Disputes Agency Authority Over Personal Parachute Airworthiness Directives

The ARSA updated their membership on their disagreement with the FAA over the agency’s authority for issuance of airworthiness directives concerning man-portable parachutes not installed in any aircraft.

The agency, according to ARSA, should only be able to legally enforce their AD’s regarding aircraft and their engines, propellers, and appliances, over which they requested  clarification in July 2021. 

On December 3, ARSA requested the assistance of the Department of Transportation's Office of General Counsel, since the FAA had “refused to consider the substantive question of its authority to issue an AD against a parachute”. The move could set an interesting precedent against the expansion of powers not specifically authorized by the Federal code of regulations.

The root issue began in April 2021, when the FAA issued an airworthiness directive for certain parachutes built by Uninsured United Parachute Technologies, LLC regarding the reserve pin cover designs. The directive requires the chutes to be modified prior to the next jump by replacing the parachute container flaps and changing the pin covers to prevent snagging.

In their initial exchange with the FAA, ARSA was told that the agency is allowed to issue an AD for a parachute due to its inclusion in Title 49 USC section 40102, which defines “appliance” and provides a list of equipment “installed in or attached to aircraft during flight, and not a part of an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller.”

ARSA reaffirms that the question how, exactly, 14 CFR part 39 applies to parachutes.

Part 39, defines the purview of FAA airworthiness directives to essentially pertain to aircraft and their attached, integrated parts. Parachutes, when used, are not attached to an aircraft, and should not fall under the umbrella of part 39. 

While the desire for increased aviation safety is commendable, ARSA appears to believe it could set an undesirable precedent going forward. 14 CFR part 39 is clear, according to the association, and the FAA refusing to address its newfound power - unaccountable, unenumerated, and technically unlawful- is bad form for an industry that lives and breathes by the letter of the law. For this current purpose, its power may indeed be wielded for a righteous purpose, but straying outside of appointed legal jurisdiction, however good the intentions, has a tendency to go awry on a sufficiently long time scale. The response from the Department of Transportation’s General Counsel will lead the way from now on, as the FAA, from the ARSA’s published email chains, seems to have lost interest in justifying itself to outsiders.

FMI: www.faa.gov