Narrative:

I was asked to fly a load of skydivers over a golf course just south of dallas, tx. I was informed that a NOTAM had been filed by the organizer of the jump and that I should contact ATC while airborne to coordinate the jump. I had flown parachutists a number of times in the past and inadvertently used the 'north' number of one of the old jump planes. There was some confusion as to the landing site, but ATC was very patient while we determined the correct drop site. The jump went off without any problem. The following day the jump organizer informed me that the FAA was calling wanting to know why the jump was made without a certificate of authorization. The organizer (a non pilot) felt that the jump did not require a waiver of any of the FARS and therefore did not require a certificate of authorization. The FAA inspector apparently felt differently. The problem occurred as a result of inexperienced personnel setting up the parachute jump without a clear understanding of the regulations. There may not be any violation as the regulations seem vague as to the requirements for parachute jumping into open areas near cities. I attribute the incorrect 'north' number usage to the stress of handling ATC communications while the jumpers were attempting to locate the drop zone and people were loud and moving about the cabin.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PARACHUTE JUMPING ACTIVITY WITHIN THE DFW CLASS B AIRSPACE WITHOUT A WAIVER.

Narrative: I WAS ASKED TO FLY A LOAD OF SKYDIVERS OVER A GOLF COURSE JUST S OF DALLAS, TX. I WAS INFORMED THAT A NOTAM HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ORGANIZER OF THE JUMP AND THAT I SHOULD CONTACT ATC WHILE AIRBORNE TO COORDINATE THE JUMP. I HAD FLOWN PARACHUTISTS A NUMBER OF TIMES IN THE PAST AND INADVERTENTLY USED THE 'N' NUMBER OF ONE OF THE OLD JUMP PLANES. THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION AS TO THE LNDG SITE, BUT ATC WAS VERY PATIENT WHILE WE DETERMINED THE CORRECT DROP SITE. THE JUMP WENT OFF WITHOUT ANY PROBLEM. THE FOLLOWING DAY THE JUMP ORGANIZER INFORMED ME THAT THE FAA WAS CALLING WANTING TO KNOW WHY THE JUMP WAS MADE WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION. THE ORGANIZER (A NON PLT) FELT THAT THE JUMP DID NOT REQUIRE A WAIVER OF ANY OF THE FARS AND THEREFORE DID NOT REQUIRE A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION. THE FAA INSPECTOR APPARENTLY FELT DIFFERENTLY. THE PROB OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF INEXPERIENCED PERSONNEL SETTING UP THE PARACHUTE JUMP WITHOUT A CLR UNDERSTANDING OF THE REGS. THERE MAY NOT BE ANY VIOLATION AS THE REGS SEEM VAGUE AS TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARACHUTE JUMPING INTO OPEN AREAS NEAR CITIES. I ATTRIBUTE THE INCORRECT 'N' NUMBER USAGE TO THE STRESS OF HANDLING ATC COMS WHILE THE JUMPERS WERE ATTEMPTING TO LOCATE THE DROP ZONE AND PEOPLE WERE LOUD AND MOVING ABOUT THE CABIN.

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.