PARASAI L SAFET Y COUNCI L a 'safet y first ' parasai i commuitrt y

Jul y 5 , 201 1

SEN T VI A REGULA RMAI L AN D FEDE X 

### o-<— ; U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n ' Docke t Operation s Y > ^>^ ^ Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloo r

c i O^? . RoomW12-14 0 Z J " " 120 0 New Jerse y Avenue , SE. , Washington , D C 2059 0 Re : Petitio n fo r

Rulemakin g -Propose dAmendmen t t o 1 4 CF R PETITIO N FO RRULEMAKIN G Th e Parasai l Safet y Counci l hereb y petition s fo r rulemakin g t o amen dtw o Subchapter s o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations . Subchapte r A , Definitions , t o includ e th e definitio n o f a'parasail ' devic e an d Subchapte r

F , t o furthe r

defin e aspect s o f

aparasai l an dt o regulat e it s operatio n an d equipmen t i n amanne r

an d metho dacceptabl e t o th e Administrato r o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration . Thi s petitio n i s mad e pursuan t t o Sectio n 11.6 1 e t

seq . o f th e Federa l Aviatio n .Regulations . Specifically , Subchapte r A , Definitions , Par t

1 Definition s an d Abbreviation s shoul db e amende dt o includ e th e definitio n fo r 'parasail ' a s a'glidin g parachute' . Subchapte r F , Ai r Traffi c an d Genera l Operatin g Rules , section s 91-10 5 amende dt o includ e asectio n title d 'Parasai l Operations ' whos e subpart s woul dinclud e Genera l Information , Operatin g Rule s an d Parasai l Equipment . INTERES T O FTH E PETITIONE R Th e Petitione r

i s th e Parasai l Safet y Council , hereafte r 'Petitioner' , an d it s advisor y boar d includin g parasai l exper t

an d parasai l equipmen t

paten t holde r Mar k McCulloh . Th e Safet y Counci l i s aworldwide , not-for-profi t subscriptio n organizatio n base di n Orlando , Florida . It sU.S . Department o f Transportatio n Jul y 5 , 201 1 Pag e 2 primar y missio n i s t o promote-safet y i n th e manufactur

e and us e o f

parasai l systems . Petitioner ha s mor e tha n 58,00 0 individuals , private an d government institution s an d parasai l operator s a s subscribers . They compris e nearl y ever y commercia

l parasai l operatio n i

n th e Unite d States , a s wel l as , many federa

l and stat e legislativ e an d enforcement agencies . It s subscriber s operate nearl y ever

y parasai l flight

i n th e U.S . whic h Petitioner estimate s a

t 3- 5 millio n annuall y exceedin g that

o f commercia

l spor t skydiving . Petitioner

and it s subscriber s hav e been particularl y and substantiall y affected b y th e interpretation s an d regulation s applie d b y th e Administrato r

a s aresul t

o f it s Memorandum s and directives . Thi s include s incompatibl e flight rules , reportin g requirement s whic h canno t b e complie d wit

h an d certificate s o f

waivers . Th e Petitioner ha s als o foun

d 1 4 CF Rt o b e lackin g i

n it s oversight

o f th e sport . Petitioner' s subscriber s and th e publi c a t larg e wil l continu e t o b e affected b y and place d a t ris k becaus e o f th e lack o f appropriate regulation . A n important

issu e raise d b

y th e Petitioner

i n aserie s o f

Memorandum s o

n parasai l safet

y and regulatio n publishe d earlier thi s yea r wa s th e interpretatio n o f parasailin g b y th e FA

A i n a Memorandumdate d November 09 , 200 9 authore d by Ms . Rebecc aMacpherson , chie f counse l fo r FA A regulations . I

n a n effor t t o positivel y addres s th e issue s surroundin g parasailin g a s it relate s t o th e FAA' s regulatio n over th e nation' s airspace . Petitioner offer s thi s practical and effectiv e proposal . Petitione r recognize s tha t

parasai l operation s requir e bot h safet y authorit y fro mth e FAA an d economi c authorit y fro mth e Offic e o f th e Secretar y o f

Transportatio n i n orde r t o b e adequatel y regulated . Th e purpos e o f thi s petitio n i s t o addres s safety . BACKGROUN D The FA A b y wa y o f Memorandumtoo k

th e lega l positio n tha

t a'parasail ' fall s withi n th e definitio n o f

a'kite ' a s i t

pertain s t o 1 4 CFR . Th e Civi l Aeronautic s Board , th e predecesso r t o th e FAA , bega

n regulatin g kite s in 1954 . See , 1 9 F R7719 , 772 0 (November 30 , 1954) . The FA A continue s t o regulate kite s t o th e exten t that the y are object s i

n airspace .U.S . Department o f Transportatio n Jul y 5 , 201 1 Pag e 3 Thes e regulation s ar

e prescribe d i

n 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 101 , subpar

t A an d B . Sectio n § 101.1 1 Applicability . Thi s subpar t applie s t o th e operatio n o f moore d balloon s an d kites . However , aperso n operatin g amoore d balloo n o r kite withi n arestricte d are amus t comply only wit h §101.1 9 an

d wit h additiona

l limitation s impose d b y th e usin g or controllin g agency , a s appropriate . Sectio n 101.1 3 states , i n relevant part , tha t n o perso n ma

y operate akite les s tha

n 500 fee t fro mth e bas e o f

an y cloud , more tha

n 50 0 fee t abov e th e surfac e o f

th e earth , o r

fro ma n are awher e th e ground visibilit

y i s les s tha

n thre e miles . Sectio n 101.1 5 states , i n relevant part , tha t n o perso n ma

y operate s kite mor

e tha n 15 0 fee t abov e th e surfac e o f

th e eart h unless , a

t leas t 2 4 hour s befor

e th e operation , th e operato r provide s th e followin g informatio n t o th e FA A ai r traffi c contro l facilit

y tha t i s neares t t o th e plac e o f

intende d operation : th e name s an d addresse s o f th e owner s an

d operators , th e siz e an

d weight o f th e kite , th e locatio n o f

th e operation , th e height abov e th e surfac e a

t whic h th e kite i s t o b e operated , and th e date , time , an d duratio n o f th e operation . I

n addition , fo

r daytime operations , sectio n 101.1 7 require , i n relevant part , tha t th e kite' s moorin g line s hav e "colore d pennant s or streamer s attache d a

t n o mor e tha n 5 0 foo t interval s beginnin g a

t 15 0 fee t abov e th e surfac e o f

th e eart h and visibl e fo

r a t leas t on e mile . Th e Petitioner

reviewe d th e FA

A Memorandumdate d November 9 , 2009 , attache d hereto , becaus e o f

th e impac t

i t ha d on th e commercia

l parasai l industr

y and conclude d tha

t th e opinio n an d conclusion s do no t

apply to th e spor

t a s practice d toda

y and present

afundamentally flawed interpretatio n o f

1 4 CF RPar t 10 1 o n severa l point s raisin g int

o questio n whether

1 4 CF RPar t 10 1 applie s to commercia

l parasailing . DISCUSSIO N Thi s petitio n addresse s th e Federa l regulatio n o f

moore d an

d unmoore d manne d parasails . A . UNMOORE

D PARASAIL : PARACHUT E Petitione r request s th e Administrato r t o expan d th e definitio n o f 'Parachute ' t o includ e a n 'Unmoore d Parasail ' accordingl y makin g i t subjec t t o th e FAA regulation s applicabl e t o parachutes .U.S . Department o f Transportatio n Jul y 5 , 201 1 Pag e 4 The Federa

l Aviatio n Administratio n define s aparachute as , '.. . adevic e use d or intende d t o b e used t o retar dth e fal l o f abod y or objec t throug h th e air.' ' Thre e t o five million s peopl e experienc e th e thril l o f

glidin g hundred s o f

fee t abov e th e eart

h eac h yea

r wit h th e assistanc e o f

a parasail . Th e histor

y o f th e parasai l goe s bac k

nearl y five decade s wit

h th e earl y involvement

o f it s desig n and us e b y NAS A an d th e U.S . Military^ . NAS A used th e parasai l i n free flight

a s a vehicl e recover

y devic e becaus e o f

it s uniqu e abilitie s t o ac t

a s aparachute i

n retardin g a

n object' s fal

l and to glide . I

n 196 3 NAS A calle d th e parasai l an , 'all flexible glidin g parachute' ^ contrastin g i

t wit h apara-glider

whic h ha s aframework

an d acknowledgin g it s physica l attribute s t

o b e tha t o f amodifie d parachute . Th e FAA' s investigator s o f th e 2004 Gul f

Shores , Alabam ainciden

t an d th e autho r

writing , i n respons e t o areques t

fo r clarification , o

n behal f o f th e Administrato r

i n th e Nov . 200 9 Memorandumbot h calle d th e parasai l a

. parachute^ . NAS A an d th e U.S . military ^ hav e bee n usin g th e parasai l to trai n astronaut s an d paratrooper s takin g advantag e o f

th e parasail' s abilitie s to ascend followed b y afre e flight descent^ . The

y launch th e parasai l b y tetherin g i t t o avehicl e the n releasin g th e tether or by self-launchin g fro

m a n elevate dterrai n or

structure . I

n bot h case s th e paratrooper

o r astronau t i s expose d to th e fre

e flight o f th e parasai l givin g themaparachute

- lik e experienc e withou t

th e nee d or

cos t o f a n aircraft . Recognizin g th e danger s and thu s th e nee d fo r water surviva l techniques , the y perfor

m fre e flight descent trainin g ove

r bot h land an d water. ' Spor

t skydiver s als o us e parasail s i n th e sam e manne r the y us e parachutes . I n it s November

9 , 200 9 Memorandumth e FA A reviewe d th e recommendation s o f thei r investigator s followin g th e 200 4 collisio n between aparasai l operatio n an d a n aircraf t banner -

' 1 4 CF RAeronautic s andSpace , Par t 1 Definition s an

dAbbreviation s §1. 1 Genera l Definition s ^ www.parasail.org/parasail_history_pictorial_1961_20 1 l_slide.html ^ http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4203/ch7- 3 .ht m ^ FA A MemorandumApplicabilit y o f 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 10 1 (Moore d Balloons , Kites , Unmanne d Rocket s andUnmanne dFre e Balloons ) t o parasail s an dparasai l operation s E>td

. No v 9,200 9 p 1 , pp 1 , line 4 ^ http://www.history.navy.mil/download/train-06.pd f * http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/roundups/issues/63-09- l 8.pd f ^ http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/roundups/issues/63-09-l8.pd fU.S . Department o f Transportatio n Jul y 5 , 201 1 Page s towin g operation . I

n it s conclusio n th e autho r wrote i n part , 'Accordingly , parasail s and parasai l operation s ar

e subjec t t o th e FA A regulation s applicabl e to kites.' * Petitioner believe s tha

t thi s statement

wa s mean

t to addres s th e specifi c se t o f fact s which th e autho r wa s presente d wit

h and no t t o b e rea

d a s agenera

l positio n statement

regardin g 'all ' parasails . Th e autho r

wa s specifically addressin g a'moore d parachute towe d b y aboat ' whic h wa s given a s th e definitio n o f aparasail . A

n unmoore d or

free parasai l wa s no t

considere d i

n th e analysi s o r

th e discussion . Th e Petitioner suggest s tha

t th e narro w interpretatio n o f th e author' s statement to th e fact s i s th e appropriate conclusion . Petitioner propose s tha

t differen t regulation s apply t o a n unmoore d parasai l an

d request s th e Administrato r to : (1 ) expan d th e definitio n o f a parachute to includ e a

n unmoore d parasai l an

d (2 ) subjec t

unmoore d parasail s to th e FA A regulation s applicabl e t o parachutes . B ) MOORE

D PARASAILS Petitione r request s tha t

moore d manne d parasail s b e regulate d unde r 1 4 CFR , Subchapte r F , Ai r Traffi c an d Genera l Operatin g Rules , b y addin g asectio n title d 'Moore d Parasai l Operation ' applicabl e t o 'manne d moore d parasails' . Th e FAA' s November

9 , 200 9 Memorandumfound tha t moore d parasail s wer

e kite s and subsequentl y §10 1 i

n particula

r Subchapter

B Moore dBalloon s an

d Kite s applied . Petitioner take s exceptio n t o th e appropriatenes s o f thi s conclusion . Th e FA

A investigator s suggeste d tha t th e FAA , 'Expan d the definitio n o f akite o r moored/tethere d objec t

t o include "parasail " thu s makin g parasai l operation s subjec t to th e restriction s o f

1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 10 1 regardin g altitude s an d to w lin e markings. ' Thi s suggestio n wa s mad e afte r acknowledgment

b y th e investigator s that , 'ther e ar

e n o regulation s i

n 1 4 C.F.R . specifically referrin g to th e operatio n o f parasails'^ . Wit h thi s conclusio n Petitioner agree s an d add s tha t there continue s to b e n o sectio n i n 1 4 C.F.R . tha t appropriatel y and specifically regulate s manne d moore d parasails .

' FA A MemorandumApplicabilit y o f 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 10 1 (Moore d Balloons , Kites , Unmanne d Rocket s an

dUnmanne dFre e Balloons ) to parasail s and parasai l operation s Dtd . No v 9 , 200 9 p2 , pp 7 , line 4 'ibid . pl,pp2 , line lU.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n Jul y 5 , 201 1 Pag e 6

I s amoore d parasai l a n aircraft ? Th e FA A ha s define da n aircraf t a s ' adevic e tha t

i s use d o r

intende d t o b e use d fo r

flight i n th e air. ' NAS A define s i t as , 'An y structure , machine , o r contrivance , especiall y avehicle , designe dt o b e supporte d b y th e air , bein g born e u p eithe r b y th e dynami c actio n o f th e ai r upo n th e surface s o f

th e structur e o r

object , o r

b y it s ow n buoyancy.' " In it s revie w o f

parasai l device s an d subsequen t regulation , th e FA A first analyze d whethe r

a parachut e [parasail ] bein g towe d b y aboa t wa s an aircraf

t an d thu s applyin g th e portion s o f 1 4 CF Rtha t regulat e aircraf

t an d aircraf

t operations . Th e gyro-glide r operate d b y mean s o f a towline'^, ' th e han g glide r flown a t th e en d o f

arope' ^ an d th e parachut e towe d b y aboa t wer e al l foun dno t

t o b e aircraf

t becaus e the y wer e not , use d o r intende d fo r

'fre e flight'*''. Th e FA A Memorandum' s autho r

concluded , 'fre e flight rathe r tha n conveyanc e o f

aperso n a s th e lin e betwee n akit e an d an aircraft."' ^ Petitione r note d tha t

th e FA A reserve d it s righ t t o reconside r

a moore ddevic e an aircraft . Followin g th e FAA' s logi c amoore d parasai l i s b y definitio n no t use do r intende d fo r

'fre e flight', unles s late r released , an d thu s th e FA A conclude d tha t i t wa s no t a n aircraft . A s t o amoore d parasail . Petitione r agree s wit h thi s conclusion . I s amoore d parasai l akite ? Th e FA A define s a'kite ' as , '. . aframework, covere d wit h paper , cloth , metal , o r othe r material , intende dt o b e flown a t

th e en d o f

arop e o r

cable , an d havin g a s it s onl y suppor t th e forc e o f

th e win dmovin g pas t

it s surfaces.'' ^ NAS A define s a'kite ' a s an , 'unpowere d aircraft.'' ^

'° 1 4 CF RAeronautic s andSpace , Par t 1 Definition s and Abbreviation s §1. 1 Genera l Definitions , Aircraf

t " http://er.jsc.nasa.gOv/seh/a.htm l " FA A MemorandumApplicabilit y o f 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 10 1 (Moore d Balloons , Kites , Unmanne d Rocket s an

d Unmanne dFre e Balloons ) t o parasail s an dparasai l operation s Dtd . No v 9 , 2009 , p2 , pp5 , line 2 ' ^ Ibid . p2 , pp5 , line 9 ' " Ibid . p2 , pp5 , line ? ' ' Ibid . p2 , pp5 , line ? ' * 1 4 CF RPar t 1 Definition s andAbbreviations , §1. 1 Genera l Definitions , Kit

e ' ^ http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/guided.ht mU.S . Department o f Transportatio n Jul y 5 , 201 1 Page ? Onc e adevic e i s foun

d no t to b e a n aircraf t th e FA A analyze d whether

o r no t th e devic e wa s simila r enough to b e include d i

n th e definitio n o f

adevic e i

t alread y regulates . Wit

h respec t t o moore dparasail s the y conclude d 'kites ' wer e similar . Th e FA

A wrote , 'Th e parasai l define d durin g th e investigatio n fall s withi n th e definitio n o f a"kite " becaus e i

t i s aparachute held alof

t b y th e wind resultin g fromth e movement o f th e boa t towin g it . Additionally , aparasai l i s simila r t o other object s previousl y determine d to b e kites.'' * Petitioner note s tha t i t appear s tha

t th e FA A autho r applie d th e kit e definitio n to describ e th e fact s rather tha n askin g whether

th e fact s wer e simila r to th e definition . Petifione r addresse s thi s issu e below . Petitioner assume s tha

t th e author

wa s usin g th e FA

A investigator' s definitio n o f parasai l i

n thi s instanc e a s bein g 'parachute s tha

t ar e towe d b y aboat. ' I

n tha t regar d Petitioner

agree s tha

t th e gyro-glider , han g glide r an d parasai l wer

e simila r i n ho w the y wer

e bein g used ; they were al l dynamicall y moore d t o avehicle . Wit

h thi s conclusio n Petifione r agrees . Whil e on th e surface , kite s and parasail s appea r similar , there ar

e fundamenta

l differences . Moorin g fo

r th e gyro-glider , han g glider an d parasai l play s aradicall y differen t rol e then th e moorin g o f

akite . If th e operato r

o f th e first thre e device s intends , all ca n perfor mfre e flight, independent

o f tethering . I

n fact parasails , even when moored , descen d unde r thei r own desig n wit h neither tetherin g or

wind playin g arol e i

n it s abilit y t o fly. Kite s o

n th e other

hand require tha t th e resultin g forc e vecto r

fromth e lif

t and drag forc e component s o f it s desig n t o b e oppose d b y th e tensio n o f

th e tether i n order fo r i t t o fly. Kite s ar

e moorin g dependent ' regardles s o f th e operator' s intent . Parasail s ar e moorin g independent

no t unlik e aglider o r sailplane . Th e FA A investigator s wer

e partiall y accurate i

n thei r assessment

o f th e parasail . They define d parasail s a s 'parachute s tha t ar e towe d b y aboat , a

n automobile , o r

other mean s o n th e surfac e an d ar e hel d alof

t onl y b y th e win d provide d b y th e surfac e vehicle' s motion. ' A s NAS A pointe d out

aparasai l i s indee d aparachute whic h ha s been modified , enablin g i t t o glide .

^ * FA A MemorandumApplicabilit y o f 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 10 1 (Moore d Balloons , Kites , Unmanne d Rocket s an

dUnmanne dFre e Balloons ) t o parasail s an d parasai l operation s Dtd . No v 9 , 200 9 p2 , pp6 , line 3 ''Ibid , pi , ppl , line 4U.S . Department o f Transportatio n Jul y 5 , 201 1 Page s However , they understate d th e dynamic s o f aparasai l to th e extent

tha t aparasai l doesn' t

requir e win d fromth e forwar

d motio n o f

th e moorin g vehicl e or

vesse l t o b e hel d aloft . Lik e many other glider^ ° typ e aircraf

t an d devices , parasail s simply nee d altitud e to begi n fre e flight. Petitioner take s exceptio n to th e FA A definin g amoore d parasai l a s a'kite ' base d o n thei r fijndamental difference s o f

tethe r dependenc e an

d independence , a s wel l as , th e parasail s abilit y to fly without wind . I s 1 4 CFR10 1 relevan t

an d appropriat e fo r

th e regulatio n an d safet

y o f manne d moore d parasails ? Shoul d th e FA

A findafte

r carefiil re-examinatio n tha t amoore d parasai l i s akite , one mus t ask , 'Ar e th e regulation s foun

d i n 1 4 CF R10 1 an d i n particula

r Subpar t B relevant

and appropriate fo r th e regulatio n o f

commercia

l parasai l operation s launchin g million s o f manne d flights?' Thi s Petitioner believe s the y are not . Sectio n 10 1 applicability to unmanne d devices . Legislativ e intent . Petitioner foun d compellin g evidenc e i

n th e word s o f

th e FAA , a s wel l as , i

n th e languag e o f

1 4 CF R§10 1 tha

t Sectio n 10 1 wa s no t

intende d t

o appl y t o manne d devices . Th e Novembe r 200 9 Memorandumparaphrasin g th e FAA' s earlier positio n o

n kit e regulatio n wrote , 'Th e Civi l Aeronautic s Board , th e predecesso r to th e FAA , bega

n regulatin g kite s i

n 195 4 to the exten

t tha t the y pos e ahazar d to th e fligh t o f aircraft.^^ ^ Th e FA A mad e i t abundantl y clea

r i n tha t statement tha t thei r focu s wa s o

n th e welfar

e and safet

y o f other aircraf t no t th e kite and i

n particula

r no t kite passengers .

2 0 1 4 CF RAeronautic s andSpace , Par t 1 Definition s and Abbreviation s §1. 1 Genera l Definitions : Glide r

mean s a heavier-than-ai r

aircraft , tha

t i s supporte di

n flight by th e dynami c reactio n o f th e air agains t it s liftin g surface s an

d whos e fi-ee flight

doe s not depen dprincipall y on a

n engine .

^ ' 1 9 F R7719 . ??2 0 (Nov . 30 , 1954) ; Ibi dp2 , pp8 , line lU.S . Department o f Transportatio n Jul y 5 , 201 1 Pag e 9 The FA A limite d thei r

regulatio n o f

kite s i n §10 1 becaus e the y di d no t envisio n kite s t o b e manned ; they di d no t

regulate ahazar

d tha t the y di d no t

envision ; kite passengers . Petitioner assert s tha t ha d th e FA A intende d to regulate manne d kite s they woul d hav e don e s o by invokin g relevant regulation s an d presentin g amuch differen t positio n statement . The autho r

o f th e 200 9 Memorandumreinforce d thi s positio n b y writing , 'Th e FA

A continue s to regulate kite s only t

o th e exten

t that they ar e object s i

n th e airspace.'^ ^ Th e operativ e ter mbein g objects . Th e FA

A doe s no t

se e kite s a s passenger

bearing , the y ar

e merely object s tha

t ma y pos e athrea t or hazar d to others . Again , thes e ar e no t th e word s o f

a n Administrato r

regulatin g a manne d device . Petitioner

believe s the y ar

e th e word s o f

on e wh o sa

w thei r missio n wit

h respec t t o kite s a s regulatin g adevic e only . Thi s regulator y intent i s foun d throughou t

th e languag e o f Sectio n 10 1 a s well . Sectio n 101 . Ther e ar e extensiv e FA

A regulation s regardin g manne d device s becaus e th e FA A understand s tha t placin g aperso n into th e airspac e involve s a n acknowledge d ris k

o f har man d tha t regulatio n assist s th e Administrato r

i n it s missio n o f

airspac e safet

y to object s an

d people . Sectio n 10 1 an

d it s Subpart s ar

e clea r i n thei r languag e tha

t the y wer e intende d to appl y only to 'unmanned ' devices . Subpar t C , Amateu

r Rocket s §101.2 1 read s i n it s pertinent

par t 'a ) thi s subpar

t applie s to operatin g unmanne d rocVs.is.' ' Subpar t D , Unmanne d Fre e Balloon s §101.3 1 read s i n it s pertinent par t 'a ) thi s subpar

t applie s t o th e operatio n o f unmanne d fre

e balloons. ' Whil e Subpar t B , Moore d Balloon s and Kite s i s no t a s explici t

i t i s n o les s clea

r i n carryin g out

th e legislativ e inten t t o regulate object s no t

people . Sectio n 101.1 9 continue s thi s theme a s i t regulate s moore d balloon s andkites .

FA A MemorandumApplicabilit y o f 1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 10 1 (Moore dBalloons , Kites , Unmanne d Rocket s an

dUnmanne dFre e Balloons ) t o parasail s an d parasai l operation s Dtd . No v 9 , 200 9 p2 ,U.S . Department o f Transportatio n Jul y 5 , 201 1 Pag e 1 0 Sectio n 101.1 9 read s in it s pertinent par t 'N o perso n ma

y operate amoore d balloo n unles s i t ha s adevic e tha

t wil l automaticall y and rapidl y deflat e th e balloo n i f

i t escape s fromit s moorings.'^ ^ Thi s i s no t

th e languag e one use s to regulate a'manned ' device . I t make s i t abundantl y clea

r tha t th e drafter s didn' t

envisio n th e balloo n to b e 'manned ' or the y woul d no t

hav e require d tha

t th e balloo n b e 'automatically ' deflated . Ha d i t been manne d th e occupant(s ) woul d hav e performe d tha t tas k o f deflation . No r

woul d the y require tha

t th e balloo n b e 'rapidl y deflated' , insinuatin g a rapi d an d dangerou s descent . Thes e ar e no t th e word s o f

a n Administrato r

managin g or intendin g t o manag e th e ris k o f hazard t o huma

n life . Continuin g th e analysi s o f §101.19 , kite s di d no t

require a n automati c devic e t o brin g the m rapidly bac k

to eart h becaus e th e drafter s new tha t a n untethere d kite canno t

continu e t o fly.^'' The drafter s o f

§101.1 9 understoo d tha

t akite require s tetherin g t o function . They als o knew tha t shoul d akite escap e it s moorings ' th e severin g o f it s tether , bein g critical t o it s abilit y t o fly, woul d ac t a s th e 'automatic ' devic e whic h woul d rapidl y brin g i t bac k t o earth . Th e drafter s clearl y anticipate d unmoore d kite s fallin g harmlessl y fro mth e sky , avertin g midai r collisions . They di dno t

envisio n havin g passenger s involve d i n thi s perilou s event . Non e o f th e regulation s i

n Sectio n 10 1 reflec t

th e thought s o f

writer s tha

t anticipate d passenger s woul d b e involved ; they envisione d unmanne d devices . Petitioner assert s tha

t there ma y i n fac t b e manne d moore d balloon s an d manne d moore d kites , but §10 1 wa s no t

intende d o r

drafted to regulate either

o f them . I t i s amisapplicatio n o f

th e regulation s t o do otherwise . Absenc e o f

airworthines s an d standard s o f conduct . Sectio n 10 1 yield s additiona l evidenc e tha

t i t wa s no t intende d t o regulate manne d devices . Conspicuousl y missin g ar e airworthines s standard s fo r th e devices . Th e FA

A i s excellent

a t managin g risk

t o passenger s i

n flight. They hav e accomplishe d thi s b y establishin g extensiv e airworthines s standard s fo

r device s tha

t ar e manned . §10 1 Subpar

t B Moore d Balloon s an

d Kite s doe s no t contai n any airworthines s language . 1 4 CF RSubchapte

r F , Ai r Traffi c an

dGenera l Operatin g Rules , §101.1 9 1 0 " " See : Pag e 6 , paragrap h 3 abov eU.S . Department o f Transportatio n Jul y 5 , 201 1 Pag e 1 1 Wa s thi s a

n oversight

b y th e drafters ? Petitioner assert s tha

t i t wa s not . Airworthines s wa s unnecessar

y becaus e Subpar

t B only applie s t o unmanne d devices . I n fact airworthines s standard s fo

r manne d kite s wa s no t

foun d i n an y sectio n o f

§10 1 . Th e onl y logica

l conclusio n drawn for mthi s absenc e i s tha

t §10 1 wa s intende d to only regulate 'unmanned ' devices . Als o absent

i n §10 1 are an

y reference s t o other

regulation s involvin g moore d balloo n and kite operato r and passenger

standard s o f

behavior , training , qualifications , equipment , safet y instruction s an

d limitations . Moore d Kit

e Exclusio n §101.1 1 Further evidenc e o f

th e drafter s intent

i s foun d i n §101.1 1 Applicabilit

y whic h read s i

n par t 'However , aperso n operatin g amoore d balloo n or kite withi n arestricte d are amus t comply only wit h §101.1 9 and wit

h additiona

l limitation s impose d b

y th e usin g o r

controllin g agency , a s appropriate.'^ ^ A s there i s n o languag e i n §101.1 9 regardin g moore d kites , §101.1 1 effectively define s moore d kite s operate d i n arestricte d are aa s bein g unregulate d by Subpar t B , leavin g it s contro l u p to acontrollin g agenc y o f th e area . Undoubtedl y no t a n outcome one woul d choos e fo r th e safet y management

o f amanne d device . Shoul dth e Administrato r

find tha t aparasai l i s akite . Petitioner reassert s tha

t 1 4 CF R§10 1 wa s no t intende d to regulate moore d manne d kites . Th e unintende d consequence s o f §101.0 3 Waiver . Th e lack o f relevanc e o f

§10 1 t o commercia

l parasai l operation s ha s cause d unintende d consequence s fo

r th e Administrato r

a s wel l a s commercia l parasai l operator s an

d thei r customers .

^ ' 1 4 CF RSubchapte

r F , Ai r Traffi c andGenera

l Operatin g Rules , §101.1 1 Applicability : Thi s subpar t applie s to th e operatio n o f

moored balloon s an

dkites . However , aperso n operatin g amoore d balloo n o r kite within arestricte d are amus t comply only wit

h §101.1 9 and wit

h additiona

l limitation s impose d b

y th e usin g o

r controllin g agency , a s appropriate . 1 1U.S . Department o f Transportatio n Jul y 5 , 201 1 Pag e 1 2 Muc h if no t all o f Secdo n 10 1 i s violate d durin g th e norma l cours e o f

parasai l operation . Th e Operafing Limitation s foun d i n §101.1 3 an

d th e Notic e Requirement s o f §101.1 5 ar

e commo n source s o f thi s problem . I

n order t o avoi d non-complianc e sanction s parasai l operator s routinel y apply fo r and receiv e long-ter

mcertificate s o f

waiver under §101.3^^ . Thi s wholesal e approach t o long-ter mwaiver s ha s resulte d i

n th e lack o f meaningful regulatio n o f

aspor t whic h oversee s mor e tha n thre e millio n passenge

r flights per

year . SUMMARY Mor e tha n thre e t o five millio n peopl e eac h yea r ar e passenger s o

n amoore d parasail . A

n additional unknow n numbe r us e parasail s a s parachutes . Neither moore d or

unmoore d parasail s appea r t o b e regulate d b

y th e Administrator . Th e foregoin g analysi s o f issue s lead s th e Petitioner t o reques t fou r amendment s t o 1 4 CFR(1 ) t o includ e th e expansio n o f th e definitio n o f

a parachute to include a

n unmoore d parasail ; (2 ) t o find that amoore d parasai l i s no t

akite a s use d i n 1 4 CF RPar t 101 ; (3 ) tha

t 1 4 CF RPar t 10 1 Subpar

t B doe s no t

appl y to 'manned ' device s an d i n particula

r to manne d moore d parasails ; (4 ) tha t th e commercia

l parasai l industr

y need s specifi c an

d effectiv e regulations . W e urg e th e Administrato r

to rescin d th e Memorandumdate d November 09 , 200 9 an

d tha t fo r th e safet y o f th e publi c institute effectiv e parasai l regulations . I n ligh t o f it s conclusio n and th e statistical fact that 99 % o f al l parasai l flights ascen d and descen d over

water ; tha

t 95 % o f all parasai l accident s resultin g i n seriou s injur

y o r deat h wer e th e resul t o f a n unplanne d descent

into water

i n which th e parasai l drag s th e parasai l passenger backwar d throug h water ; Petitioner an d aconsorti ao f

parasai l manufacturers , operator s an d expert s hav e drafted sampl e regulation s fo

r th e benefit

o f th e Administrato r

an d wil l tender

suc h languag e where an

d whe n

^ * 1 4 CF RSubchapte

r F , Ai r Traffi c andGenera

l Operatin g Rules , §101.3 , Waiver : N o perso n ma y conduc t operation s tha

t requir e adeviatio n fro

mthi s par t excep t unde r acertificate o f

waive r issue d by th e Administrator . 1 2U.S . Department o f Transportatio n July 5 , 201 1 Pag e 1 3 th e Administrato r

requests . To assis t

i n beginnin g tha

t proces s Petitioner

ha s affixed to thi s petitio n propose d definition s (See : AddendumA) . Petitioner stand s read

y t o assis t th e FA A i n th e review , revisio n an

d formulatio n o f

propose d regulations . Such assistanc e include s th e testimony o f th e world' s leadin g parasai l exper t and th e resources , dat aan

d analysi s o f

th e Petitioner

and th e consorti ao f

concerne d parties . OTHE RINFORMATIO N T o th e extent

thi s petitio n ha s no t

alread y don e so , th e Safet

y Counci l stand s read

y to respon d t o areques t under FA R11.71(b ) to furthe

r addres s th e cost s and benefit s t o societ y and identifiabl e group s o f thi s propose d action ; th e regulator y burden o

n small businesses , small organizations , smal l governmenta

l jurisdictions , an

d India n tribes ; th e recor

d keepin g an

d reportin g burdens ; and natura l and socia

l environmenta

l effects . Respectfully submitted .

Mar k McCullo h Chairma n The Parasai l Safet

y Counci l Clayto n & McCullo h Buildin g 1065 Maitlan d Common s Blvd . • Maitland , F L 3275 1 Telephone : 407 . 494.649 0 • Fa x 866.572.984 8 Website : www.parasail.org

1 3U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n Jul y 5 , 201 1 Pag e 1 4 

### Addendu mA Propose dDefmition s Altitud e mean s Abov e Groun d Leve l (AGL ) Approve d parasai l canop y mean s aparasai l canop y manufacture d unde r atyp e certificat e o r

a Technica l Standar d Orde r (C-2 3 series) , o r

apersonnel-carryin g U.S . militar y parachut e (othe r tha n ahig h altitude , hig h speed , o r ejectio n type ) identifie d b y aNav y Ai r Facility , an Arm y Ai r Field , an dAi r

Force-Nav y drawin g number , an Arm y Ai r Fiel d orde r

number , o r

an y othe r militar y designatio n o r

specificatio n number . Automati c Releas e Devic e mean s amechanica l self-containe d releas e syste mattache d t o ato w ba r in aflexible harnes s parasai l syste mo r t o th e ridge d harnes s in aridge d harnes s parasai l syste mwhic h in th e forme r syste mautomaticall y release s th e to w ba r fromth e parasai l canop y an di n th e latte r

syste mautomaticall y release s th e ridge d harnes s fro mth e parasai l canop y whe n th e automati c releas e devic e i s acfivated . Commercia l parasai l operatio n mean s providin g o r offerin g t o provide , fo r

consideration , an y activit y involvin g th e towin g o f aparasai l syste mb y amoorin g vehicl e when : (a ) On e o r

mor e person s ar e tethere d t o parasai l system ; (b ) Th e perso n o r

person s ascen d abov e groun d o r se alevel ; an d (c) Th e perso n o r

person s remai n suspende d abov e th e earth whil e th e moorin g vehicl e i s underway . Flexibl e Harnes s mean s acombinatio n o f strap s an d webbin g tha t physicall y secure s an d support s asingl e parasailo r t o ato w bar . Fligh t Zon e mean s an y pre-determine d are ai n whic h parasai l activit y i s conducte d Leve l Win dmean s adevic e attache d t o awinc h syste mt o assis t th e to w lin e t o uniforml y wra p an d unwra p fro mth e winc h spool . Manne dParasai l mean s amoore d parasai l wit h apassenge r o r parasailo r

attached . 1 4U.S . Departmen t o f Transportafio n Jul y 5 , 201 1 Pag e 1 5

Moorin g Vehicl e mean s avehicl e o r vesse l t o whic h aparasai l i s tethere d Parasai l mean s aglidin g parachute . Parasailo r

mean s aperso n wh o intend s t o exi t amoorin g vehicl e whil e attache d o r un-attache d t o aparasai l system . Parasai l Syste mmean s th e combinatio n o f an approve dparasai l canopy , approved^ej)c/6/ e harnes s wit h to w ba r

o r rigi d harnes s an d an automati c releas e device . Parasai l canop y mean s amodifie d parachut e tha t ascend s whe n towe d als o referre d t o a s an ascendin g parachut e o r

glidin g parachute . Parasai l flight

mean s th e ascensio n an d descensio n o f aparasai l syste mtethere d t o amoorin g vehicl e t o aheigh t

o f 5 0 fee t AG L o r more . Parasai l operatio n mean s th e performanc e o f al l activit y fo r

th e purpos e of

, o r i n suppor t

o f parasailing . Thi s parasai l operatio n ca n involve , bu t i s no t limite d to , th e followin g persons : th e genera l public , owne r

o r operato r i n comman d o f

th e moore d vehicle . A n operatio n i n complianc e wit h th e parasai l operatio n certificatio n rule s o f bot h th e FA A an d Offic e o f th e Secretar y o f

Transportation . Parasai l operato r

i n comman d mean s th e perso n responsibl e fo r th e operatio n an d safety o f a parasai l operation . Parasai l Winchboa t

mean s th e combinatio n o f amoore d vehicle , winc h system , parasail , iowMne , flexible harness/to w ba r o r rigi d harness , communicatio n equipmen t an d USC G safety equipment . Ridge dHarnes s mean s arigi d structur e seatin g devic e whic h support s singl e an d multipl e parasailor s in apartiall y seate d o r recline d positio n usin g gravit y restrain t an d attache s directl y t o aparasai l canop y

1 5U.S . Department o f Transportatio n Jul y 5 , 201 1 Pag e 1 6 Sustaine d Win

d Spee d mean s awin d spee d determine d by averagin g th e observe d win d spee d rounde d t o th e neares t

whol e kno t

ove r a2-minute period . Towlin e mean s th e rop e or

cabl e connectin g th e moorin g vehicl e to aparasai l system . Towlin e guid e mean s a

n upright structure whic h swivel s and support s aserie s o f pulley(s ) and/o r roller s whic h ato

w lin e passe s throug h To w Bar mean s amechanica

l ba r lik e devic e whic h passenger(s ) v^Qarin g flexible harnes s syste

m ma y b e tethere d to . Winc h Syste mmean s ahydraulicall y powere d parasai l syste mlaunch an

d recover y system powere d b y hydraulic s consistin g o f

asuppor t frame , winch spoo l and leve l win d device . Winc h Spoo l mean s acylindrical piec e o n whic h ato

w lin e i s wound .

1 6