Gear Compatibility

[Hooknswoop 19]

'Hypothetical' gear compatibility question. Lets say a Vector Tandem RSL/Auxiliary Reserve Handle (No straight pin, Velcro doesn't match up correctly) was put on a Sigma Tandem in place of the Sigma RSL/Collin's Lanyard/ Auxiliary Reserve Handle. The cutaway cable is routed through the end of the RSL, where it goes from 1-inch webbing to Dacron on its way to the pin. Both RSL's are TSO'd and it is up to the assembling rigger to determine compatibility of approved components. The RSL would work as a Collin's lanyard and RSL, but nearly as well as the Sigma RSL with the Stainless Steel (SS) straight pin and correct length and matching Velcro. I also think there is a piece of Velcro near the shackle for the shackle lanyard to make using it as a Auxiliary Reserve Handle easier, that is not on the Vector Tandem RSL, but I am working from memory.

Does this pass the legal test?

AC-105-2C Says: "Assembled Parachute Components Must Be Compatible. Each component of the resulting assembly must function properly and may not interfere with the operation of the other components"

I think the key words here are "must function properly". Without the Velcro at the shackle, correct length, matching Velcro, and the SS straight pin, it doesn't "function properly". Will it work as an RSL and a Collin's lanyard? Yes, it will. Will it "function properly"? No. It will not work as well as the Sigma RSL, which is the proper RSL. If it worked as well or better, then I think it would be legal, but it doesn't.

Does this pass the common sense test?

It was probably ("Hypothetically") installed because the original was lost in a cutaway and a replacement wasn't available and the rigger used a Vector Tandem RSL instead. With the parts off a Vector Tandem and some 1-inch webbing, Dacron, Velcro, and a SS straight pin, an exact copy of the Sigma RSL could have built, taking us deeper into murky waters. Or better yet, a Sigma RSL could have ordered and shipped over-night.

If there was an incident with a tandem jump with this rig and the FAA sent the rig to RWS or independent loft for inspection and the incorrect RSL was discovered and reported back to the FAA, what would happen to the rigger? A poor position to be in.

I would not have sealed the rig.

Thoughts or opinions?

Derek

[Zenister 0]

really picky definition time..obviously i dont know the gear anywhere near so well as you

define "function properly"? will it do the job that component is intended to do?

will the original do it better? most assuredly, but does the 'work around' do an "acceptable job"? even if it does not perform as well as the original?

then you get into the tricky ethical part, some people will accept "works ok" vs "works perfectly".

do you? do you want your name on something you are unsure of? how unsure are you?

then the murkier question. Do you require the manufacturers parts if you can make/modify a component that will work just as well? why? liability?

I am not a rigger, but as a field engineer, often have to make things work NOW, vs making them work "perfectly", of course the immediate consequences of a radar system failing are perhaps not as great as that of a tandem rig, and i always have to explain the options, costs and time involved to my customers (military) and let the owner (the commander) make the decision he/she can 'live with'

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[mjosparky 4]

https://www.wamu.com/servlet/ecareinit/online/eng/pages/ecareinit.html?SuccessURL=/servlet/ecare/public/eng/pages/ecare/mywamu.html

TSO requires that TSO parts be manufactured under the conditions set forth in the TSO. That means all the QA steps and procedures the manufacture has in place and the traceabililty documentation.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[diablopilot 2]

Reading your post I agree with you on the basic premisethat the component in question would not be compatible be cause the function would not be the same. However this statement causes me to ask a question....

Quote

an exact copy of the Sigma RSL could have built, taking us deeper into murky waters.

If it becomes an exact copy why do the waters become more murky? If it is an exact copy that functions the same and has been inspected and approved by a master rigger IMO it is legal. It's the same as a factory replacement.

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

[slotperfect 7]

Here's a different spin . . . let's look at it from a common sense and general responsibility perspective.

Tandems carry a higher level of assumed risk than a skydive with one jumper using a sport rig. That level of risk is reduced significantly by the features of the Sigma, including the Sigma RSL.

As a registered RWS Sigma Owner, or FAA Certificated Rigger, why would one sacrifice any part of that reduced level of assumed risk by "making do" with an improper component?

IMHO the "I will be sure always" mentality is critical in tandem jumping. The "F*** it, it'll work" mentality will get somebody killed.

I would definitely not have packed or sealed that rig until he replaced the RSL with the correct one. I would have also made sure he didn't take the rig to someone else. There are many ways of doing this; hopefully the individual would see the light through some honest conversation.

A Sigma RSL costs $62. Most people have a set amount factored in to the price they charge for overhead to go back into the rig (component replacement, wear and tear). A very experienced and successful always puts $40 from each jump into a "kitty" to handle rig maintenance and upgrades. He is easily able to comply with the manufacturer's recommended maintenance and component replacement schedule.

Good catch, BTW!

Arrive Safely

John

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

If it is an exact copy that functions the same and has been inspected and approved by a master rigger

A Senior Rigger, 'hypothetically' did the work.

Derek

[riggerrob 643]

Or better yet, a Sigma RSL could have ordered and shipped over-night.

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

Guess again!

The last time I ordered Vector spare parts from Relative Workshop, they took FIVE MONTHS to arrive.
I cancelled a more recent order after waiting FOUR MONTHS!

The Aircraft Maintenance Engineer next door re-assures me that if parts are no longer available - from the original manufacturer (i.e. Stinston) - the Canadian Air Regulations permit him to manufacture and install close copies of those parts.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

A Senior Rigger, 'hypothetically' did the work.

hypothetically then, the work (if it's an exact copy) may be good enough, but it's not legal untill inspected by a Master rigger of course. This hypothetical seinor rigger should know that, and hopfuly has a good working relationship w/ a local Master rigger. If not I'd be worried.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Of course, the legalities of building a copy of the Sigma RSL are academic in this 'hypothetical' situation because one wasn't built.

The question, is the rig legal, as is, and is it a good or bad idea to use a Vector RSL in place of the Sigma RSL.

It also brings up a question for the TI. First, do they catch it? Second, if they do, then what? Obviously the rigger, if asked, is going the tell the TI that it isn't legal and don't jump it, the rigger will tell the TI that it is OK.

Complicated situation.

Derek

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Of course, the legalities of building a copy of the Sigma RSL are academic in this 'hypothetical' situation because one wasn't built.

True, I got off subject.

Quote

The question, is the rig legal, as is, and is it a good or bad idea to use a Vector RSL in place of the Sigma RSL.

IMO not legal, AND a bad Idea. I would only change my mind on this if the manufacture could show me how it was ok. I tend to agree with the designers opinions more in reguards to tandems.

Quote

It also brings up a question for the TI. First, do they catch it? Second, if they do, then what? Obviously the rigger, if asked, is going the tell the TI that it isn't legal and don't jump it, the rigger will tell the TI that it is OK.

If I'm the TI I may honestly may not notice it in the quick gear check we do before donning gear and walking to the plane. Scarry huh? I think many TI's rely on the rigger servicing the gear to look out for them.

If I found it, NO WAY I'D JUMP IT! There are just too may risks in Tandem skydiving to take a chance on a "Oh, it'll work." I may do that in my sport skydiving sometimes, hopefuly not, but Tandems are no joke.

Quote

Complicated situation.

Yup.

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

[slotperfect 7]

[page] "Bill Booth to Gear and Rigging please . . . Bill Booth to Gear and Rigging" [/page]

Arrive Safely

John

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

IMO not legal, AND a bad Idea.

I agree.

I would rather the Senior Rigger make a Sigma RSL, one that no one could tell wasn't manufactured by RWS, than use a Vector Tandem RSL.

If the component wasn't available, and the rigger not talented enough to manufacture one, would a DZ ground the rig until it became available, even 4-5 months later? Probably not. If one TI, especially a senior TI at the DZ and the rigger tells all the other TI's that it is OK to jump, more than likely they will jump it, no questions asked.

Legalities, common sense, peer pressure, financial pressure all mixed in to create a difficult situation.

I have been hoping Mr. Booth would weigh in on the subject, to include current delivery time for a Sigma RSL.

Derek