Packer's Liability

[Fast 0]

Andy9o8

*** ***
All the more reason I'm less than comfortable with someone who's never jumped him/herself packing for others, where they've never, even once, experienced relying on a parachute themselves to avoid otherwise-certain death.

I'm willing to make a small exception of, for example, kids of jumpers or DZOs, where they've packed for their parents and thus have a very personal stake in doing it right.

If it were only that simple. Where I am at, half my packing staff last year wasn't even old enough to jump. We don't have enough skydivers interested in doing the job to keep the DZ running.


I understand the practicality you refer to, but I only have limited sympathy for it. Economics, convenience, or even necessity doesn't make it right. Back in The Day, a lot of small DZs used to let 50-jump wonders who didn't have jumpmaster ratings put out S/L students under a similar rationale. It might have been seen as necessary, but that didn't make it right. More to the point (since analogies are always imperfect): somehow, the idea slightly bugs me of someone packing others' rigs who wouldn't be willing to stand by his pack jobs by jumping a couple randomly-selected ones himself.

Dunno. I honestly don't care if the person packing my rig is a skydiver. It doesn't even partially correlate to how good of a packer they are or how much they care about the pack job.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[skygypsie 2]

mark

******What are you proposing that doesn't already exist?

...reality...not just practical procedures backed by versed "technically" !

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you say it another way?

Mark

What I'm trying to say, most of us know busy operations don't sometimes lend to the availability of Riggers standing over & scrutinizing "iffy" packers.

In "practicality" they usually wear many hats & just not that accessible.

Though "technically" are supposed to per reqs..

On the flip side (my greatest grievance), too many packers are laxed, don't care, disgruntled or just plain don't know if they are creating a wrongful packing situation!

They can't ask, if they are not in the know.

Costs: TI's provide their own camera & video equipment, responsible for fees for the MED Class II, III, USPA recurrency fees, as do AFFI, pro rated.

We all have to pay our USPA membership fees.

Why not a Packing independent contractor ?

Make it their ( dzo- packers) "reality"...typically if you have to pay & answer, you are more apt to learn the correct way & do your job well...light some follow up responsibility under some, you usually will find who is serious about what they took on !

Find, hire & keep packers who just care enough to care....that's all !

.

Most dzs I've staffed with even provide the rubber bands !

[mark 107]

skygypsie

What I'm trying to say . . .

Okay, I'm going to try again.

Nothing prevents a supervising rigger from doing training and/or establishing a credential system for the packers he or she supervises.

The supervising rigger is responsible for work of the packers he or she supervises. Packers cannot do a good or bad job. Only the supervising rigger can do a good or bad job. It is the supervising rigger's pack job.

If you are saying supervising riggers should do a better job at supervising, well, ok. You haven't proposed anything that will help.

If you are saying packers should do a better job, well, ok. The person to motivate them is the supervising rigger.

That's all in the regulation. So what exactly do you want to change?

Mark

[skygypsie 2]

mark

*** What I'm trying to say . . .

Okay, I'm going to try again.

Nothing prevents a supervising rigger from doing training and/or establishing a credential system for the packers he or she supervises.

The supervising rigger is responsible for work of the packers he or she supervises. Packers cannot do a good or bad job. Only the supervising rigger can do a good or bad job. It is the supervising rigger's pack job.

If you are saying supervising riggers should do a better job at supervising, well, ok. You haven't proposed anything that will help.

If you are saying packers should do a better job, well, ok. The person to motivate them is the supervising rigger.

That's all in the regulation. So what exactly do you want to change?

Mark

You're right, nothing prevents it...so why does it happen far too often ?

So, precisely & simply put... EVERYBODY do their damn jobs, correctly.

If this requires mandated packer ratings, so be it.

Riggers & Packers, alike...I have experienced too many in both capacities leaving a lot to be desired, lately...slacking, lacking & shrugged off by both.

Per the dz, instructors, costs & integrity of gear, students & safety...no less should be expected, nor performed.

This sport & business mandates & requires it, for obvious reasons !!!

[JerryBaumchen 1,451]

Hi Southern,

Quote

USPA is not in the business of this sort of certification.

However, the CSPA does and it seems to be working quite well for them. I propose that the PIA could do this, if they wanted to. Of course, therein lies the problem.

Quote

That only leaves the FAA.

IMO if the entirety of the parachute industry ( except the flying portion which is not skydiving per se ) severed the oversight ( ??? ) by the FAA we would be better off.

End of rant,

JerryBaumchen

[mark 107]

skygypsie

If this requires mandated packer ratings, so be it.

There already is a mandated packer rating. It's called "Senior Parachute Rigger Certificate."

Mark

[Fast 0]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Southern,

Quote

USPA is not in the business of this sort of certification.

However, the CSPA does and it seems to be working quite well for them. I propose that the PIA could do this, if they wanted to. Of course, therein lies the problem.

Except for the part where the FAA has already set the regulations. Why on earth would any of our lesser non-enforcing organizations try and make something more strict.

USPA/PIA rating: "Holder of this rating may pack a main parachute for another person, that is, if they have a supervising rigger who agrees that what they are doing is good enough".

It's a dumb concept. Unless the FAA dropped their requirements in favor of a USPA/PIA stated regulation, it would be 100% pointless. That's what mark has been trying to say and someone (whose posts I have a hard time following) seems to be missing that too.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[airtwardo 7]

Fast

***Hi Southern,

Quote

USPA is not in the business of this sort of certification.

However, the CSPA does and it seems to be working quite well for them. I propose that the PIA could do this, if they wanted to. Of course, therein lies the problem.

Except for the part where the FAA has already set the regulations. Why on earth would any of our lesser non-enforcing organizations try and make something more strict.

USPA/PIA rating: "Holder of this rating may pack a main parachute for another person, that is, if they have a supervising rigger who agrees that what they are doing is good enough".

It's a dumb concept. Unless the FAA dropped their requirements in favor of a USPA/PIA stated regulation, it would be 100% pointless. That's what mark has been trying to say and someone (whose posts I have a hard time following) seems to be missing that too.

And nobody ever thought closer scrutiny and more detailed training was necessary regarding the simple task of placing a harness on a tandem student...until a couple of passengers went out he hole.

Suddenly it was top priority to get everyone up to speed & find a solution for a problem the never existed prior.

The $port is being marketed to the masses today, more & more people are skydiving now that have no clue how a parachute works, how to maintain it, how to pack it...or care.

Easy to imagine someone just starting out might take it for granted that the person they're paying to pack their main, has some kind of actual qualifications to do so.

Ricochet a few n00bs off the planet because of main parachute problems that were packed by a 16 year old with THC in the blood, no official training or 'actual' supervision...it's gonna turn SO far the other way that even the quality packers who don't hold a riggers ticket will in effect be out out of business.

Why NOT preempt it by at least addressing the possibility with minimal paperwork now?

Nothing personal Fast & no disrespect meant - but your argument is colored by the financial concerns & self described need for non certified/non jumping packers on site.

Stepping back from that, your opinion might be somewhat different. A couple other countries already have such qual requirement in place and it works remarkably well...we wouldn't be reinventing the wheel here.

Like with many 'changes' to protocol in this sport - just because we don't have, haven't needed it before, doesn't mean it's not a good idea & should be addressed now better than later.

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

[catfishhunter 2]

ianmdrennan

Quote

Remember - you pay for a packjob, not the opening.

Bullshit, and a reason I am particular about what packers I use (when I use them, and it's rare). I expect people to take pride in their job, and do the best they can. The expressed mindset is a pet peeve of mine, and totally unacceptable IMO.

I absolutely will not use a packer that says the above, ever. If you aren't going to pack it like you're going to jump it - stay away from my rig.

That said, JUMPING means that sometimes strange shit is gonna happen from time to time, and you just have to accept that - whether you use a packer or not.

Imagine if your rigger said that line of bullshit to you regarding your reserve?

Ian

DITTO and I ALWAYS use a packer and pay above and beyond so my old beat up ass doesn't have to do it. Any packer that ever tells me I am only paying for the pack job will find I wont be paying them at all.

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[Fast 0]

airtwardo

Why NOT preempt it by at least addressing the possibility with minimal paperwork now?

Nothing personal Fast & no disrespect meant - but your argument is colored by the financial concerns & self described need for non certified/non jumping packers on site.

Stepping back from that, your opinion might be somewhat different. A couple other countries already have such qual requirement in place and it works remarkably well...we wouldn't be reinventing the wheel here.

Like with many 'changes' to protocol in this sport - just because we don't have, haven't needed it before, doesn't mean it's not a good idea & should be addressed now better than later.

It's not though. The situation is already 100% addressed by the fact that a packer is NOT allowed to pack unless they are under the supervision of a rigger. That means a rigger has already chosen to take responsibility for the given packer. In the case of our DZ that includes things being written down that state as much. An individual dropzone can choose to not do that, but it seems silly to me.

We have a standard in place, senior parachute rigger or under the direct supervision (whatever that exactly means) of a rigger. The USPA or PIA coming up with a packer rating of some sort, as is done in other countries, would just be a money grab and serve no practical purpose beyond the already existing requirements.

If the FAA changed their rules to "Must be a rigger or have a packing license issued by an associated parachute organization" I would be wholeheartedly on board with what you're saying. It has nothing to do with the supply and demand of packers and everything to do with how the rules are currently written.

I think it would be a great idea, if the FAA changed their rules and we all know that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[airtwardo 7]

Fast

***
Why NOT preempt it by at least addressing the possibility with minimal paperwork now?

Nothing personal Fast & no disrespect meant - but your argument is colored by the financial concerns & self described need for non certified/non jumping packers on site.

Stepping back from that, your opinion might be somewhat different. A couple other countries already have such qual requirement in place and it works remarkably well...we wouldn't be reinventing the wheel here.

Like with many 'changes' to protocol in this sport - just because we don't have, haven't needed it before, doesn't mean it's not a good idea & should be addressed now better than later.

It's not though. The situation is already 100% addressed by the fact that a packer is NOT allowed to pack unless they are under the supervision of a rigger. That means a rigger has already chosen to take responsibility for the given packer. In the case of our DZ that includes things being written down that state as much. An individual dropzone can choose to not do that, but it seems silly to me.

We have a standard in place, senior parachute rigger or under the direct supervision (whatever that exactly means) of a rigger. The USPA or PIA coming up with a packer rating of some sort, as is done in other countries, would just be a money grab and serve no practical purpose beyond the already existing requirements.

If the FAA changed their rules to "Must be a rigger or have a packing license issued by an associated parachute organization" I would be wholeheartedly on board with what you're saying. It has nothing to do with the supply and demand of packers and everything to do with how the rules are currently written.

I think it would be a great idea, if the FAA changed their rules and we all know that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

I see your point...

AND I agree, IF the ambiguity in the rules was clarified & they were followed to the letter as then written...but as it stands there's a lotta wiggle room in there. And as always, that will be exploited when the worst case happens - setting up the big brother scenario I described above.

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

[Fast 0]

airtwardo

I see your point...

AND I agree, IF the ambiguity in the rules was clarified & they were followed to the letter as then written...but as it stands there's a lotta wiggle room in there. And as always, that will be exploited when the worst case happens - setting up the big brother scenario I described above.

If this is a problem people think needs fixing, it should be addressed first at the FAA level or as a combined effort of the USPA establishing a rating at the same time the FAA rules are changed. I honestly don't think either of those things are likely though. I also think it would be absolutely detrimental to the industry if every packer everywhere had to be a rigger or take an FAA certification course.

I really only see what goes on at the few dropzones around me, but I really haven't noticed much of a problem when it comes to this stuff in incident reports and the like. I think having a easier to obtain (compared to senior rigger) ticket for packing mains and more clear rules from the FAA would be nice, but we seem to be managing.

And none of this changes anything when it comes to liability.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka