Use of Foreign Parachuting Equipment: Why FAR 105.49 is Effectively Useless

By Bryan Burke, Safety and Training Advisor at Skydive Arizona

The issue of foreign skydivers and their equipment with regard to FARs 105.43 and 105.49 is 

more complicated than it initially appears. It seems that during the last re-write of Part 105 the 

FAA and perhaps USPA assumed that equipment of foreign manufacture would fall into the 

“unapproved” category and therefore be acceptable for use in the USA provided it was used by 

the owner, who must be a non-resident of the USA. However, research into skydiving gear made 

in France, Germany, Canada, England, and South Africa that is sometimes used by foreign 

parachutists shows that almost all of these parachute components (harness/container and reserve 

canopy) are made under a TSO. 

Furthermore, many riggers agree that if either the reserve or the harness/container is made under 

a TSO, the entire assembly must be maintained under the standards of 105.43. Thus, a foreign 

parachutist using a non-TSO’d harness/container with a TSO’d reserve would get no relief from 

105.49. 

Skydive Arizona staff went to two resources to find data on how many foreign parachutists are 

using approved versus unapproved equipment. The first resource is our file of release forms

which tell us just how many foreign skydivers we have. Every skydiver, foreign or not, fills one 

of these out. These forms do not include data on whether or not their equipment is approved.

However, it gives us an exact count of foreign jumpers. In 2014 and 2015 a total of 1,570 

foreign jumpers from 58 countries visited Skydive Arizona.

I have no way of doing the same with US jumpers because we are transitioning to a new database 

system. However, our best guess is that foreigners are about 20% of our customers, probably 

slightly more.

A second data set is our event records, where we gather information about our customers to help 

us plan advertising, events, and so on. This data does inquire about the make of their equipment, 

including the main and reserve parachutes and the harness/container. This does not give us an 

exact count of what foreign skydivers are using because it does not include year round visitation, 

only special events. However, by taking the percentage of unapproved vs. approved equipment at 

specific events, we can determine an approximate percentage of foreign jumpers using foreign 

made equipment.

These records show that about 6% of our foreign jumpers are using gear of foreign 

manufacture, so more than nine out of ten are using US made equipment. However, taking 

those foreign parachutes by type, we see that almost all of the foreign gear is manufactured 

under a TSO. The exact number of parachutes that would fall under 105.49 is not possible to 

determine exactly for a couple of reasons. Parachutes de France (the Atom containers on the 

spread sheet) did not have TSOs for their equipment until about fifteen years ago, so of the 19 

PdF parachutes that came to us in the past two years, one or two might have been older, nonTSO parachutes. The other two suspects are a Canadian container of ‘90s vintage (the Excaliber) 

that probably did not have a TSO but would have had a TSO’d reserve since the company only 

makes containers. The final problematic rig is thought to be a Russian copy of an Aerodyne Pro 
container. All the others (the Teardrop containers) are TSO’d, made by Thomas Sports 

Equipment in England. They do not make reserves so almost all of these would also have a US 

made reserve or a European make built under a TSO.

Thus out of 1,570 foreign visitors, at most three or four would fall under FAR 105.49.

Literally 99.9% of foreign jumpers do not fall into the category created by 105.49 since 

their equipment is almost universally approved.

Incidentally, I also found this from the European Aviation Safety Agency. 

https://www.easa.europa.eu/faq/19463. 

Personnel parachutes within the scope of EASA are only emergency parachutes for glider and aerobatics 

pilots. All other parachutes (recreational, tandem etc.) are under the responsibility of the relevant 

Member States. EASA has published a list of parachute approvals granted by NAAs prior to EASA, which 

fall under the EASA responsibility. Click here for details.

This suggests that EASA deems the national aviation authorities of member states to be fully capable of 

determining what constitutes acceptable standards for skydiving equipment. Presumably most of these 

countries are in the EU and would accept each others requirements for equipment maintenance. This in 

turn makes me wonder if Canadian riggers and standards would be granted reciprocal status by NAFTA 

agreements, but that is a different issue.

In conclusion, since almost all foreign parachutists are using Approved equipment, and since there is 

virtually no history of foreign standards and rigging certification endangering skydivers, I submit that 

FAR 105.43 (b) creates an onerous and unnecessary burden to foreign skydivers visiting Skydive 

Arizona.