65.111 Revised

[pchapman 279]

+1 on most of what councilman24 says

The topic has come up in the forums before and Mel just got clarification. Maybe we need a new thread to bitch about what many of us consider stupid FAA rules.

Given what councilman24 said about the interpretation many experienced riggers had, does the USPA or PIA have any plan in place to try to get the FAA to change its mind on who can pack main parachutes and work on mains?

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

65.111.c.2 calls only for a current certificate to be supervising, not an appropriate current certificate.

So they still have left a mistake in their wording of 65.111.c.2, and we are not completely out of the woods yet.

65.125(c) exempts riggers from the need to have a type rating to work on a main parachute, so any certificate is an appropriate certificate. (We should take advantage of this by making all the packers get chest-only senior certificates. That way they would be legal to pack without supervision, but they couldn't get in trouble packing reserves or doing maintenance on back-type rigs.)

Interestingly, 65.125(c) also exempts riggers from the need to be current when packing or supervising packing a main parachute, which now conflicts with 65.111(c).

Mark

Now I am a bit confused between what you and MEL are saying.

According to MEL, the "appropriate" means "Master" for major work, and "Senior" for minor work. This is not at all about the Type question.

As we have determined in the past, mains don't have "Types", since they are not certified.

I was looking at the new wording that might be taken to say that while a rigger needs to be a Master to reline a main, a Senior could do it with a Senior supervising, since the supervising clause (65.111.c.2) only says a certificate, possibly any certificate, is required.

MEL referred us to the accompanying explanation where they say that appropriate rating are needed for any work or supervision.

My point is that the wording is still confused, unless you have the ruling to go with it.

[tdog 0]

Quote

How far does this go? From the lines to the d-ring? From the riser to the pilot chute? Can I still change my own rubber bands on the d-bag? Or do I need to be a 33rd degree grand rigger?

Aggie... I am setting up a new concession at the DZ. Rubberband and closing loop replacements by a certified person. I get $3 per rubberband, $25 to install a PC on a canopy, and $10 for a closing loop, which includes the necessary knot and field measurement. If you install any of these things yourself, I will sign off for 50% of the list price.

I agree, there will be confusion as to what is "maintenance", and the only people who will profit will now be the lawyers who get to sue when a rubberband replacement was not under the supervision of a rigger, even if that rubberband was not the cause of incident.

On a serious topic... Don't pilots and owners of aircraft get to put oil in the engine when needed? How about fuel? How about washing the windows? All of these things are maintenance... Does anyone know how the FARs address this, and do any of these concepts transfer over to parachutes?

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

First off, this fix, not change, to the CFR's is not MEL's doing alone. I as chairman of the PIA rigging committee pointed out to the FAA many (5) years ago that they screwed up in 2001. This rule is NOT new. It's was there prior to 2001 probably since part 65 was written. (I'd have to review all of the old versions, again, to remind myself when this came in.) In 2001 when the FAA added tandems they rewrote part 65.111 to include tandems. When they rewrote it they screwed up the language and paragraphs so that it read that the next person going to jump it could maintain and alter. THIS WAS NEVER THE INTENT! I, MEL and others pointed out this was a mistake, the FAA agreed and said that an emergency fix would be initiated. No public comment was required because this was simply fixing an editing error of the 2001 change.

Terry,
Thanks for the input.

Here's were it started 7 years ago:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=779188;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;


Yes, it took that long!

Light maintenance is allowed such a minor assembly.
I will post that info later. Right now I am going to bed so that I can go to the boogie tomorrow!

Blue ones,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[tdog 0]

Quote

Now, whether the next person going to jump a canopy, including a student, SHOULD be able to maintain and alter that parachute as they wish is a DIFFERENT debate. Lots of folks can. A lot can't and the results have killed people.

Since you are an authority on the subject as a very respected rigger and industry professional, I hope you can help us understand this statement a tad better.

Do you have a list of all the people (or at least a few good examples) of people killed by owner-modifications to mains? Perhaps this debate would help us instructors and riggers understand the risk and inform our customers...


I looked thru my notes of various incidents, and I think LACK of maintenance (as in no maintenance performed at all) is a noteworthy cause... But I am wondering if poorly conducted maintenance has a history of killing people???? Maybe your info would help us riggers look for potential warning signs, not previously considered, during the next repack.

[councilman24 37]

First, I don't think it was flawed. And no one outside the FAA had any input in the fix published today. You seem to think someone did. It disappeared into a dark hole 5(7) years ago and appeared today.

I'm a single parent tonight with two screaming girls so I can't debate this tonight.

But I am curious to know what liability you think you have just having a rigger's certificate.

Time to go try to get these girls to take a bath.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Don't pilots and owners of aircraft get to put oil in the engine when needed? How about fuel? How about washing the windows? All of these things are maintenance... Does anyone know how the FARs address this, and do any of these concepts transfer over to parachutes?

It's in FAR 43.100. There is a specific list of items an owner may do.

Here's the big difference, an airplane is certified, a main is not.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[councilman24 37]

Okay, they're not taking a bath.

FAA is planning on moving all of the parachute maintenance language to the same part as aircraft maintenance. The number escapes me. AFAIK no one has a clue what they are planning for language. We (uspa and pia) do have a better working relationship than ever before.


And no I don't have a clue about time frame.

ah, part 43 as above

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[masterrigger1 2]

Paul,
There is no type rating for main parachutes.
The type rating is only for the certificated parachute.

Therefore, the appropriate rigger statement is in reference to the type work being performed and the type of certificate needed to do the work.

I hope that clears things up for you.

BS,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[councilman24 37]

Boy do I have you snowed. Or your blowing smoke up my ass.

MEL can give you maintenance done by riggers on mains that has killed. I don't have a data base and can't give you specifics. But remember, one I'm old for my age, and two I've been around since people were doing all sorts of crap to rounds and early mains. Ripcord stops are one example. Not assembling stuff correctly has also happened.

I got my ticket to LEARN more about my gear after a rigger and rig almost killed me on jump 87. Can you say Struggle Struggle, Thum....

And your right. Lack of maintenance is as much an issue as maintenance. But if people think it DIY for everyone and everything what doesn't get done is their fault as much as what does get done.

Now, I really have to corral my little demons, oops... darlings.

Later, tomorrow or tonight.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Paul,
There is no type rating for main parachutes.
The type rating is only for the certificated parachute.

Therefore, the appropriate rigger statement is in reference to the type work being performed and the type of certificate needed to do the work.

I hope that clears things up for you.

BS,
MEL

MEL, you don't seem to have read what I wrote.

Mark Baur said -

Quote

65.125(c) exempts riggers from the need to have a type rating to work on a main parachute, so any certificate is an appropriate certificate.

I am not sure what he means by that. If he is talking about packing, then he is not answering my question.

My question is about 65.111(c)(2). This paragraph is about maintenance and alteration; it is not about packing.

I said -

Quote

As we have determined in the past, mains don't have "Types", since they are not certified.

So, I am well aware that there are no type ratings on mains.

What remains is for Mark Baur to tell us what he meant by the statement that any certificate is an "appropriate certificate".

In case it was not clear, my question deals with what the new language in 65.111.c.2 requires of a rigger who is supervising a another rigger who is doing maintenance or alterations.

I understand that the text of the ruling deals with my question. And reading the ruling makes it clear that the new wording of 65.111(c)(2) does not clearly represent the intent presented in the ruling.

My objection to the newly worded 65.111.c.2 is that, without the ruling in hand, one could conclude that a Senior rigger can supervise another Senior rigger making an alteration or major repair.

I wonder about this question because the new wording of 65.111.c.2 does not call for a rigger with an "appropriate certificate" to supervise. It only calls for a rigger with a certificate.

To refresh, here is the new text of 65.111(c) -

Quote

No person may maintain or alter any main parachute of a dual-parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping in connection with civil aircraft of the United States unless that person—
(1) Has an appropriate current certificate issued under this subpart; or
(2) Is under the supervision of a current certificated parachute rigger;

Reading this carefully, it is clear that an appropriate certificate is required if you are doing the work alone.

But because of the omission of the word "appropriate" in 65.111(c)(2), one might conclude that you do not need an appropriate certificate to supervise maintenance and alteration, but that any certificate is sufficient.

I say again, with the ruling in hand, it is easy to see that this is not the intent.

But if you are not looking at the ruling, but only have the new text of the FAR, the intent is not clear.

To be quite clear, I do not think that a Senior can supervise another Senior who is doing a major repair or an alteration.

My objection to the new wording is that it does not clearly reflect the intent presented in the ruling.

[mark 107]

Quote

Quote

Paul,
There is no type rating for main parachutes.
The type rating is only for the certificated parachute.

Therefore, the appropriate rigger statement is in reference to the type work being performed and the type of certificate needed to do the work.

I hope that clears things up for you.

BS,
MEL

MEL, you don't seem to have read what I wrote.

Mark Baur said -

Quote

65.125(c) exempts riggers from the need to have a type rating to work on a main parachute, so any certificate is an appropriate certificate.

I am not sure what he means by that. If he is talking about packing, then he is not answering my question.

My question is about 65.111(c)(2). This paragraph is about maintenance and alteration; it is not about packing.

I said -

Quote

As we have determined in the past, mains don't have "Types", since they are not certified.

So, I am well aware that there are no type ratings on mains.

What remains is for Mark Baur to tell us what he meant by the statement that any certificate is an "appropriate certificate"

No babies going for baths, so no excuse for me. I was not clear.

I'm with MEL on this. If the work on a main is a major repair or alteration, then a master rigger certificate is required. No specific type rating needed. Similarly, if the work on a main is a minor repair, any senior certificate is enough. Again, no specific type rating needed.

Sorry for creating more confusion.

Mark

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

No babies going for baths, so no excuse for me. I was not clear.

I'm with MEL on this. If the work on a main is a major repair or alteration, then a master rigger certificate is required. No specific type rating needed. Similarly, if the work on a main is a minor repair, any senior certificate is enough. Again, no specific type rating needed.

Sorry for creating more confusion.

Mark

I agree with the both of you too.

I just don't think that the new regulation, as written, and without the ruling to look at with it, says what it really means.

65.111(c)(2) tells us who can supervise a person who does not meet the requirement for 65.111(c)(1). It calls for a "currently certificated parachute rigger".

To be clear all on its own (that is, without the need to see the ruling), it should say "appropriately rated currently certificated parachute rigger"

As an alternative, it could say that the supervisor must be someone who meets the requirement of 65.111(c)(1).

But what it actually says is that a "currently certificated parachute rigger" will do.

I am a Senior Parachute Rigger with a current certificate. Without looking at the ruling, I meet the requirement as stated in 65.111(c)(2).

All I am saying is that, even after a 5 year process to get the wording right, it still doesn't say what we really want it to say. You need to look at the ruling to get it right.

[masterrigger1 2]

Paul,
I hear what you are saying on this now,

Yes, I agree that "appropriate" probably should be written in there.
But then again it has already identified the "appropriate" rigger in the sentence beforehand and I think is just not being redundant.

The good part is that we do have the ruling in hand.This is exactly what is used when the rule as written, is not understood.

Your question is a good example,

It also helps making the part about privileges a little clearer in it's intent.

§ 65.125 Certificates: Privileges.
(a) A certificated senior parachute rigger may—

(1) Pack or maintain (except for major repair) any type of parachute for which he is rated; and

(2) Supervise other persons in packing any type of parachute for which that person is rated in accordance with §105.43(a) or §105.45(b)(1) of this chapter.

(b) A certificated master parachute rigger may—

(1) Pack, maintain, or alter any type of parachute for which he is rated; and

(2) Supervise other persons in packing, maintaining, or altering any type of parachute for which the certificated parachute rigger is rated in accordance with §105.43(a) or §105.45(b)(1) of this chapter.

(c) A certificated parachute rigger need not comply with §§65.127 through 65.133 (relating to facilities, equipment, performance standards, records, recent experience, and seal) in packing, maintaining, or altering (if authorized) the main parachute of a dual parachute pack to be used for intentional jumping.

[Doc. No. 1179, 27 FR 7973, Aug. 10, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 65–20, 37 FR 13252, July 6, 1972; Amdt. 65–42, 66 FR 23553, May 9, 2001]

BS,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Paul,
I hear what you are saying on this now,

Thanks Mark (MEL). I'm glad you don't think I am just arguing about the intent of the reworded regulation.

I am just frustrated that after a 5 year process, we still didn't get the wording the way it really should be.

Regarding seeing the word in 65.111(c)(1), the two paragraphs are joined with "or", so you shouldn't have to look at 65.111(c)(1) to understand 65.111(c)(2), unless they tell you two. As I said, it would also have been easy to say that the supervisor must meet 65.111(c)(1). Then all would have been nice and neat.

To recap, I agree that the ruling is clear on the intent. I am just sad we didn't get the wording perfect.

Thanks for the post. Knowing that I got my point across is important to me.

-paul

[tdog 0]

Quote

MEL can give you maintenance done by riggers on mains that has killed.

MEL, would you mind taking the ball Terry passed to you?

I know over the years we have argued a bit, playing devils advocate... But I ask you with an open mind and wanting to learn and communicate. I promise not to argue back, but instead to digest your list.

Terry made a claim that improper maintenance by users has killed in his post, and he cites your list in a subsequent post, and if it is true, then lets learn the facts. Is this a major problem, or an isolated issue?

In fact, it appears the "parachute industry" advocated that this is a risk to the FAA, and I know you and Terry are both in communication with them often.... Here is the quote from the document:

Quote

The
parachute industry raised concerns that
the resulting authority language in the
2001 amendment could be viewed as
authorizing maintenance or alteration
by non-certificated persons not under
the supervision of an appropriate
current certificated rigger. Those
concerns pose significant safety
concerns for the FAA and those
regulated by § 65.111.

So what are the significant safety concerns from previous incidents?

I am not lazy, so I went to the USPA website and read all accident reports listing "equipment problems" as the cause, and found that RSLs misrouted, reserve ripcords stuck in doors, and toggle malfunctions followed by improper cutaways have killed...

Here is what I found:

http://www.uspa.org/tabid/81/Default.aspx?Cat=EP

Can you show me (us) some reports where user maintenance, (not lack of maintenance) has killed?

[NovaTTT 2]

I agree with Paul that the word "appropriate" should be included in 65.111.c.2, or an assignation to the qualification of 65.111.c.1. Because of the time and attention given to the subsection it makes little sense to not be clear in ss2 as in ss1.

If it were a blanket assignation, it would have been made in 65.111, not in the subsection. That "or" gives it away.

The fact that it is debatable on Day One proves the lack.

As for packing mains, type ratings, etc., it is my understanding any rigger can pack and/or maintain a main, or supervise another, within his priveleges. No type rating is specified, just rigger.

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[riggerrob 643]

" ... I'm with MEL on this. If the work on a main is a major repair or alteration, then a master rigger certificate is required. No specific type rating needed. Similarly, if the work on a main is a minor repair, any senior certificate is enough. Again, no specific type rating needed.

...

Mark

[councilman24 37]

Quote

To recap, I agree that the ruling is clear on the intent. I am just sad we didn't get the wording perfect.

'we didn't get the wording right...' What you have to understand is that 'we' is Mr. Barnette. No one else outside the FAA had ANY input that I am aware of into the language of this fix. I assume it went through legal and perhaps other review at FAA but not outside, AFAIK.

We (PIA and USPA) are working on having more input on both regulations and rigger testing. And we are getting there. But I don't think the FAA has yet agreed in any case to have anyone outside the agency edit or write a final rule. I may be mistaken about that.

As to fatalities due to noncertified maintenance. First, we'll never know in most cases if bad maintenance was by a rigger or someone else because there is no documentation needed and the owner is deceased and can't tell us. Here is a quote from USPA incident report.

"Several fatalities have been attributed to interference between the steering controls and slider grommets at a low altitude. In each case, the canopy began to spin at just a few hundred feet—much too low for a cutaway and reserve deployment—leaving just a few seconds for the jumper to figure out what happened before impact. Jumpers who choose to stow their sliders at the bottom of their risers should do so high enough to still be able to initiate emergency procedures in case the slider creates a problem such as this one. Those who choose to leave the slider at the top of the risers should take steps to help ensure that the slider cannot accidentally come down below the toggles. Two-inch type-8 risers will keep the slider at the top and out of the way. If a jumper uses the smaller one-inch type-17 mini-risers, he can have larger slider bumpers installed to prevent the slider from dropping below the top of the risers and fouling the steering toggles. "

My emphasis.

Choosing the combination of slider, risers, toggle style (i.e. velcro, hoods etc) links and bumpers can be critical. And is implicated in several fatalities. Much of this is done by users. We'll never know if a rigger put these parts together or not. I expect both riggers and non riggers have made these compatibility mistakes. There is one specific report that blames the riser/slider/toggle/bumper assembly. There are many other fatalities caused by toggles releasing or locking up. Some of this is packing but some is maintenance and assembly.

I thought there was a recent (last few years) fatality caused by a toggle coming off a steering line on final but I can't find it. It may have been a bad injury. Which also leads to the point that killing people isn't the criteria for inappropriate maintenance. Any incident or injury caused by inappropriate maintenance is cause for concern.

Again, yesterdays rule as stated corrects inadequate language in the 2001 change that seemed to change the rules without that intent by the FAA. It's now fixed, meaning the error in 2001 is corrected.

Should appropriate be in there as discussed? Sure. BTW this change and others are not written by a rigger.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

To recap, I agree that the ruling is clear on the intent. I am just sad we didn't get the wording perfect.

'we didn't get the wording right...' What you have to understand is that 'we' is Mr. Barnette. No one else outside the FAA had ANY input that I am aware of into the language of this fix. I assume it went through legal and perhaps other review at FAA but not outside, AFAIK.

First off, I apologize for my wording that can be misconstrued.

The "we" to which I refer meant only the people who reap the benefit of this regulation. I did not mean that we, the jumpers, riggers etc, came up with the poor wording.

It might have been better to say that "they" had done it to "us", AGAIN.

Getting wording to be unambiguous is not easy.

Quote

We (PIA and USPA) are working on having more input on both regulations and rigger testing. And we are getting there. But I don't think the FAA has yet agreed in any case to have anyone outside the agency edit or write a final rule. I may be mistaken about that.

I am the first to applaud your efforts. Despite any differences of opinion we might otherwise have, I hope you know that I am always grateful for your efforts.

Quote

As to fatalities due to noncertified maintenance. First, we'll never know in most cases if bad maintenance was by a rigger or someone else because there is no documentation needed and the owner is deceased and can't tell us. Here is a quote from USPA incident report.

"Several fatalities have been attributed to interference between the steering controls and slider grommets at a low altitude. In each case, the canopy began to spin at just a few hundred feet—much too low for a cutaway and reserve deployment—leaving just a few seconds for the jumper to figure out what happened before impact. Jumpers who choose to stow their sliders at the bottom of their risers should do so high enough to still be able to initiate emergency procedures in case the slider creates a problem such as this one. Those who choose to leave the slider at the top of the risers should take steps to help ensure that the slider cannot accidentally come down below the toggles. Two-inch type-8 risers will keep the slider at the top and out of the way. If a jumper uses the smaller one-inch type-17 mini-risers, he can have larger slider bumpers installed to prevent the slider from dropping below the top of the risers and fouling the steering toggles. "

My emphasis.

Choosing the combination of slider, risers, toggle style (i.e. velcro, hoods etc) links and bumpers can be critical. And is implicated in several fatalities. Much of this is done by users. We'll never know if a rigger put these parts together or not. I expect both riggers and non riggers have made these compatibility mistakes. There is one specific report that blames the riser/slider/toggle/bumper assembly. There are many other fatalities caused by toggles releasing or locking up. Some of this is packing but some is maintenance and assembly.

I thought there was a recent (last few years) fatality caused by a toggle coming off a steering line on final but I can't find it. It may have been a bad injury. Which also leads to the point that killing people isn't the criteria for inappropriate maintenance. Any incident or injury caused by inappropriate maintenance is cause for concern.

Here we must address the philosophical question - Is the purpose of government regulation to protect me from myself, or is it to protect me from the actions of someone else?

I am sad when people hurt themselves by doing things that they are not qualified to do. But all the regulation in the world will not prevent someone from secretly doing something to their rig that leads to their own death.

The best you and I can do, Terry, is to help people understand that in rigging, tiny details can and do spell the difference between survival and death. The best we can do is to make it clear to them that if they don't clearly know what they are doing, they should get help from someone who clearly does.

Beyond that, we are powerless.

If someone thinks that the presence of the regulations will prevent people from doing things that kill themselves, that someone is just pissing up a rope.

The only way to do that would be for all the gear to stay in the rigger's hands, to be distributed before each jump, and to be retrieved at the conclusion of every jump.

I am positive that nobody among us wants to go there.

And even going there wouldn't completely ensure that people don't still do something dumb with gear that should be able to save them to make it fail.

The point of the regulation, as I see it, is actually two-fold.

First, it establishes what will be allowed when one person offers services to another. To offer to do work for someone else, I must have the appropriate credential myself, or I must be under the supervision of someone who does.

Second, it establishes that the certified person has clear knowledge of what the regulations require, so as to establish the liability for failing to provide the appropriate service that I offer. Part of the certification process includes making me aware that there are restrictions on what I do. Ignorance of this is not allowed to be an excuse.

Beyond this, all we have is for each to be responsible for our own actions.

Quote

Again, yesterdays rule as stated corrects inadequate language in the 2001 change that seemed to change the rules without that intent by the FAA. It's now fixed, meaning the error in 2001 is corrected.


Should appropriate be in there as discussed? Sure. BTW this change and others are not written by a rigger.

Got it! Again, I never intended "we" to mean that "we" had done this to ourselves.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

" ... I'm with MEL on this. If the work on a main is a major repair or alteration, then a master rigger certificate is required. No specific type rating needed. Similarly, if the work on a main is a minor repair, any senior certificate is enough. Again, no specific type rating needed.

...

Mark

... "

......................................................................

Agreed!
We almost need three tiers of "maintenance:" with the first tier involving simple hand tasks like replacing rubber bands.
... similar to a pilot topping off tire pressure or topping off engine oil or cleaning a windshield ...

Any machine sewing - on a parachute - requires a rigger rating, because depressingly few fun jumpers have a clue how to operate a sewing machine.

The people who yell the loudest - on dz.com - usually have the fewest skills.
So it degrades into a purely political debate.

I laugh every time a (non-rigger) fun jumper asks if he can use my rack to assemble his new main. Three hours later - and multiple mis-routings - they admit that it would have been quicker and simpler if they had just asked me to assemble it.

Rob Warner
FAA Master Rigger (back, seat and chest)
Canadian Rigger Examiner
Strong Tandem Examiner
etc.

Can an owner (non-rigger) do any maintenance?

Change out a rubber band? Or a main closing loop?

Change risers or canopy(leaving the canopy on the links)?

Swap canopies (leaving the canopy on the risers)?

This is all basic stuff any jumper should know how to do. Stuff I've seen competent (non-rigger) jumpers do.

Or am I going to get rich changing out rubber bands and other simple stuff at $0.50 a pop?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

I laugh every time a (non-rigger) fun jumper asks if he can use my rack to assemble his new main. Three hours later - and multiple mis-routings - they admit that it would have been quicker and simpler if they had just asked me to assemble it.

Maybe you should be teaching them how to do it properly.

Quote

Any machine sewing - on a parachute - requires a rigger rating, because depressingly few fun jumpers have a clue how to operate a sewing machine.

See above.

Quote

The people who yell the loudest - on dz.com - usually have the fewest skills.

Oh, I see.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[tdog 0]

Quote

" ...
I laugh every time a (non-rigger) fun jumper asks if he can use my rack to assemble his new main. Three hours later - and multiple mis-routings - they admit that it would have been quicker and simpler if they had just asked me to assemble it.

I thought there was a story about Jesus, a fish, and something about teaching people to fish...

In all seriousness, I would hope all riggers would teach their customers to do the assembly of a main and almost expect it out of their customers... If this is left to riggers only, malfunctions and incidents will increase... Knowing your gear is key to survival in this sport....

[diablopilot 2]

You know, following the logic of your post, pretty soon you'll have to get an FAA certificate to pack a main. After all, a non-certified individual could pack themselves a line over.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

" ... I'm with MEL on this. If the work on a main is a major repair or alteration, then a master rigger certificate is required. No specific type rating needed. Similarly, if the work on a main is a minor repair, any senior certificate is enough. Again, no specific type rating needed.

...

Mark

... "

Can an owner (non-rigger) do any maintenance?

Change out a rubber band? Or a main closing loop?

Change risers or canopy(leaving the canopy on the links)?

Swap canopies (leaving the canopy on the risers)?

This is all basic stuff any jumper should know how to do. Stuff I've seen competent (non-rigger) jumpers do.

Or am I going to get rich changing out rubber bands and other simple stuff at $0.50 a pop?

Their is really nothing to stop you from doing you own rigging.

Nothing will happen unless you die. And then, really, what can they do?

What the regulations do is to put me at extreme peril should I do something for which I am not rated.