Illegal reserve?

[juggalo 1]

I have a situation that I would like ssome input on.
A friend brought me a tandem to pack that a buddy of his bought used. They jump at a small C-182 DZ, and have no riggers close by.
When I started inspecting the reserve canopy I was shocked. It had 8 patches, was extremely dirty and just looked worn out. I recognized the rig was one that had been used at a large local DZ in my area. My concern was that this canopy was beyond its service life and should not be used. I called the manufacturer check it our and trace serial numbers. The response floored me! This canopy was the original main when this system was originally purchased. The main was the original reserve! The two canopies had been switched and the gear sold. Also the manufacturer told me that this was the SECOND rig that had been reported to them with the same problem.
What would be the proper action to take in a situation like this. I would really like some input on this.
Thanks in advance.

waving off is to tell people to get out of my landing area

[Hooknswoop 19]

§65.129 Performance standards.
No certificated parachute rigger may --
(a) Pack, maintain, or alter any parachute unless he is rated for that type;
(b) Pack a parachute that is not safe for emergency use;

Derek

[riggermick 7]

Quote

§65.129 Performance standards.
No certificated parachute rigger may --
(a) Pack, maintain, or alter any parachute unless he is rated for that type;
(b) Pack a parachute that is not safe for emergency use;

Derek

Unless THAT rigger feels it is safe for use. It's a judgement call and the local DPRE should be brought in to council and if necessary re-train the rigger. If the problem does not go away them the DPRE will petition the FAA to pull the riggers ticket. As for the business practice it's unconcionable.

Mick.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

As for the business practice it's unconcionable.

Especially considering this is the second time it has happened.

Juggalo: When you talked to the manufacturer, did they have an opinion on a course of action (besides not packing the worn out main as a reserve)?

Derek

[juggalo 1]

Quote

Quote

As for the business practice it's unconcionable.

Especially considering this is the second time it has happened.

Juggalo: When you talked to the manufacturer, did they have an opinion on a course of action (besides not packing the worn out main as a reserve)?

They did not offer any advice other than this was the second rig reported to them in this condidtion from the same seller. USPA wasn't concerned either.
juggalo

waving off is to tell people to get out of my landing area

• Quote

[tombuch 0]

Quote

It had 8 patches, was extremely dirty and just looked worn out. I recognized the rig was one that had been used at a large local DZ in my area. My concern was that this canopy was beyond its service life and should not be used. I called the manufacturer check it our and trace serial numbers. The response floored me! This canopy was the original main when this system was originally purchased. The main was the original reserve! The two canopies had been switched and the gear sold. Also the manufacturer told me that this was the SECOND rig that had been reported to them with the same problem.
What would be the proper action to take in a situation like this. I would really like some input on this.
Thanks in advance.

I think this case is very different than a sport rig. With a sport rig I would just refuse to pack it and send the jumper away to shop for another rigger. With a tandem, you are dealing with a rig used by a student who is not capable of making any value judgment about gear. While under the law your responsibility is the same, I think you have a much greater moral responsibility with the tandem.

My first suggestion is to contact the DZ directly and let them know what you found. Eight patches is OUTRAGEOUS, plus the rest of what you are detailing is beyond crazy! If the DZ doesn't immediately ground the rig and say thank you, then I would be a prick call the local FAA office. Suggest that the FAA inspectors check all the gear, airplanes, and general operation. Generally, if the gear is poorly maintained there are other problems too. You may have just exposed the tip of the iceberg. The students who jump there need your support in this kind of case.
.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Eight patches is OUTRAGEOUS

I'm digging deep into the memory banks here and therefore could be totally off base, but I recall being told or reading somewhere when I was a riglet that a reserve could have up to a certain number of patches (the number 3 sticks in my head for some reason).

Couldn't find a reference in a quick scan of Poynter's. Does anyone know if what I think I remember is correct or not?

[sundevil777 102]

I think it was 3 patches in the high pressure zone (around apex) of a round reserve.

It was not confidence inspiring when my rigger described to me that my newly bought used rig was at the limit. What the heck, it later survived a terminal deployment, no diaper,

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sunshine 2]

Quote

I'm digging deep into the memory banks here and therefore could be totally off base, but I recall being told or reading somewhere when I was a riglet that a reserve could have up to a certain number of patches (the number 3 sticks in my head for some reason).

Couldn't find a reference in a quick scan of Poynter's. Does anyone know if what I think I remember is correct or not?

Well if thats not correct, we're both wrong. I also have the number 3 in my head.

___________________________________________
meow

I get a Mike hug! I get a Mike hug!

[juggalo 1]

Quote

Quote

I'm digging deep into the memory banks here and therefore could be totally off base, but I recall being told or reading somewhere when I was a riglet that a reserve could have up to a certain number of patches (the number 3 sticks in my head for some reason).

Couldn't find a reference in a quick scan of Poynter's. Does anyone know if what I think I remember is correct or not?

Well if thats not correct, we're both wrong. I also have the number 3 in my head

See Poynters manua lVol.2 Its 15 total for a ram air.
Also my bad I looked up my notes on this rig and it had 11 patches total. I was writing from memory Sorry my bad. Not to mention it had been used as a main for years.
juggalo

waving off is to tell people to get out of my landing area

• Quote

[masterrig 1]

I'll have to look it up but, I have seen in various manufacturer's instructions where the number of patches allowed is mentioned. If, we knew the manufacturer of the parachute involved, the owner's manual could be searched. In this case, the main, having been packed as the reserve, we don't know if, there are patches in the parachute packed as a main. I would say that the rig, as it is, could not be used.


Chuck

[jedeisurf 0]

50% of the panel or rib area. 3 patches per panel or rib, 15patches per canopy. poynter's manual vol 2 page 267. DO NOT REPACK THIS CANOPY, If it has been used as a main.
David

[juggalo 1]

Quote

Quote

It had 8 patches, was extremely dirty and just looked worn out. I recognized the rig was one that had been used at a large local DZ in my area. My concern was that this canopy was beyond its service life and should not be used. I called the manufacturer check it our and trace serial numbers. The response floored me! This canopy was the original main when this system was originally purchased. The main was the original reserve! The two canopies had been switched and the gear sold. Also the manufacturer told me that this was the SECOND rig that had been reported to them with the same problem.
What would be the proper action to take in a situation like this. I would really like some input on this.
Thanks in advance.

If the DZ doesn't immediately ground the rig and say thank you, then I would be a prick call the local FAA office. Suggest that the FAA inspectors check all the gear, airplanes, and general operation. Generally, if the gear is poorly maintained there are other problems too. You may have just exposed the tip of the iceberg. The students who jump there need your support in this kind of case.

You are right about the tip of the iceburg. The FAA has found lots of problems with this place. But so far nothing has happened but a slap on the wrist. Turbines being fueled with K1, Shoddy maintenance on A/CNon rated istructors ETC, ETC Its pretty amazing what goes on in some jump centers that jumpers don't know about or don't care.
Thanks for the input

waving off is to tell people to get out of my landing area

• Quote

[MWGemini 0]

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't reserves supposed to be TSOd, while mains are not? If the main (which is now in the reserve container) does not have that TSO, wouldn't it be illegal to pack it, even if it were in pristine condition (which is obviously not the case)?

Thanks,

Mike

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't reserves supposed to be TSOd, while mains are not? If the main (which is now in the reserve container) does not have that TSO, wouldn't it be illegal to pack it, even if it were in pristine condition (which is obviously not the case)?

There is at least one tandem main that is TSO'd as a reserve also. The rig uses the same canopy for the main and the reserve.

Derek

[billbooth 10]

Early tandem mains and reserves were often the same canopy, both TSO'ed...but that was nearly 20 years ago. I've heard of 360 canopies of that vintage being used as a main for a thousand jumps, or until they got scary (long openings, no flare) and then swapped out with that brand new 360 in the reserve container. Such conduct is atrocious, but not necessarily illegal, as long as a rigger keeps "recertifing" the reserve each time he packs it. These canopies were made by both Pioneer and PD, and back then there was no 20 use limit. If one of those ever got to my loft, we would, of course, refuse to pack it. But then, they would just probably get someone else. We always did everything the law allowed when these cases came up in the past. As I remember, we pulled a tandem rating or two. But with tandem now "legal" we have little authority any more...and no authority outside the US.

[mr2mk1g 10]

could you 'accidentally' conduct a strength test on the reserve a little too vigorously?

[skycat 0]

Actually a strength test is a very good idea. A few months back one of Derek's rigging customers brought over a rig for him to inspect that he had just bought. The reserve was in much better condition than this ones sounds like it's in and it failed the strength test. That combined with several other things made Derek ground it. Needless to say the new owner was not happy, luckly he got his money back.

Fly it like you stole it!

[MWGemini 0]

Oh. I didn't know that some tandem canopies were designed as dual purpose. The fact that anyone would jump a main until it is ragged out and then continue to jump it as a reserve amazes me, though. If they don't trust it as their man, why on earth would they trust it as their reserve?

Thanks,

Mike

[billbooth 10]

Some people will do anything to save a buck.

[mr2mk1g 10]

It's no longer legal in the UK after an rather nasty incident over here a few years back. A soldier in the Royal Artillery, riding as tandem passenger in order to get his tandem rating was very badly injured when the shagged out main used as a reserve blew up on opening. He went on to collect over a million dollars in damages. Then the rules changed.

(edited to correct regiment)

and then to add an exerpt from the case:
(note that at the time of this case it was legal to use an old main as a reserve in the UK... but that didn't stop the judge finding the DZ negligent for allowing it's use when it was so obviously dangerous).

The judge ruled that the defendant had breached the duty of care owed to the claimant. Having considered the potential dangers of parachuting, and especially tandem parachuting, he stated that the defendant: (i) should not have purchased a second-hand reserve parachute which had previously been used as a main canopy; (ii) had failed to fit the reserve canopy with reinforcing tape; and (iii) on examination of the canopy should have seen that it was obviously old and had been used many times before, probably as a main canopy, and should have been taken out of service. The judge went on to reject the defendant's claims that the claimant was contributory negligent or in any way at fault.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

I didn't know that some tandem canopies were designed as dual purpose.

A reserve canopy is just a canopy to fly.

[nicknitro71 0]

Quote

A reserve canopy is just a canopy to fly

A reserve canopy is just your last canopy to fly

Memento Audere Semper

903

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Quote

I didn't know that some tandem canopies were designed as dual purpose.

A reserve canopy is just a canopy to fly.

When you go to your reserve you are no longer sport jumping, you are trying to save your life.

If you feel your reserve is just another canopy, you need to re-evaluate your participation in skydiving.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

could you 'accidentally' conduct a strength test on the reserve a little too vigorously?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Tensile tests are a quick, easy and "finite" way to ground faded, frayed and filthy canopies.

No need to cheat.

Use the proper clamps and do a legitimate tensile test in accordance with PIA procedures for testing "acid mesh" rounds (40 pounds) or Performance Designs procedures for testing their square reserves (30 pounds).
Good fabric always passes those tests - even 40 year old rounds - but weak fabric tears at less than 15 pounds.