying to cover his butt -- in violation of the CARAC process. Some of us were spending our own time and money participating in what we thought was a fair and transparent process. Imagine how we felt when we learned that Transport only played by the rules when it served them to do so.

I just read the regs published in the Canada Gazette a few months back, but I don't recall any mention of any board or advisory committee. I think that would be a landmine for Transport, especially given the etiology of this whole situation and the incestuous nature of our sport in this small country. I agree with you that Transport's interest was purely to cover their butts. And really, in retrospect, what else could they do? They had a bunch of misguided skydivers jumping up and down and insisting to everyone who would listen that our sport had serious problems and murdering profiteers running amok. Transport was forced to move to protect themselves from the splatter. But if they set up a board, it will be really tough for them to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance thereof. If they did that, we'd all be in court permanently.

One thing I bristle at is that the people making most of the noise regularly made highly inflammatory and vilifying statements about certain people, like Mr. Mercier. But if you dared to question anything they said or respectfully disagree with them, then next thing you know, they were making derogatory statements about YOU and vilifying YOU. That makes it really tough to take someone seriously. We need to look at such matters objectively and leave petty personal squabbles and vendettas out of it. It's irresponsible to do otherwise.

Sad thing is, Mr. Mercier was out of the business before the regulation came into effect anyway. And that had more to do with his poor business management skills. But as for all the squabbling, going to court, yada, to be honest? Jim just loves that stuff. He lives for it. He's the kind of guy who would take a parking ticket to the Supreme Court. So really, people just played to him on this one. (... but maybe they're just as bad.)

I don't think that centres have to follow CSPA's guidelines, but simply say who's guidelines they're following. I think it can be any recognized association. Trouble I see with this is that it means that we in Canada won't be able to do anything that hasn't already been proven and time-tested elsewhere. So much for innovation!

This whole matter was quite tragic, and it may be years before it finally finds some balance. Still as much as I fought Transport bringing in this regulation, I understand why they did. I don't think it will work out all that well for them either, but in light of the circumstances, they had to be seen to do something. What I hope today's generation of skydivers will take away from this is that if you try to bully a big government agency like Transport Canada, they'll take action -- but they won't necessarily play by the rules nor take your best interests into consideration. Sort your problems out in-house, people.

..c..

[bodyflyer]

2 quick notes:

- CMank is right: Under the proposed regulation, skydiving schools would have to state to which approved organization's rules they were conforming to. It would not have to be the CSPA; it could be CAPS or USPA.

- The preamble in the official NPA 99-148 proposal in the Canada Gazette did mention not only that the gov't was going the regulatory route, but that they'd be setting up a Sport Parachuting Advisory Council too.

[CMank]

Thanks for setting me straight, BodyFlyer. I guess they are actually going to set something like this up. Frankly, I think it's nuts, but I also think that Transport's entire solution missed the mark. It's very bureaucratic, but I don't think it will accomplish much. Possibly even it will make matters worse.

But that's not to say that there wasn't anything they could do. If it were up to me, having more than two decades familiarity with the sport, I would do the following:

1) Make it illegal -- in the Criminal Code of Canada -- to train, facilitate or equip any person under the age of majority to make a skydive.

Many have told me that Transport will never do this because they would view it as a threat to getting their teen-aged kids into flying. But skydiving is not the same thing as flying an airplane. As evidence of that, I offer the following: how many pilots have made even a single jump? Think about the difference between driving a car and riding a motorcycle, and then multiply that by several factors. That's the difference between flying and skydiving.

2) Both federal and provincial governments should come up with policy statements warning potential first jumpers that skydiving is an "extreme" sport and that while accidents are rare, the consequences can include death and lifelong disability. All training centres and sport associations should be required to display these statements prominently on all their marketing and information materials.

As you know, BodyFlyer, most of our marketing plays up how safe our sport is -- and indeed, it is, in the sense that accidents are rare. However, we may be lulling people into a false sense of security. I suspect that this will be further complicated as the general public gets wind of news that student training is now "regulated." They may assume that jumping at a certified drop zone will somehow protect them, but as all skydivers and Transport Canada knows, accidents are rare but inevitable and people should fully understand the risks before choosing to participate. (Or buying a 1st jump gift certificate for their precious child.)

My next two suggestions deal with the gorilla in the room, alcohol and drug use in the sport.

3) Either the federal or provincial government should set up a system of mandatory routine and unscheduled drug testing for all personnel involved in student training -- this includes tandem masters, jump instructors, riggers, packers, and pilots.

4) The same standards and enforcement for alcohol consumption that apply to commercial pilots should apply to all personnel involved in student training, and should be enforced to the same standard.

This next suggestion is one that I don't feel should be mandatory, but I'd like to see voluntarily adopted by Canadian skydiving centres:

5) Skydiving centres should abandon group rate structures.

In all my years on drop zones, I rarely saw a group come out that didn't include at least one person who was ambivalent about making a first jump. Considering the risks, no one should make a skydive because they were pressured into it.

These are the sorts of things that I think would really make a difference. How odd that they were summarily dismissed by both the sport community and Transport Canada. Whatevs! My guess is they'll be revisiting it eventually.

..c..