skytribe

I don't consider a DUI as no big deal. I think you are being pretty flippant on that remark. Perhaps there are people that have been killed through causing an car accident or driving too fast - perhaps they too should be penalized. They have made questionable decisions on the ground. While we are at it anyone who has a driving or criminal record - that shows questionable judgement, so lets stop them from jumping. TI are responsible for others, agreed. So are all jumpers who have the potential to crash into people and kill them. Canopy and Freefall Collisions have killed a number of people in the last couple of years. Perhaps if we would have prevented anyone who has made any questionable decisions on the ground from getting in the air that these people would still be alive. And what about those tandem fatalities that have occurred in the past for people who don't have DUI's, passed the medical. How do you see the medical as being beneficial to those people ? Get off your high horse and realize that the aviation medical does not mean squat. USPA have no business tracking DUI's, who gave them a mandate for tracking this stuff ?

This brings up the question as to who the USPA is there to benefit ?. It sounds like the medical was part of FAA when tandem was still classed as experimental and this was to make the FAA happy. But, guess what its 2015 and its not experimental any more. The USPA group members rarely enforce any medical for other jumpers and aren't trying to track DUI's for all jumpers either. So why are the USPA so intent on singling out tandem instructors from any other jumpers and just adding to the beaurocracy. This along with the other BSR changes sound like USPA doing actions to limit manufacturer liability. Either way the USPA should quit doing the work for the manufacturers and work towards benefiting your members - and that does include tandem instructors. The USPA has no absolutely no business tracking DUI's and if they have a medical requirement for all jumpers - enforce it otherwise get rid of it completely.

Tom Is freefall handles check a standard procedure for ALL the tandem manufacturers ? If so, why is the USPA getting into the tandem training procedure business and not the manufacturers dealing with it. It seems like we have two entities here that are saying the same thing, doing the same thing and ultimately both don't appear to do much to enforce much - unless there is a widely publicized incident. Without enforcement these are merely words which those that do not do them will probably continue what they have been doing.

I really don't see a problem with the change. Its what I was trained to do and what I do with/without handcam for the past 18 years. Is this simply clarifying what the manufacturers have been training. I have had a discussion numerous times about what the manufacturers state in there training and what happens in real life. Are the manufacturers training "the definitive word" on what should be happening or do people just use it as a general guide ?. Example - who jumps with tandems. The manufacturers state something but people seem to often disregard. So perhaps this is why the USPA have added this to the BSR's because they are seeing instructors not following manufacturers training and hence making the amendment. I don't think it will make any difference as people will continue doing what they do at the moment. Those that do these checks will continue to do so, those that don't wont.

So further update - after being told 3 weeks in December after already waiting for 2.5 months which would have resulted in a January delivery. That day has come and gone was informed another 3 weeks then and then this week I have been told another 2 -3 months. Sky Systems are basically either incompetent or complete liars who are trying to string people along. At safety day I spoke with 2 other local jumpers who have similar problems with Sky Systems and complete lack of customer service. The sooner companies like this go out of business the better. That way others wont get stung by crappy business practice. Avoid sky systems at all cost.

Well the manufacturer does have a degree of control if they have them back for recertification and if deemed unairworthy remove the TSO label. At that point isn't the canopy considered non-certified without the label on ? Even though we may know what it is - the certification requires appropriate markings. Looking at the symposium seminars it looks like PD is doing on recertification so perhaps someone can get definitive answers on what PD do and the limits they establish and while there at it they may as well find out what aerodyne's answer is as well as they want equipment back periodically as well.

I actually enjoy debating stuff with other riggers, it often allows us to see different viewpoints and may even allow us to change our position on things. Even DPRE's learn new things from younger riggers. On my recent rigger course I'd pointed a DPRE to an FAA document which clarified an argument and changed his position on something. I'd been studying hard on the regulations and watching discussions here. The discussion here often open up items which we may not see in our own little worlds but allows us to debate openly with our peers and gain knowledge and insight.

For a sabre 2 canopy new order form list 825 spectra and Dacron as the options. With 825 spectra being by far the most common option. This is what you should probably consider. Its probably whats already on the canopy already and has a decent lifespan. And I don't believe PD would continue to ship the majority of there canopies with spectra if they didn't think it was a good material. They probably have those linesets on the shelf. The followup question, why do you want to consider changing the material type that's probably already on the canopy and what benefit do you think you will get from going to something else.

Are they rebuilding using the same materials as the original with the same stitch patterns / construction as the manufacturer and are certified to do it - MAJOR REPAIR. Change of materials or construction - ALTERATION. Alterations need to be approved by manufacturer or administrator on certified equipment. Major repairs can be done by Master rigger, manufacturer or another manufacturer approved by the FAA. Do you think anyone with a sewing machine and few bits of webbing would be ok to build you a new harness ? Records would need to be kept for a minimum of 2 years and be recorded for repair work on certified components. Just been through all this last month getting my master rigger ticket and had the discussion on master/senior rights with a former container manufacturer, a DPRE and a 3 FAA inspectors. Some master rigger may have certain views on what senior/master riggers can do but AC105-2E seems to clarify the FAA's position as do certain FAA publications.

Each component is certified - not the system as a whole. Jerry is bang on the money here with his information. A rigger can replace a ripcord with another certified ripcord ie. another manufacturers ripcord if he can verify compatibility between components. An example of this may be using UPT ripcord for a stunts rig. The replacement ripcord is a certified component. A master rigger can do major repairs or alter components but on a certified component this needs to be done in accordance with manufacturer or an alteration approved by the administrator. They would also need to record the alteration repair. What is not permitted is for just anyone with the equipment to make a new ripcord, verify it works and even meets performance standard and then install it as a certified component. Even more so if they are not marking it or marking it as some other manufacturer info. This is not a certified component whatever way you want to look at it. Looking at the documents for the TSO there needs to be marking and records kept for traceability in the event of a problem - hence all the markings. There is more to making a certified component than just being able to make it as Jerry has stated. If you believe that as long as someone makes a component and it meets a standard then its ok to use as a certified component then I suggest you discuss it with someone at your local FSDO. I'm sure they will re-educate you on the legalities of certified components. The requirements for a manufacturer are different from those of a master or senior rigger.

Sure, electrical and fabric are different things but people are used to buying something that has a finite limit. The fact that the unit does its self checks isn't enough and the manufacturer sets limits. AAD's are not even certified components..... I don't buy into the PD are doing these porosity tests for nefarious reasons and trying to sell more canopies. I truly believe that the goal is to get data so that more educated decisions can be made rather than just visual inspection and heresay. I applaud this rather than opinion and anecdotal evidence. PD don't care more than other manufacturers but do more testing than any other and that requires data. They have more canopies out in the field, a long track record and appear to be collecting a decent amount of data. The other manufacturers don't appear to be pursuing this data. The fact that they are finding a variety of gear in various states - some they recertify other they don't should indicate that a blanket 20 year life is not justified. Porosity/Performance - you look at this as just a landing but perhaps its more than that and they are concerned about it meeting any of the performance criteria such as openings not just landings. So again before just likening it to just porosity effecting landing performance it might be better to get the info on what limits PD establish and why they are set at this level. I don't see this as a reserves blowing up argument. If that was occurring with any degree of regularity I think you would see a SB or AD issued by manufacturer or FAA. Everyone has choices - if you don't like the limits established by a manufacturer then don't buy that gear. Whether its PD, Aerodyne, Strong or any of the other manufacturers who have recertification testing. Even if you had a PD reserve that they deemed un-airworthy because of failed porosity - you could still deem it airworthy and pack it based upon your assessment. Would you do this ?

Perhaps to better understand the degradation of reserve parachutes over time.... But if the data leads to that conclusion and it can be justified amongst others in the industry then wouldn't that provide a definitive answer and avoid the grey area for riggers/jumpers. The AAD manufacturers don't seem to have any problem with placing life limits on there units and people seemed to willingly accept replacing them even though the unit was functioning correctly. One day its legal and the next day its trash....

I spoke with one of top engineers at PD and a couple of Master riggers/DPRE's last month about his and was told quite clearly that the handling of reserve canopies did make a significant difference in the porosity of the canopies. The fact that PD wants to collect this data after repacks and has the equipment to do thorough testing etc. and yet some riggers don't mark the data panel as per manufacturer instruction and hence skew any results on the only permanent record with the canopy annoys me. (Again different argument). So lets give credit to PD for actually doing something to get hard data and not just trying to set a time limit. Many that have sent canopies for recertification have received positive results - whether 5,10,20 more pack jobs, others have been deemed unacceptable and un-airworthy. That should tell you that there is variance in the results due to many factors. Its not a slam dunk 20 years and your done. Other manufacturers have recertification schedules so it is not PD alone. 40 repacks (not even jumps) may be an acceptable loss in performance for a main but unacceptable for a reserve. Its the manufacturers who ultimately may establish the acceptable limits. Once again your establishing that loss being ludicrous based upon your limited personal experience and that is a valid opinion. PD may be basing it more on real world data from a much larger sample set. (I don't work for or sell PD equipment and have gear from a variety of manufacturers). Its not about the Kool-Aid. Its about the lack of strong data to support or disprove any argument on aging leaving riggers/jumpers in a grey area and advise being more opinion based than scientific hard data. Example of what is legal, acceptable and desirable. The number of patches on a reserve canopy. The number a master rigger can put on there may be legal, the manufacturer may not particularly like this but deem it acceptable but how many jumpers want a reserve with patches all over it - even though it may be perfectly airworthy. Can I put a patch on a reserve legally ? Yes !!!, am I going to do that and take on that liability, probably Not !!!. On a main - completely different story.

I don't necessarily buy into the whole we jump mains with x number of jumps so reserves should be fine. Some manufacturers put limits on the gear for repacks and activations and want to check them at that point. The swoopers who land in the water and further contaminate them. Do you guys really expect me to believe that PD (the largest manufacturer and parachute company that does probably the most testing) simply pulls figures out of there ass and when canopies get sent back and some they deem them unairworthy because of failed porosity amongst other things that the rigger in the field is a better judge of airworthiness. Would you pack a PD canopy which they had deemed unairworthy ? Or do you consider AAD ok to use after the manufacturer life'ng just because they turn on and appear to checkout ok ? I've jump ragged out F111 canopies and they opened - maybe a bit of a snivel at terminal which made things comfortable however is that what I really want for a subterminal chop reserve canopies. The original point was on old "unused" reserves. Age alone is not a reason for unairworthiness but we know degradation happens with age - do we know to what extent and have good ways to determine this. I think this is where there is a lack of good solid information. There are many factors such as the materials involved, contact with each other, external environment factors (temp, humidity etc) and there are many examples in skydiving of age related changes occurring ( rubber/brass grommets, acid mesh, safety stow, oxidation on hardware, zp sticking to itself when left packed for long periods of time, coatings on material such as freebags, electronic degradation). As well as general improvement in designs on some of the more modern equipment. Example - Do we know if these coatings used on equipment are causing any increased degradation ? My opinion is that there is not enough study to determine the true extent and perhaps as this issue keeps coming up over and over again - PIA should undertake some more in depth study/testing to better provide solid information. I can do my due diligence as a rigger, comply with legal aspects and advise my customers. The response is not a finger pointing exercise but merely pointing out that riggers are in a area where there is a lack of solid information and all make decisions that they may have to justify if something should happen on the equipment that they service. Having more solid information would benefit manufacturers in establishing limits, riggers in servicing equipment and jumpers in making decisions on equipment.

My thought would be it looks on the longish side and I'd probably question this to the manufacturer on a new rig. Think pillow ripcord handles and the swaged end doesn't extend below the bottom. So I would use this as a general rule of thumb. That being said I don't expect to be battling with manufacturers about such stuff - I ask, they give me the dimensions and reasoning and if its not correct I send it back and get a replacement. If it is right then I have something in writing from them that this is the correct ripcord for that rig to show the customer.

I know the rigger in question and the reasons for not taking on the repack. The DZO has a policy of not wanting to service any equipment which is older than 25 years irrespective of condition. This is a policy that the rigger adheres to because he works at that loft and this is not uncommon for riggers or specific to this canopy. Its purely a liability issue. In fact, as I was there when the discussion took place. I do work for both the dropzone and myself - I undertook and inspection of the equipment and repacked the reserve and deemed it airworthy. The rigger in question I have no doubt about his abilities, experience or knowledge. However, if the design was something like an old 5 cell reserve (who's manufacturer no longer exists) or even an old round reserve, I to would have probably not packed it and advised the owner that there are better options out there irrespective of condition. (And yes, I do know how to pack round reserves and have packed 100 in the last 2 months alone - different discussion). I don't want to see people hurt themselves for the sake of a few dollars. In fact, I advised a friend recently who had a 28 year old reserve that it was getting to that time when he should consider a new more modern design. I believe his wife made the decision for him. I don't sell equipment either so I wasn't trying to make a new sale. I was told recently by some very knowledgeable representatives of a canopy manufacturer that the action of packing them over time is what leads to porosity changes. So a reserve that was repacked every cycle for 28 years would have significantly different porosity than a canopy which had been packed and left untouched in a temperature controlled environment. Again, peoples idea of a controlled environment are somewhat different and have implications. Repack cycles do have an issue. If they didn't then PD wouldn't be asking for porosity checks after 40 packs / 25 usages and they wouldn't need to recertify canopies or deem them unairworthy. I believe they do more research than any of the canopy manufacturers and do listen to what they say about equipment. So ultimately any rigger has a choice if they want to service older equipment. I wouldnt try to put down a rigger that doesn't want to take on the liability. As to equipment degredation I think the jury is out on this one, not enough testing to definatively say how much it does/doesnt degrade over time/conditions and hence the decision on airworthiness comes down to the individual rigger on whether they want to take on the liability of packing older equipment.

Adolf hitler went in because he didn't have an RSL !!!! I'm shocked - I didn't know he jumped.

Small stuff maybe depending upon loadings. I believe the line lengths for triathlons are a bit longer so I would advise with caution trying to do diamonds with lightnings (or at least engineering the dives accordingly ) A 132 (that's an unusual size !!!)perhaps you mean 135 ;-)

If your asking this then potentially you should be discussing this with a local crw jumper who can advise you if your gear is suitable and you have sufficient skills and knowledge to be doing crw in the first place. There's a lot that can happen and this is a pretty basic 101 question about the rsl.

Did you have any needle strikes, broken needles... I just learn about timing and normally when things are going wrong but it can require adjusting the bobbing but of check top timing on the needle bar first.

Icarus tandems when you collapse the slider it gets louder. Very weird....

And I would also question this as it blocks a view directly above you which is where your canopy is. CRW jumpers who like to have good visibility on other jumpers do not pull the slider down. Brian does a really good job on educating people but obviously not everything applies to everyone.

On a 188 at the loadings I would expect from a jumper with 100 jumps I would say some of those benefits would be marginal. On a small highly loaded wing a different matter.

This slack or lack of tension on the bridle in the original routing was under the pin protector flap. Out of the way and protected from the wind. The Velcro square sort of meant if you mated the velcro parts up the bridle wouldn't be under tension. Without this small bit of velcro and people wanting to tuck any excess bridle away. They may have tucked the excess bridle under the flap to keep things neat and therefore put but the bridle under tension and as a result we started to see incidents. This coupled with the different angles the pin is being pulled for wingsuit deployments may have lead to increased occurrence. Albeit still a relatively small number in the overall scale of things. My gut feeling is probably materials are probably not the major cause of bridle piercing but more how we are stowing the excess and understanding why the bridle should have hat little bit of slack (Not under tension).

So there you go - if its that simple then manufacturers could simply change back to original configuration. Its not as though this hasn't happened in the past when manufacturers have done something and then backtracked - remember soft housings..... I think the little bit of slack is the important thing and this was explained to me a long while back - hence the Velcro square on flap 1. Jumpers would introduce the slack by mating the Velcro.