Narrative:

It was another busy day at the parachute center. I was basically flying non-stop. Back to back loads to 13500 ft, which is the normal jump altitude. On 1 load I was requested to make jump run lower than normal over the airport. One guy was, as I was told, jumping into a party just off the airport by about 1/2 mi. I did not know exactly where he intended to land. I was told roughly where it was and I knew the jumper to be experienced, so I felt confident that it would not create a hazard of any kind. It was in the outskirts of the little town of zephyrhills. I made a normal jump run like for the other jumpers, but at about 6500 ft. He got out and I continued my climb to 13500 ft where I flew the same jump run. The FAA appears to believe that this jump was made against the regulations in far part 105 for 3 reasons: 1) no NOTAM filed. True, but the jump was made at the exact same location as all the other jumps made that day. He did not land at the same place, but people have landed further away from the airport on other jumps when they even have tried to land at the airport. He landed approximately 1 mi from the center of the airport. The parachute activity is depicted on the chart as a 7 day a week operation. 2) jump into or over a congested area. This is a matter of definition of congested area. Where he exited the airplane are only open fields. Where he landed has a welding shop, a gas station, a fruit market and open fields. Where this jumper landed there were fields big enough to land an airplane. Some houses to 1 side but with openings in between them. I do not consider this a congested area. 3) the jumper was wearing equipment that is not approved by tso standards. Not true. He was wearing a container made by manufacturer X. He was wearing a reserve parachute which is made by manufacturer Y. Both approved by tso standards. I cannot see that I did anything that would not comply with far part 105. I was not properly informed where he intended to land and that was my fault. I knew roughly but I can see that it would have been better if I knew the exact location. I trusted the jumper's judgement and rightfully so. He was fine. No one got hurt and no hazard was created. End of story.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PARACHUTE JUMPING ACTIVITY GETS PLT IN VIOLATION OF FARS.

Narrative: IT WAS ANOTHER BUSY DAY AT THE PARACHUTE CTR. I WAS BASICALLY FLYING NON-STOP. BACK TO BACK LOADS TO 13500 FT, WHICH IS THE NORMAL JUMP ALT. ON 1 LOAD I WAS REQUESTED TO MAKE JUMP RUN LOWER THAN NORMAL OVER THE ARPT. ONE GUY WAS, AS I WAS TOLD, JUMPING INTO A PARTY JUST OFF THE ARPT BY ABOUT 1/2 MI. I DID NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHERE HE INTENDED TO LAND. I WAS TOLD ROUGHLY WHERE IT WAS AND I KNEW THE JUMPER TO BE EXPERIENCED, SO I FELT CONFIDENT THAT IT WOULD NOT CREATE A HAZARD OF ANY KIND. IT WAS IN THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE LITTLE TOWN OF ZEPHYRHILLS. I MADE A NORMAL JUMP RUN LIKE FOR THE OTHER JUMPERS, BUT AT ABOUT 6500 FT. HE GOT OUT AND I CONTINUED MY CLB TO 13500 FT WHERE I FLEW THE SAME JUMP RUN. THE FAA APPEARS TO BELIEVE THAT THIS JUMP WAS MADE AGAINST THE REGS IN FAR PART 105 FOR 3 REASONS: 1) NO NOTAM FILED. TRUE, BUT THE JUMP WAS MADE AT THE EXACT SAME LOCATION AS ALL THE OTHER JUMPS MADE THAT DAY. HE DID NOT LAND AT THE SAME PLACE, BUT PEOPLE HAVE LANDED FURTHER AWAY FROM THE ARPT ON OTHER JUMPS WHEN THEY EVEN HAVE TRIED TO LAND AT THE ARPT. HE LANDED APPROX 1 MI FROM THE CTR OF THE ARPT. THE PARACHUTE ACTIVITY IS DEPICTED ON THE CHART AS A 7 DAY A WK OP. 2) JUMP INTO OR OVER A CONGESTED AREA. THIS IS A MATTER OF DEFINITION OF CONGESTED AREA. WHERE HE EXITED THE AIRPLANE ARE ONLY OPEN FIELDS. WHERE HE LANDED HAS A WELDING SHOP, A GAS STATION, A FRUIT MARKET AND OPEN FIELDS. WHERE THIS JUMPER LANDED THERE WERE FIELDS BIG ENOUGH TO LAND AN AIRPLANE. SOME HOUSES TO 1 SIDE BUT WITH OPENINGS IN BTWN THEM. I DO NOT CONSIDER THIS A CONGESTED AREA. 3) THE JUMPER WAS WEARING EQUIP THAT IS NOT APPROVED BY TSO STANDARDS. NOT TRUE. HE WAS WEARING A CONTAINER MADE BY MANUFACTURER X. HE WAS WEARING A RESERVE PARACHUTE WHICH IS MADE BY MANUFACTURER Y. BOTH APPROVED BY TSO STANDARDS. I CANNOT SEE THAT I DID ANYTHING THAT WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH FAR PART 105. I WAS NOT PROPERLY INFORMED WHERE HE INTENDED TO LAND AND THAT WAS MY FAULT. I KNEW ROUGHLY BUT I CAN SEE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF I KNEW THE EXACT LOCATION. I TRUSTED THE JUMPER'S JUDGEMENT AND RIGHTFULLY SO. HE WAS FINE. NO ONE GOT HURT AND NO HAZARD WAS CREATED. END OF STORY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.