PD-113R into a Mirage/TSO issues?

[riggermick 7]

Quote

Quote

I don't think he's seriously suggesting that there's actually a compatibility issue (are you?)... just that there's something of a glitch on the paperwork front meaning riggers could conceivably get caught out by a technicality.

So he's not highlighting a gear issue per say but a paperwork issue connected to gear.

Right, that is all I have said in this thread. Anything else just isn't there.

Derek

So NOW do you hear what I'm say'n to you? There are rules and there is the interpretation of thee "rules". Although it's written in black and white its really a shade (or several) shades of grey, welcome to Governmental oversight.

Mick.

PS: Your'e doing a good thing by asking the questions that no one thinks of, well done. You'll go far i'm sure.

[kosanke 0]

having delt with the FAA many time on certification issues, i'll try my 2 cents worth. certifying aircraft, the faa issues type certificates. they certify engine types, ie: P&W, GE, CFM 56. the FAA does not go through the recertification of the aircraft for an engine difference. mirage might have done the certification using a pd 210r. that does not mean that the manufacture has to go back to the FAA for each reserve size it uses.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

mirage might have done the certification using a pd 210r. that does not mean that the manufacture has to go back to the FAA for each reserve size it uses.

I think you are misunderstanding the issue. If the harness is rated to 3,000 pounds and a reserve produces more force than that, then the 2 are not compatable. This is the case for a Mirage and a PD-113R and others, I'm sure.

If you want to lift 1000 pounds but your sling set is only rated to 500 pounds, you can't lift that load with those slings.

Derek

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

the FAA does not go through the recertification of the aircraft for an engine difference

Sure it does. Well it's the manufacturer that has to do it. The engine gets certified separately, but the engine/aircraft interface is part of the aircraft certification. This includes the structure, the engine controls, etc. The aircraft is certified for a particular engine (or various engines).

I'm going through this very thing at work. Existing helicopter getting a new engine with a new engine control system. It requires at the very least an STC to retrofit, but we're going for a completely new certification.

Dave

[kosanke 0]

( but, we're going for a new recertification). it requires an stc. i've worked for boeing in engineering and have gone through this before. having certified original engines for certain A/C, a change in that type of engine which it is certified, does not trigger a recertification. it does require further paperwork and consultation.

[Hooknswoop 19]

This doesn't apply to this issue. The PD-113R and Mirage are both TSO'd. They just are not compatable.

Derek

[kosanke 0]

have you discussed this issue with the FAA? what's their reply?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

have you discussed this issue with the FAA?

No, I discussed it with Mirage. They said they were going to talk to their rep at the FAA and get back to me in a couple of days. that was a couple of weeks ago and they did not return my call about a week after I originally talked to them.

I have been waiting for a reply for over 6 months for a legal interpretation of FAR Part 65.111, specifically who may alter a main parachute. The FAA doesn;t give a damn about this stuff unless they have too, like after an incident. Then you can;t get rig of them. So I don't see the point in asking the FAA and waiting 6+ months for a reply.

Derek

[wardhessig 0]

Derek,
Just a note for you. Jeff the maker of the Mirage is working on your request for info. But there is one thing about Jeff, he is EXTREMELY thorough. He definately isn't blowing you off but he has been working with the FAA to give you a completely researched and proper answer on this situation. He's busy as hell around here and basically runs the show so give him some time but he is working on it for you and will give you more details on the subject then you thought existed.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Thank you for that info. I really appreciate it. I did feel blown off when he didn't get back to me/return my call. I hope he comes up with something since realistically they work together just fine.

Derek

[wardhessig 0]

No problem,
I just thought I would let you know because he is busier than a three legged cat trying to bury a turd on a frozen pond (thanks JT for that one). Anyway, it is mostly technical interpretation junk but he has gotten some answers for you already and I think you'll be happy with the answers but he'll have to explain all the details.
ward

[Hooknswoop 19]

For the PR-99 and PR-106, the average force was
5736 pounds. For the PR-113, the average force was 3639 pounds, and for
the PR-281, the average force was 5945 pounds.

This means you cannot put a PDR-99, 106, 113, or 281 into a Mirage and you cannot put a PDR-99, 106, or 281 into a Vector.

Derek

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

and you cannot put a PDR-99, 106, or 281 into a Vector.

This information is incorrect. TSO-C23b standard category (5,000 lbs.) is a minimum for that rating. The Vector certification drop tests that were conducted at Performance Design all exceeded 8,000 lbs and as such exceed every canopy that you have listed and therefore can be used in Vector containers.


Mike Forsythe
Manager
Engineering, Research & Development
The Uninsured Relative Workshop, Inc.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Quote

and you cannot put a PDR-99, 106, or 281 into a Vector.

This information is incorrect. TSO-C23b standard category (5,000 lbs.) is a minimum for that rating. The Vector certification drop tests that were conducted at Performance Design all exceeded 8’000 lbs and as such exceed every canopy that you have listed and therefore can be used in Vector containers.


Mike Forsythe
Manager
Engineering, Research & Development
The Uninsured Relative Workshop, Inc.

Was the Vector tested under TSO-C23b, standard category or under the low speed category?

Were these tests conducted at PD testing the reserve canopy or the H/C system? I do not think any PD canopy was ever certified under TSO-C23b.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[MikeForsythe 0]

Standard H/C

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[Hooknswoop 19]

AC-105-2C 11e states:

“The strength of the harness must always be equal to or greater than the maximum force generated by the canopy during certification tests.

(1) In a case where the harness is certificated under TSO-C23b and the canopy under TSO C23c, the maximum generated force of the harness and container; i.e, Low-Speed Category (3,000 lbs.) and Standard Category (5,000 lbs.). In this instance, no additional marking on the container is necessary.

(2) In the case where the canopy is certificated under the TSO-C23b and the harness under TSO-C23c, the strength of the harness must be equal to or greater than the certificated category force of the canopy”

Quote

This information is incorrect. TSO-C23b standard category (5,000 lbs.) is a minimum for that rating.

I hope you can clarify this for me. I don't see where you can certify to higher than 5,000 pounds under TSO-C23b.

Derek

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

I hope you can clarify this for me. I don't see where you can certify to higher than 5,000 pounds under TSO-C23b.

I don't either but that is not the issue. Also, (1) and (2) do not apply as the canopies that you listed come under (C23d).

The bottom line is that the strength of the harnesses during the certification process exceeded 8,000 lbs. and that exceeds the canopies. 11e does not say "the certificated strength of the harness".

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[Hooknswoop 19]

From: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=402232;search_string=5%2C000;#402232

Quote

It is meaningless, and perhaps even dangerous to label a harness and container with a maximum weight and speed. The weight and speed a harness and container system can take depends entirely on the canopies (both main and reserve) which you put in it. It also depends on how symetrically the load is applied to the system.

Let's say I drop test a PD 106 reserve in a Vector and it produces a max force of 2,500 lbs. Then let's say that PD drops the same type of canopy, and records a max. force of 2,600 lbs. Under TSO C23-d, the PD 106 would then not be legal in a Vector, even though it had been drop tested in a Vector. Now let's say I successfully drop canopy "X" (which opens very softly) in rig "A" at a certain weight and speed. This does not mean that canopy "Y" which opens twice as hard is safe at the same weight and speed, in rig "A", does it? This, and several other "problems" with TSO C23-d, is why we are now re-writing it.

The only sensible marking to put on a harness is the is the force it can take before it breaks. In spite of that fact, TSO C23-d does requires a max weight and speed marking on harness and container systems. I'm glad I am TSO'ed under TSO C23-b, which simply requires a harness to pass a 5,000 shock load test. (By the way, Vectors have demonstrated much higher strength during drops from PD's instrumented drop test tower.)

This is the revelent part of AC-105-2C: "The strength of the harness must always be equal to or greater than the maximum force generated by the canopy during certification tests."

If the reserve produces more force during certification tests than a container is certified to, you cannot assemble them together.

This would apply to any container certified under TSO C-23b and any reserve TSO'd under TSO C23d. Aren't Racers TSO-C23b, standard catagory?

Derek

[billbooth 10]

Here's a "catch 22" for you. I asked for the drop tower test to be added to TSO-C-23E to take care of the above "incompatibility problem" with "C" and "D". Trouble is, "E" is not yet issued, so no one can "legally" test (or label) to it. When we became aware of the new AC 105, we immediately drop tower tested some of our rigs to see what they could take. As Mike said above, the answer was well over 8,000 lbs. (Our tandem systems went to over 14,500 lbs. before failure.) But again, I'm TSO'ed in "B", and no strength labeling is required, or perhaps even "legal". I'm on vacation, and don't have a copy of the Advisory Circular with me. Does is say exactly how the strength of the harness has to be measured?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Does is say exactly how the strength of the harness has to be measured?

Yes;

"the maximum generated force of the canopy must not exceed the certificated category force of the harness and container; i.e, Low-Speed Category (3,000 lbs.) and Standard Category (5,000 lbs.)."

So if, for example, a PDR-99 produces 5736 pounds on opening, that exceeds the certificated catagory force for a container TSO'd under TSO C23b low speed or standard catagory.

Quote

the answer was well over 8,000 lbs. (Our tandem systems went to over 14,500 lbs. before failure.)

I have zero worries about the strength of your harnesses, or any others for that matter. I worry about the FAA. The FAA couldn't care less about reality. The 'install' vs. 'assemble' Cypres's fiasco comes to mind.

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

1e does not say "the certificated strength of the harness".

"the maximum generated force of the canopy must not exceed the certificated category force of the harness and container; i.e, Low-Speed Category (3,000 lbs.) and Standard Category (5,000 lbs.)."

Close enough.

Derek

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Trouble is, "E" is not yet issued, so no one can "legally" test (or label) to it.

Bill, are you referring to PIA TS 135?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[billbooth 10]

AC 105-2C has been around for about 16 years now. The way I understand it, it provides suggestions, or "advice", and does not set forth new law. This same AC also allows manufacturers and riggers to determine "compatibility". I think this is a subject about which the FAA would prefer not to be asked...you might say a "leave well enough alone" situation. Remember, it took them 17 years to make up their mind about tandem.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I think this is a subject about which the FAA would prefer not to be asked...you might say a "leave well enough alone" situation.

I agree, no reason to bring this up to the FAA at all. I stumbled upon this when doing some research, couldn't find anyway around it and hoped someone had an answer. I am not concerned about a harness failing, just what the FAA would do if there was ever an incident and they figured this out. They tend to look for anything, even if it had nothing to do with the incident. I am one to definately push the limits of the FAR's as far as I can. This is a decision I now have to make, now that I know. I can either decide to say that there isn't a real safety issue, just a paperwork one and continue to rig like always. Or I can decide to not pack these combinations and avoid a potential snag with the FAA, small chance though it may be. I will be recieving some information from Mirage soon about this that will hopefully offer a way around this issue.

Derek

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Standard H/C

I am not sure I understand what your answer means.

My original questions:

Quote

Was the Vector tested under TSO-C23b, standard category or under the low speed category?

Were these tests conducted at PD testing the reserve canopy or the H/C system? I do not think any PD canopy was ever certified under TSO-C23b.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals