VIOLATION OF FARS 91 PT 13 CARELESS AND RECKLESS OP; FAR 105 PT 14; 105 PT 15; AND 105 PT 17 PARACHUTE JUMPING; NON COMPLIANCE AND NON ADHERENCE TO ATC PROC.

Narrative

1 OF MY STUDENTS; WHO IS ALSO AN AVID PARACHUTE JUMPER WITH OVER 500 LOGGED JUMPS; WANTED TO JUMP OUT OF 1 OF OUR PLANES OVER THE T41 ARPT. THE R HAND DOOR WAS REMOVED FROM THE SMA BECAUSE WE HAVE A REVISED WT AND BAL THAT ALLOWS US TO OPERATE THE ACFT WITHOUT THE DOOR. WE CONSULTED THE FARS TO DOUBLECHK THE LEGALITY OF THE JUMP. FAR 105.17 GOVERNS JUMPS OVER OR ONTO ARPTS. EVEN THOUGH PERMISSION FROM THE ARPT MGMNT WAS NOT OBTAINED; THE LAST CLAUSE OF 105.17 STATES THAT THE PARACHUTIST CAN DRIFT OVER THE ARPT. BASED ON THIS CLAUSE; WE MADE THE JUMP. HOWEVER; A MORE CAREFUL READING OF 105.17 AFTER THE EVENT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE JUMP WAS NOT COVERED BY 105.17. EVEN THOUGH WE CREATED NO HAZARD TO AIR TFC; PERSONS; OR PROPERTY; AND EVEN THOUGH THE PARACHUTIST LEFT THE ACFT OVER AN OPEN FIELD SEVERAL MI FROM THE ARPT AND THEN DRIFTED OVER THE ARPT; THE 'HOWEVER' CLAUSE DOES NOT CONDONE LNDG ON THE ARPT. ON OUR INITIAL READING; WE MISINTERPRETED THE STATEMENT 'MAY DRIFT OVER THAT ARPT' TO MEAN 'MAY DRIFT OVER AND LAND ON THAT ARPT'. BASICALLY; IN OUR EXCITEMENT TO MAKE THE JUMP; WE MISREAD THE FARS. NO HAZARD TO ANYTHING OR ANYBODY WAS CREATED; AND THE JUMP WORKED OUT JUST FINE. ESSENTIALLY; THE LESSON LEARNED HERE IS TO CONSULT THE FARS MORE CAREFULLY AND SLOWLY. HAD WE NOT BEEN IN SUCH A RUSH; WE MIGHT HAVE INTERPRETED FAR 105.17 PROPERLY THE FIRST TIME. THIS REG COULD USE SOME CLARIFICATION; THOUGH. AFTER ALL; WHY WOULD SOMEONE WANT TO DRIFT OVER AN ARPT WITH AN OPEN PARACHUTE IF HE DIDN'T INTEND TO LAND THERE? ALSO; IN OUR HASTE; WE FAILED TO NOTICE FAR 105.14 ALTOGETHER. WE DID MAKE CALLS REGARDING THE JUMP ON THE CTAF FREQ; BUT WE DID NOT NOTIFY ATC OF THE JUMP. IN THE FUTURE I WILL NOT BE IN SUCH A HURRY TO DO SOMETHING OF THIS SORT WITHOUT DOING A LITTLE MORE THOROUGH RESEARCH FIRST.