(Posted March 26, 2008)
To members and others interested
in skydiving in Canada
Transport Canada has published a
proposal to amend and implement new regulation that will
impact the sport of skydiving and skydiving operations in
Canada. The skydiving community has 60 days to respond to the
proposal.
The introduction statement identifies
a coroner's group unanimously in favor of government
oversight as justification for the proposed regulation.
The coroners ignored recommendations from a parachute
risk assessment committee composed of representatives from TC Transportation
Safety Board, Department of Defense, CAPS and
CSPA (both government recognized skydiving
organizations).
Members of the Coroners Association were
invited to attend these meetings. One Coroner from Alberta
attended one of the meetings. The rest chose not to attend
or send written submissions. The following is extracted from
the findings of those meetings:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegServ/Affairs/carac/Technical/GOFR/WG/parachuting-fr.htm
The
Working Group reviewed the coroners reports and statistics to
ascertain
if the fatalities concerned could have been
prevented by additional
regulations. The provincial
coroner’s 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
organizations 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.
Both CAPS and CSPA have
extensive training manuals that have been accepted by TC.
Being obligated to following those rules in and of
itself is hardly cause for concern. That we would be in a
position to have each and every recommendation taken out of
context or given relevance that would carry the weight of
law is neither practical or necessary for safe
skydiving operations.
The average number of
fatalities in recent years has been 1-2 per year in Canada.
There have been 0 fatalities in more than 1 recent years.
There were 2 last year and 59 world wide. Fatalities in
Canada have shown a decreasing trend and are below average
compared with other countries. This demonstrates the
current system is working.
The statement
extends it’s authority into uncontrolled airspace. Unlike
non-jump aircraft that do not need to communicate with ATC,
pilot and jumpers will need permission from Nav Canada, a privatized
corporation, to make descents into uncontrolled
airspace. The only beneficiary of this proposal would seem
to be NavCanada.
In 1997 TC brought in
regulation requiring skydiving operators to
follow commercial aircraft standards. ( US part 135) A
burden our US counterparts are not forced to bear,even
though more and larger aircraft operations exist south of the
border. The paperwork alone involved in creating and
maintaining company manuals was prohibitive for many small
clubs and operators and resulted in their demise. CAPS was
formed in the early 90’s in response to the regulation
question. At that time some CSPA board members were in
favor of regulation. CAPS made a clear stand against.
When the regulation was enacted CAPS assisted some clubs
and centres in preparation of their OC.
The
greatest hit this time around would again likely be to the
small clubs and sport jumping. What weekend instructor, pilot
or club can afford to risk $1000 - $15000 fines for
infractions. What DZ wants to suffer penalties resulting
from an experienced skydiver when the cost of a lift ticket is
$30.
The regulation would seem to
appease a group of coroners who are frustrated at
hearing complaints from uninformed non-skydivers as well as
disgruntled skydivers only too willing to point fingers. It
is easy to see why they think these accidents are caused by negligence,
but if their concern was genuine enough they
might have attended those meetings that could provide some
insight and education and they could make a more
enlightened
determination of what actually did
transpire.
It might also be
aimed at satisfying grieving family and friends that do not
understand. How will an accident be explained once regulation
is in place? Will a fine be sufficient
compensation?
Many Canadians, even some of those early
supporters of regulation, save their money to take skydiving
holidays in the US where lift tickets are cheaper
and larger aircraft are less expensive to operate and a
diligent USPA would never allow this regulation to take
place. We are fewer in number but we still have a voice.
Let’s send a message to our MLAs and to TC that we oppose
this unnecessary regulation.
With
fuel prices rising and more regulation in our future we might
be joining the list of countries in the world where
skydiving is a luxury few can afford or completely
non-existent.
Letters should be sent to:
The Chief,
Regulatory Affairs (AARBH),
Civil Aviation Safety and Security
Group,
Department of Transport,
Place de VilleTower
C330 Sparks
Street,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8
(General inquiries — tel.: 613-993-7284 or
1-800-305-2059 fax: 613-990-1198 Internet address: www.tc.gc.ca)
Please quote
Canada Gazette Part I March
15/2008
Thanks for reading,
Debbie Harper
CAPS Member
Click browser
BACK button to return to previous
page
