Use of Foreign Parachuting Equipment: Why FAR 105.49 is Effectivel y Useless By Bry an Burke, Safet y and Training Advisor at Skydive Arizona The issue of foreign skyd ivers and their equipment with regard to FAR s 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 acceptabl e for use in the USA provided it was used b y the owner, who must be a non

- resident of the USA. However, research into skydiving gear made in France, German y, Canada, England, and South Africa that is sometimes used by foreign parachutists shows that almost all of these parachute components (harness/co ntainer and reserve canop y) are made under a TSO. Furthermore, man y riggers agree that if either the reserve or the harness/container is made under a TSO, the entire assembly must be maintained under the stan dards 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 man y foreign parachutists are using approved versus una pproved 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 sy stem. Ho wever, our best guess is that foreigners are about 20% of our customers, probabl y 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 . Howeve r, b y 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 for**  **eign 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 105.4 9 is not possible to determine exactl y 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 y ears ago, so of the 19 PdF parachutes that came to us in the past two ye ars, one or two might have been older, non

TSO 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 onl y makes containers. The fi nal problematic rig is thought to be a Russian copy of an Aerodyne Procontainer. All the others (the Teardrop containers) are TSO’d, made b y Thomas Sports

Equipment in England. They do not make reserves so almost all of these would also have a US made res erve 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 universall** **y approved.**
In cidentall y, 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 parachut e 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 o f 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 wo nder 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 for eign 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.