TSO'ed Main Risers

[skymedic 0]

GE we bring good things to light!!!!....
Cheers....vasbyt
marc
"it's hard to be anal with no anus!!!"-Dogma

[skybytch 273]

Great thread!
I work for a major gear dealer. We offer rental and demo equipment at several large dz's. All of the gear is rented out as container/reserve/Cypres with main p/c and d-bag, with the main seperate on risers. At our store in Perris alone we have at least twice as many mains as we do container/reserve systems. Requiring a rigger's ticket to assemble/disassemble the three ring system would put a major kink in the way we do things - we'd almost be forced to rent gear out only as complete rigs instead of our customers being able to choose different mains or being able to demo only a main in their own container... or our customers would be forced to either have a riggers ticket or pay a rigger to do a simple main hook up before they could jump. Not a good thing imho.
But... I can see your dilemma because I have seen improperly made risers and 3 rings systems (I owned a set for awhile...). Requiring manufacturers to provide proof that their systems are made to spec would be a good thing...
Tough question.
pull & flare,
lisa
[subliminal msg]My website Go Now[/subliminal msg]

[SBS 0]

I had a similar question, as well as the following:
Wouldn't this put more beurocracy into our sport that we don't need?
What are the actual statistics of people who have had incidents with faulty risers, and would they merit said beurocracy?
Would manufacturers really want this added liability? Would riggers really want this added liability?
If this were to be done, I liked the suggestion of a "junior rigger", but could you imagine the paperwork that would be involved on the part of the FAA to get this done? In addition to the work that we would have to do in the skydiving industry? Again, would the benefit be worth the cost in this area?
If someone were to lose a cutaway handle, they would no longer be able to get one from their loft and be jumping the same or next day. Correct?
If someone owned a container and wanted risers from anywhere else, regardless of reason, they would not be able to use them, as they would not be TSO'd with the system, correct?
What would happen to all the risers that are out there now? Would every single set of risers have to go through an inspection?
Would this subject the actual manufacture of the cutaway handle to a TSO?
It seems to me that education is the key to making sure that we don't have problems with main risers. The junior rigger idea, like I said, sounds like a way that this could be done, but it seems like this process would be way over the top. Seems like we could come up with a better way of educating, without putting ourselves farther under the microscope of the FAA.
This is way to complicated to draw out a big scenario, but what about cases with intentional cutaways, 3rd canopies, etc.? Which is the main in those cases? Does the canopy right before the one that is your last resort have to have the 3-ring release? It's nitpicky, but there are a lot of questions that would have to be answered.
Seems like as far as the FAA is concerned, we should leave this one alone...if education is needed, then let's educate...let's just not get them involved more than we need to.
Thanks for listening to me ramble. :-)
Steve

[billbooth 10]

Lisa and Steve;
You both raise good points. Personally, I would like a lot less FAA regulation of skydiving, not a lot more. It's a sport for God's sake. I've been on TSO committees, on and off, for over 20 years now, and each successive document seems to get thicker and thicker. But it isn't the FAA demanding more tests, and therefore more rules, it is we, ourselves, who are making the document thicker. I think a much better course would be to keep the FAA approved document (the TSO) a MINIMUM performance standard, and keep quality up through a series Parachute Industry Association (PIA) Performance Standards. These PIA standards would not be law, but any manufacturer who ignored them would be SOL in court if anything bad happened because of their failure to follow them. I am not alone in this thinking, so I hope that's the way things go, and we won't have to open the Pandora's Box of TSOing main parachute components. Plus, PIA Performance Standards would be far easier to change if necessary. Overly restrictive rules can stifle innovation.

[Spy38W 0]

I have possible solution, maybe...
I was an airplane driver before I started jumping, and know that the FAR's do allow some maintenance to be performed by the owner of the aircraft. Maybe there is a way to get such a clause included in the TSO for the three rings, to allow the owner/operator of a parachute system to perform such maintenance tasks that do not require a riggers license. Or am I just way off here?
--
Give them a sip of the darkside, and they just thirst for more.

[precision 0]

I have been serving on this committee with Bill Booth and others for the better part of 2 decades, and although we have recently spent a good bit of time discussing the subject, I feel strongly that main risers will never become part of the TSO elements, per se.
The discussion all started back with the committee was debating the wisdom of required elements for Tandem equipment in a post-exemption world, and one of those elements was that Tandem equipment should be required to have a cutaway system. So far so good.
But if we require post-exemption tandem to have a cutaway system of some sort, then we must write a performance standard to test the cutaway system. Still so far so good.
The problem is that half of the cutaway system is not located on the rig, but on the risers. Now, of course, we all know that the 3 ring system has served us very well for a long time, but the time will surely come when a newer, better cutaway system is adopted into our sport. Bill Booth will quite possibly invent that new system, and for all we know, he has already invented it, and just hasn’t brought it to market yet!
In any case, the dilemma is invoked because half of the cutaway system resides on the risers, thereby calling the risers into the chain of TSO authority and subsequently rigger approval for assembly.
One solution would be (and I think this is where we will ultimately end up) to require that:
1) Tandem systems require some sort of cutaway provision
2) Manufacturer mandates approved part numbers limited for use in combination on their own equipment
3) Require TSO functional and structural qualification testing for the manufacturer’s combination of part numbers, regardless of what system it is [6-ring-torsion-whizzer pyrotechnic-cutter-release]
4) The harness TSO might include the large ring of the 3-ring release [or whatever Bill has up his sleeve next] but whatever it is, it must be “assembled in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions”
The TSO system should never be design-restrictive, and I’m sure Bill Booth will agree, we should never write the 3-Ring system into the TSO… after all, his patent has expired :)
George Galloway
Precision Aerodynamics, Inc.

[AndyMan 7]

Bill, I think I'm about to open a can of worms. Bear with me.
This is one of the reasons I'm not terribly fond of the way that you've pretty much neglected your patents on the three ring. The point is moot now, since I do understand that patent is expired.
I had this exact same thought in the pilot chute thread earlier. Had you kept and inforced those patents, you could have dictated acceptable manufacturing procedures and insisted on a good quality control.
I'm not suggesting you charge the manufacturers bags of money, although this certainly might've put your kids through college... As a software engineer I'm actually quite biased against patents, but I see a missed opportunity to use your patents to significantly help the industry. This probably would've made this current issue irrelevant, I suspect.
_Am
ICQ: 5578907
MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com
AIM: andrewdmetcalfe
Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999

[polarbear 1]

An aspect of this that hasn't been mentioned yet is that risers do wear out...particularly mini risers. The load reduction of the 3-ring system can be greatly changed by improper geometry, which can come from improper design, improper manufacture, or just plain wearing out (stretching/shrinking). You sometimes hear that mini risers should be changed every 300 jumps or so...it is my understanding that this is because the geometry of the 3-ring has changed enough to affect the load reduction.
While it is true that most jumpers are capable of hooking up a 3-ring system, and that jumpers need to be able to do this for maintenence reasons, I don't think most jumpers change their mini-risers with great frequency. I would argue that on a sport rig, the cutaway is a major safety system, almost as important as the reserve system. It needs to be properly built and maintained. I think the majority of risers are built well, but not maintained well.
However, it would be a major pain in the butt to have to have a rigger do this. There must be some way to regulate the manufacture but not require riggers to do the assembly. AC 1052C has a section (11f)where it says that the owner of equipment can perform assembly and disassembly necessary for transportation, handling, and storage, if the dis/assembly consists of simple processes. We have many years of experience that say a jumper can connect 3-rings correctly; maybe we (the sport parachuting community) can argue that it is a simple enough process that a jumper can do it.
I don't know...there isn't an obvious answer.

[billo 0]

Quote

Would you be willing to trade your current right to assemble your own main parachute, in exchange for the FAA requiring manufacturers to make main canopy releases correctly, in order to get a TSO?

no sir, i don't like it. bill i see your point that complete certification of the main canopy connection process would not be immediate, but possibly, eventually, could happen thanks to the bureaucrats at the FAA. this concerns me on different levels.
first, as a recent college student who is still the cheapskate jumper, my initial thought that comes to mind is, "would an advancement in quality such as this cost extra?" and also, "would my rigger charge me extra to perform such tasks that i was once able to do myself? such as hook up my main?" both these arguments seem moot when it comes to an equipment advancement/standard that would help ensure my personal safety, but they are gripes that will arise nonetheless. well hell good thing that i am working towards my rigging ticket anyhow.
also, what about situations where connecting/reconnecting mains is inevitable? demoing a new main? find a rigger. switching between sport/precision/crew canopies? find a rigger. cut away on a windy day or let a friend borrow your canopy? find a rigger. this all sounds like a complication that i hope can be avoided.

Quote

There must be some way to regulate the manufacture but not require riggers to do the assembly...I don't know...there isn't an obvious answer.

couldn't have said it better myself. best of luck to you bill, please continue to keep our thoughts in mind.
billo

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Want a job, Josh?

given the right circumstances, I might be talked in to a career change. Josh
http://www.aerialfusion.com

[billbooth 10]

Andyman:
My lawyer told me long ago that I simply couldn't afford to act as the 3-ring, or hand deploy police. If I got into the business of trying to certify every other manufacturers gear, then I would be legally responsible for every screw up they made, and besides I'm already busy enough trying to keep Relative Workshop screw-ups to a minimum. 15 years ago I actually got sued because someone burned in on a COPY of a Vector. I got sued 10 years ago because someone who burned in on a STRONG tandem rig also had a Vector rating.
And then there's the problem of sheer logistics. It is impossible for Relative Workshop to personally inspect every rig made in the world. I have always published step by step instructions on how to make the 3-ring system, and given them free to anyone who bought the license. Several manufacturers simply chose to ignore them. No, the only way to do it is to educate the consumers, and that is what I am making a feeble attempt at right now.

[riggerrob 643]

Wow Bill,
Rigging sounds simple compared with bureaucracy!
It is scary to think that a recommendation written by the best engineers in the business could be mangled beyond recognition by a bureaucrat!
I agreed that there should be a production standard for 3-Ring risers, but didn't you write that in 1998?
It all gets back to maintaining parachutes "in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions."
A factory should have to inspect (and record) all risers to ensure that they conform to the 1998 standard.
Even though the average skydiver does not want to pack his main, much less assemble it, he/she should still be encouraged to learn more about his/her gear.
Modern skydivers just don't seem to care about their gear any more. The skydiving equipment industry is polarizing, with vast, un-educated masses and a handful of highly-experienced riggers at the top. What is going to happen when the current generation of Master Riggers succumb to senility?
Over the past decade, I have only dealt with a handful of skydivers who wanted to connect their own main canopies to risers.
A packer should be able to assemble a 3-Ring drogue release provided the tandem instructor does a pre-flight inspection - that includes staring at the drogue release.
Before the FAA starts re-writting TSO standards for mains, remind them of the German experience. The German system looked beautiful on paper: with a list of "approved" mains and mandatory main inspections every 2 years, but it failed miserably in practice because skydivers felt that it was too expensive and not all senior inspectors (prufurs) took their job seriously.
I also agree with earlier posters that there should be room for "Junior Riggers," who are glorified reserve packers.
We need junior riggers because the vast majority of skydivers believe that the entry requirements for FAA Senior Rigger or even CSPA Rigger A are too high. The problem is that hell will freeze over before the FAA modifies rigger certification standards.

[polarbear 1]

I agree with everything you said.
I am starting to think that maybe the FAA does need to re-do rigger standards. Not only becasue a junior rating would be good, but because I forsee there will be few master riggers in the future. I would love to get a master certificate, but where the hell am I going to pack 100 chest, seat, or lap rigs? It gets to be such a hassle to locate rigs, then actually get to pack them (100 times), that I don't think many people will be doing it.
It is very frustrating that more people don't want to know much about their gear.

[pilotdave 0]

I want as little of my rig to be "certified" as possible. The less FAA involved, the better. It shouldn't take laws to force manufacturers to make their 3 rings correctly, if that's the reason for making this change. If skydivers KNOW there's a problem, they will demand it gets fixed, or they'll buy from someone else. Nobody's demanding anything now because, at least the way I see it, not too many people realize some 3 rings aren't made right. Are there any organizations that do independent testing of skydiving equipment? Why don't we have our own "consumer reports?" I think a bunch of riggers, not connected to any manufacturers, should get together and write a report about faulty 3-rings. They'd have to say which companies make the mad ones, and explain why they're bad. People will buy the safest equipment if they have a reason to believe it's the safest. When I was looking for a container, I was told they're all about the same. I was actually told to stay away from reflex, which I ended up getting, but I couldn't ever get a real reason why it's inferior, and I heard some reasons why it's better than others. Nobody ever told me that brand X has improperly manufactured 3 rings, or brand Y sews they're pilot chute support tape off the bias.
I think this goes for all skydiving equipment. I read plenty of reviews before I bought my Z1 helmet, but I'd love to see a report on the crashworthiness of various helmets, not just comfort and stuff like that. How about altimeters? Do any have more error than others? Do some break more easily?
Bill, you give tons of great info. I had no idea that some manufacturers make better 3 rings than others before you posted about that. But you're a business man that wants me to buy your equipment (you're doing a great job at marketing, by the way). If you say that some manufacturer's 3 rings aren't safe, you'll piss off a lot of people and many more will stop trusting you. Thats why I'd like to see an independent group that has nothing to lose just go ahead and say WHO makes good stuff, and who makes bad stuff. Not just that there's bad stuff out there, but what companies should be avoided. Maybe you can whisper the answer to a friend to post for ya.
Dave
http://www.skydivingmovies.com

[PhreeZone 20]

The problem is that every factory can produce bad risers and 3 rings at any time. I saw the presentation Bill did a few years ago on improperly made 3 rings. I really liked the pictures of rings made out of cheaper metal that actually bent when a load was applied to them and cause the rings to jam and never release.
Skydivers have known for years that a double sided RSL on a Racer can lead to problems in some situations but yet most first time gear buyers never hear about this info....
If you want testing you need to provide funding. Not many people are willing to test something with the amount of detail that would be required to get a accurate sample of all risers made by a manufactor and then pay to publish the report for free. The only people that would do thid is a government or military.
Look at the 2 canopy out issue. Its just as bad as this yet no one wants to put the hundreds of test jumps on the canopies that are needed to get a good feel for the problem. The best survey the military did even admited that the study was not conclusive.
How many pilots would trust a prop made from some company that just builds them in their spare time? All the props I've ever seen have came from a company that is at least ISO.
If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will....

[billvon 3,111]

>If you want testing you need to provide funding. Not many people are willing to
> test something with the amount of detail that would be required to get a accurate
> sample of all risers made by a manufactor and then pay to publish the report for
> free. The only people that would do thid is a government or military.
Consumer Reports is not funded by the government or the military. If there was a demand for such a report, there are plenty of third partys (Square One, Paragear, Skydiving magazine) that would be able to do such testing. There would have to be a demand for it, though, and right now there isn't. No one even questions whether their gear is built well.
>Look at the 2 canopy out issue. Its just as bad as this yet no one wants to put
> the hundreds of test jumps on the canopies that are needed to get a good feel
> for the problem. The best survey the military did even admited that the study
> was not conclusive.
I don't think you will _ever_ get 100% conclusive results. Which is the best canopy? The safest container? Should you cut away from a PC in tow? Should everyone use RSL's? Despite tens of millions of jumps on all kinds of gear, and thousands of mals, no one has answered those questions conclusively yet.
-bill von

[koppel 5]

I have just come across a set of non-manufactuerer constructed risers built in somebodies loft (or lounge room) that are an abomination.

They have used old Nickel Cadmium rings that are pitted and worn, the geometry is massively out with a large load being applied onto a locking loop that is too short. Cut-away forces were excessive with only a static load of 200 lbs. A higher load caused by a spinning malfunction would have rapidly led to an impossible cut-away or possibly broken locking loop.

If Risers became a TSO'd component under the new TSO how would that effect replacement of worn risers.

Currently there are numerous lofts that produce well constructed risers. These risers may meet proper geometry requirements but would they then need to be built a particular way for each rig. ie I jump a Wings so to replace them I would have to build them to Wings specs? The first thing i do when I get a new rig from Wings is change the toggle keepers to Type III like UPT's as I prefer that system. Would that void the TSO?

I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.

[mjosparky 4]

Depending on how you read it they may already be included in the TSO.

Sparky

---

4.3.2.2 Main Canopy Release,

Human Factors Tests: The main canopy release, if used, shall be ground tested in a suspended harness1 by a representative group of no less than 6 male and 6 female subjects; (12 tests total). They shall be able to operate the release device without any undue difficulty.

4.3.2.5 Main Canopy Release, Actuation Force Tests:

While in a suspended harness (with additional ballast as required to equal twice the maximum operating weight), a force at the main canopy release handle, or equivalent (if used), of not less than 5 lbf (22.2 N) (applied in the direction requiring the least force), nor more than 22 lbf (97.9 N) (applied in the direction requiring the greatest force under normal design operations), shall result in a positive and quick release of the main canopy on all tests. A minimum of 12 pull tests is required.

"In a suspended harness" shall mean suspended by the risers of the main canopy.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[councilman24 37]

Sparky,

You have an old version. Go to pia.com for the latest. The version you have WAS GOING to make the three ring part of the TSO until I pointed out that this ment a rigger would be required to swap risers.

BUT, arguably the FAR's ALREADY require a rigger to assemble a main. Just because mains are not TSO'd doesn't mean they aren't regulated.

65.111...
(c) 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;

The argument is what is "maintain or alter"? BTW the USPA SIM online hasn't been updated and has the old 65.111.

Our out is 65.125...
(c) A certificated parachute rigger need not comply with Secs. 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.


So, no one has to keep a record of WHO maintained the 3 ring, or lines, or main PC, or patched a main.

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

[councilman24 37]

Bill,

See my reply to Sparky above. MAINS ARE REGULATED. A lot of us tend to forget that. Just because they aren't TSO'd doesn't mean you don't have to be a rigger to do everything but pack it.

Nobody knows, and nobody cares because of 65.125, no records needed for mains.

But I maintain your answer of NO in the original post is at least arguably incorrect.

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

[mjosparky 4]

Terry,

The sections I posted are from AS8015-B the testing standard for TSO-23d. And I think TSO-23d is still in effect. Are you talking about PIA TS-135?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[councilman24 37]

Sorry, thought it looked like an old version of TS-135. It is NOT in TS 135 anymore. Again, it was in, out, in, and out finally.

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

[koppel 5]

Just a question regarding TS 135 v1.4 and AS8015B please.

AS8015B appears to be what any system certified under TSO C23d governs.

Is it that now TS 135 has to be used OR is this document the one that will be used if and when TSO C23e is brought into effect.

cheers

I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Sorry, thought it looked like an old version of TS-135. It is NOT in TS 135 anymore. Again, it was in, out, in, and out finally.

My copy of TS – 135 is dated 01/12/05 and I am pretty sure it out of date. TSO-C23d went into effect on 6/1/94 specifying the use of ASj8015-B be used as minimum performance standards. I know you know all this I am just running it over in my mind to be sure I have it right.
Is the finalized version of TS-135 available yet?

Thanks Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[councilman24 37]

Yes, TS 135 is on the web site. BTW I'm also on the committee.

But, as the FAA did with an eariler version we believe the FAA is going to alter the document in the TSO order itself. We (PIA) did not expect the FAA to do this so when they initially issued TSO C23e and included many alterations to the PIA TS, PIA withdrew the spec and forced the FAA to recend TSO C23e because the standard it referenced was no longer available.

We believe we have a document that the FAA will accept, except for one paragraph. I'm not going to go in to that here.

The FAA HAS NOT reissued TSO C23e yet. As we understand it they are redoing the TSO process and that is delaying issuing this one.

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