European PEP

[NovaTTT 2]

I received today for I&R this European clone/knockoff of a Strong 303 (country of origin unknown). It came with a purchased glider and is loaded with a T-10R24 (1964). DOM on the H/C is 1992, last I&R 03/2012 (in aforementioned mystery country).

The I&R isn't going to happen but I'd like to know more about the gear and find a manual if there is one.

PPM & Google results = naught.

Anyone familiar with this?

ETA: Yes, I have a PC303 manual.

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

[airtwardo 7]

Give Strong Ent. a call...bet THEY know something about it!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[riggerrob 643]

That label looks European.

Probably not legal for an FAA Rigger to pack????

However, the rest of the rig looks like a reasonable copy of a Strong Para-Cushion Back.
A long time ago, I was asked to repack a few green, Strong Para-Cushion backs without labels.
Apparently they were imported to the USA in a military-surplus airplane.
Strong never told us the full story ... something about them being sold to a "quiet, covert, shy, ... er don't ask ..." military customer. Strong mailed us some labels to sew on.

[RiggerLee 63]

So what would be the legality on this?

So the ejection seats we pack are sort of aproved as part of the plane when the FAA signs off on... there operating manual when then write there... airworthiness sertificat? Most of these things wind up as an experamental, exibition? Or at least that's my understanding of how they get away with it. Could some one clarify this? So how does it work if they get some thing more mundane like a glider or small plane in. Does the FAA respect some kind of europen certifacation? How does it get translated? Does it operate under those europen rules? What about a europen PEP in it? Could it be included in the paper work when the FAA signs off on it? For that matter what if the aircraft was... visiting? What if it had an F number rather then an N number? Say it was some shit hot euro aerobatic pilot here for a world championship.

What about foren jumpers? I was under the impresion that if it was a foren national jumping foren gear it could operate under it's own standards. And I have packed foren gear for them many times. Was I wrong? They said an FAA rigger could pack it. They had to help me fill out there log books. The weirdest one was the guy from Saudi, don't get me started, they were dicks.

Question doesn't seem simple to me. Thoughts?

Lee

Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

[pchapman 279]

Interesting.
All the FAA stuff that we usually look at deals with "foreign parachutists". FAR 105. 49 is about "foreign parachutists and equipment" -- but it is all about intentional parachuting operations, using single harness, dual parachute systems.

For reference, USPA's discussion and interpretation of the foreign parachutist rules:
http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Membership/Travel/TotheUS/TSOMemo/tabid/470/Default.aspx


All this has little to do with emergency parachutes, PEP rigs, for individuals not planning to jump.

Unless I've missed something, there are no exemptions for foreigners and PEP's, right?

91.307 requires that you can't have a parachute available for emergency use, unless it is an "approved type", and requires such a parachute for most aerobatic style flight.

It also mentions that an "approved parachute" is one that is military certified or is "A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical standard order (C-23 series)".

'Type certificate' I read elsewhere is supposed to be an early form of approval prior to the TSO series, sort of how each aircraft type is certified for normal use.

Or can one interpret the wording very literally and liberally, thus including any sort of foreign type of certification of a type of parachute as a type certificate? (e.g., JTSO, EASA, French 530 EQ-03 or whatever the heck is out there)

So based on my limited knowledge, it looks like:

a) most likely, a foreign glider or aerobatic pilot would need to show up with a PEP with a US TSO

... or, if one is very liberal with interpretations,

b) any certified foreign parachute would do -- whether for a foreign visitor or an American.

[NovaTTT 2]

@ Lee, I didn't but should have mentioned this gear does not have a TSO label. The markings on the pin cover are the only markings on the exterior rig.

I'll open it up this weekend and get a look at the interior.

@ Peter, great points and a good example of the seemingly plastic nature of some FARs.

I'm not one to liberally interpret Part 91, however, and I gave the pilot the "nice car cover, dude!" talk.

I'm hoping to learn more about the gear itself and find out about its origins, etc.

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

[NovaTTT 2]

@ Jim: Don't laugh! I may end up on the phone with John!

@ Rob: I don't expect SE is going to want their label on this, even though it appears to be a quality copy.

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

[pchapman 279]

Quote

I gave the pilot the "nice car cover, dude!" talk.

I suppose it could be packed up as a seat cushion, as long as you added a big label to clearly mark it as such -- because of the FAA rule that anything purporting to be an emergency parachute must follow the rules.

Then it would be legal to fly with where no parachute is required, such as regular gliding operations. If a parachute is required for some reason (e.g., aerobatics), then he couldn't wear it, as it isn't a parachute!

It is a nice little mystery about what little company might have built the rig.

[ripcord4 0]

"loaded with a T-10R24 (1964)"

Hmmm, a 50 year old military surplus reserve canopy is fit only for a car cover.

[irishrigger 32]

Since you think it is european, although i am not a 100% sure, but think that looks something that Lofty from Thomas Ports Equipment could have made. that is only a guess.

however i do agree witha t-10 50 year old reserve is def ready to be a car cover.

rodger

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

...

HoweverIi do agree with a t-10 50 year old reserve is def ready to be a car cover.

rodger

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

Agreed!

The last T-10R - than I was asked to pack - got a good laugh!
Then I pull-tested (less than 30 pounds) a bunch of holes in it!

Since Crown Assets Disposal (Canada) and U.S. military quit selling airworthy T-10R circa 1980, I am having a hard time finding a T-10R to train young riggers. I do not care if the T-10R is airworthy, because we only intend to use it for packing practice.

[riggerrob 643]

Not all glider pilots do aerobatics.

The primary reason - that most glider pilots wear PEPs - is the risk of being sucked up into a cumulo-nimbus cloud (anvil-shaped, thunder cloud) and being spit out in small pieces.

Their second motivation is the risk of colliding with other gliders spiraling in the same thermal (column of rising warm air).

[riggerrob 643]

Can you read a manual written in Russian?
Hah!
Hah!

The FAA struggled with this problem 20 years ago. NATO-surplus jet warbirds were coming into fashion and communist-surplus warbirds were flocking out of eastern Europe.

After the Iron Curtain fell, lots of Americans imported Communist-surplus military airplanes.
Since the FAA banned "hot" ejection-seats in civilian-owned USAF airplanes, they also banned "hot" ejection seats in communist-surplus airplanes.
AFAIK the FAA only allows "hot" ejection seats in USAF-surplus airplanes flown by companies that have contracts with the USAF, USN, USMC.

I heard lots of "explanations" about why communist-surplus ejection seats should be permitted under the original equipment list. The FAA denied the vast majority of those applications.

The funniest example was a hot-shot airshow (Yak 55) pilot, who accidentally pulled the ripcord on his Russian Air Force-surplus seat-pack. Fortunately, he noticed his error after only the pilot-chute escaped, so it was simple to re-close. When the mechanic brought it to me, he did not even have a Russian-language manual!
The container was faded. All the hardware was rusted. The KAP-3 did not look like it had been inspected in the last decade. There never was a spring in the pilot-chute and none of the pack-opening-bands had any elasticity remaining!

I told the mechanic: "I will reclose this on the following conditions.
1 - I will not sign it.
2 - I will not seal.
3 - I will not bill you.
4 - There will no paperwork connecting this parachute with this loft.
5 - You will have to listen to along lecture about why a modern, American-made (Butler, Para-Phernalia or Strong) seat-pack is better.

The funniest thing occurred after the airshow, when the pilot/owner stomped into the loft, demanding a full inspection and repack. When I refused, he got angry: "But someone else in this loft closed it last week!"
"That was me and I promised your mechanic a long lecture about why modern American-made seat-packs are better."

[RiggerLee 63]

Are hot seats banned?

I remember back at Quincy I was over at , whats his names hanger he ran the WFFC, with Wag. We were looking at a couple of megs they had just gotten in and they had some L-39 there. I was talking to one guy thats one of his macanics about the cost of the planes and of operation. I couldn't beleave how cheaply you could get one for. At the same time I met a guy that did the seats. All the rockets, electronics timers, etc. He was based out of Las Vagis. He did every thing but the parachute. Wag had been repacking the L-39 parachutes for them. He had an actual video manual with bad music and I think a voice over. He was trying to get me to stick around for another week and give him a hand but by the end of the boogie I was done, stick a fork in me. So I never actually packed any of them.

I was under the impresion that the paper work could be done with the seat eather live, or with the piros deactivated. Depending on the design the parachute might still be opperable and might still need to be repacked. I want to say that some of there seats were live. But as I recall they did have some kind of contract where they had a pilot that would act as an agressor for the millitary. Although I seem to recal that it was the canadians. It was Quency and a lot of my memories are a bit fuzzy.

The other encounter that I had was when a guy in Dallas bought a couple of megs. He brought two of the seats into the adventure loft. They were in variing states of assimbly. I think I had them figured out as to how they worked. At least 90%. When I say that I'm speaking at a vary fundomental level. Like how the canopy could come out of the container. They were that weird. I think they were going to make the seats hot. I can not imagion how else the fucking things could work. I mean like there's this big metal frame with the pack that stays on your ass, froget plf's with this thing. I don't see how it could work any other way, had to be hot. He wanted us to repack it as part of the airframe. It would actually be signed off by the A+P. Or at least that's how it was explaned to me at the time. We made a deal that if he could get the instructions in english we would put it togather for him. In the end the closest he came was to get us every other page but it was for a diffrent seat. No relevance. We finally kicked him and his pile of shit out the door. I didn't talk to the FAA my self, but as far as we could determin it would have been leagle. Scarry as shit but tecnically legal. I also got the impression that none of these people really knew what they were doing. I don't even know if the thing ever flew.

Still curious about how other foren aircraft are sold and operated here in the us. And visiting aircraft? How do they fit into the FAR's and what would be the story of PEP abord them. The way I understand it a US flaged airplane is kind of like a little peace of us soil when it's over seas. On the other hand I hear that there is a lot of paper work nesasary for a us airplane to fly into say Mexico. So I'm confused.

Lee

Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

[riggerrob 643]

When foreign-flagged airplanes visit the USAA, they can fly with foreign-certified parachutes. However, an FAA rigger cannot legally repack them.

As for foreign-surplus airplanes that are imported - and licensed in the USA ... it really depends which country they came from. Back during the early 1990s, a bewildering array of military-surplus airplanes were imported to the USA. Circa 1993, the FAA imposed a temporary ban on importation of communist-surplus airplanes, because they were over-whelmed.
Back then I worked for Butler and he told me to repack most of the NATO-surplus PEPs, but we refused to touch most communist-surplus parachutes.
During that period, I repacked British, Swedish, South African, Yugoslavian, etc. military-surplus parachutes that were simlar to US military patterns. A major question was whether we could get English language manuals.
The FAA did not want to approve any "hot" ejection seats. Not even in US Navy-surplus airplanes.
Nowadays, you can forget about importing communist-pattern explosive charges for ejection seats!

In conclusion, US-registered airplanes can only carry PEPs that are TSOed or conform to a NATO certification standard.