scdrnr

But, as Hooknswoop states, other FARs clearly state that main parachutes may be maintained and altered and packed by others people as well. When FAR's are vague or contradictory, check the AC for guidance. If that doesn't help then contact your FSDO for guidance. Get their response in writing. Problem solved. Not all FSDO's will come up with the same interpretation. Doesn't matter - do what your FSDO tells you to. If you get a letter from regional or national, so what. That may supersede any instructions given to you by your FSDO, but unless they send it to me, or disseminate it in some other form such as an AD or AC, it doesn't affect me. I know everyone wants the FAR's to be black and white and be applied equally everywhere to everyone, but that isn't the case. Different FSDO's will interpret and enforce the rules differently.

The FAA usually pretty firm in their interpretations, however, they have been known to extend some leniency if you can exploit their lack of knowledge in some of the gray areas. As bureaucrats they tend to avoid conflict in areas they don't have a solid understanding of, and I don't think too many inspectors want to go out on a limb and start the enforcement process over the things like TSO compatibility with parachutes. I think most inspectors will see the TSO tag on the reserve and on the container, and it will make them feel all warm and happy inside, regardless of sub-category. This brings up another question: Has any rigger ever faced an investigation or certificate action? Under what circumstances? Outcome? Funny you should mention the AAD install/assemble issue - a part of the reserve system that has no TSO requirements whatsoever.....go figure.

I agree that a PD-113R in a Mirage is not a safety concern. What are your thoughts on the legalities? Do you think the 2 arguments I made are enough to cover a riggers ass in the unlikely event there is a legal problem?

I think you are technically correct. Yet another case of silly FAA jargon preventing knowledgable people from doing what is demonstratably safe and accepted. I'm sure you would agree that a Mirage harness is signifigantly stronger than its C23b Low-Speed rating would suggest. Unless Mirage upgrades its TSO rating I think, that putting a PD-113R in it would be contrary to the letter of the law. However, I wouldn't lose sleep doing it anyway, because I think one could make two arguments based on the premise that AC-105-2C is not technically an FAR, it is only the FAA's interpretation of the FAR's (I realize that in effect that makes it law). 1. Mirage, the manufacturer, offers the rig with PD reserves installed, making it a factory available configuration that you are simply duplicating - placing responsibility for compatibilty back to the manufacturer. 2. Using #4 Rapide Links rated at 400lbs each should limit the amount of force the canopy imparts on the harness. Clearly the intent of the language is to make sure that the harness does not fail before the parachute, and nowhere in the AC, NAS 804, or AS 8015a does it state what part connector links belong to: the harness or the canopy. I'm not sure what it would take for Mirage to upgrade TSO since I do not have a copy of AS 8015b, and I believe TSO C23d is the only one available at this time to a manufacturer either making a new rig or upgrading an old rig. Maybe one day we can do away with the TSO process alltogether and just let manufactures do their own tests and declare what their equipment is rated for. Climbers trust gear manufacturers to tell them how strong a rope or a carabiner, or harness is without government intervention.

There sure is a lot of confusion on this issue, I certainly don't know all the answers (and neither will the FSDO), but in my experience, I am aware of several methods for removing equipment. First, FAR 43 has a section on 32 procedures that may be performed and logged by a certificated pilot, many are more involved than you may expect. But in any case, a pilot can remove equipment provided: 1. It isn't specifically required by the type certificate equipment list. 2. It isn't required by Part 91 minimum equipment for the applicable DAY-NIGHT-VFR-IFR category. 3. It isn't required by an AD. 4. It doesn't appreciably affect the flight characteristics of the aircraft. I believe that Cessna doors fall under those four criteria, in fact, when I worked for a Part 135 operation, I routinely, as PIC, removed seats and doors to convert from passenger to cargo drop configuration (without an approved MEL), and simply entered the weights and moments on my loading schedule. Part 91 operators may do weight and balance in their heads. Secondly, some aircraft have manufacturer supplied aircraft flight manual supplements that reference maintenence documents for door removal. In this case, as A&P may remove the door, in compliance with the service documents and the plane may be operated pursuant to the AFM supplement. Finally, you can do the alteration method and have an IA file a 337. This is absolutely required when adding things like steps, floater-bars, jump doors, etc, and I think this is why people think it is required for door removal. An STC is just one method of supplying approved data for the 337. Previously approved 337's, manufacturer instructions, or field approval (requires visit from an AWI or DAR) are other methods of approving a 337. In response to another post: Part 91 does not have any rules against intentionally opening doors in flight, and the only requirements for pilots to wear parachutes are for aerobatic flight (with some exceptions). Any requirements for emergency rigs, guard rails, or other safety restraints, are contained in the AFM supplement or the FSDO's imposed limitations on a case by case basis, and they don't apply to all aircraft. FAA rules are ridiculously complicated, often ambigous, and frequently contradictory. Ultimately, most inspectors will interpret the regs to suit their needs, not yours, and there isn't really anything that even resembles "due process" at the FAA. If they want to screw you, they will, whether or not your paperwork is in order, so its understandable that many pilots/mechanics/riggers aviod contact with the FSDO at all costs. Some FSDO's are more "practical" than others. YMMV.

Otters do have fairly high instrument panels, King Airs are worse. Both provide okay forward visibility, the real culprit is the climb attitude of the airplane. Pretty much all jump aircraft in a steep climb restrict your forward visibility. However, as you climb it is less important to clear the airspace directly in front of you as it is to clear the airspace above you. True, it won't work if there is another steeply climbing aircraft on a reciprocal heading, but nothing is perfect. Generally speaking jump aircraft will be in contact with ATC at some point after departure and will recieve radar traffic advisories, but thats not perfect either. Middair collisions are quite rare, and they are by far most likely to happen while manuevering in the pattern, where a jump plane spends little of its time (approach to landing is the highest risk time). I wouldn't worry to much about it.

Check AC 105-2C for a list of airplanes approved for flight with door removed. Most Cessna's are included. The pilot only needs to ensure that it is done in compliance with any proceedures listed in the Operating Handbook. In some planes, 172 included, the pilot needs to wear an approved parachute if the door is removed.

This is a common misconception. NOTAMs are only required for waivered jumps such as airshows and demo's. A person may request a NOTAM from Flight Service for any jump, but more than likely they won't bother to issue it, unless it is required by FAR 105.21 and AC 91-45C or the location will be subject to frequent and repeated parachute operations. Usually the request must be made 48 hrs in advance because dissemination can be slow. Most DZ's have no authority to restrict anyone from using the airspace above the DZ or using the landing area. Generally, if airport management allows parachuting at all, they would be hard-pressed to stop you. You may or may not be exempt from insurance and other requirements if you are a private non-commercial operation. I'm not advocating inserting a personal Cessna jump into a busy established DZ, just clarifying that most DZ's don't have this kind of control over who uses the airport/airspace. An established DZ may be an excellent landing area for private cessna jumps if, for example, the DZ is closed during a weekday and you find a free-ride to altitude. To be completely legal, you would still need to notify ATC by phone first, unless you had some arrangement with the DZ to "piggy-back" onto their established ATC procedures.

Cessna regular door exits are not difficult at all. Removing the co-pilot seat is probably a bigger advantage than removing the door. Depending on their size, two jumpers can sit on the back seat and still maintain weight and balance - have the pilot check it out thoroughly for his airplane. If the seat needs to stay in, slide it all the way forward. If you are going solo, sit up front and slide the seat all the way back on jumprun. On exit have the pilot fly about 60kts, no flaps, and give a power cut to 1500-1800 rpm. Pop the door handle and push the door out enough to get your feet on the landing gear strut (you'll be facing sideways to rearward) then use your left shoulder to shove the door aside as you roll out facing rearward. Don't push off with your feet - just let your body pivot over them so you don't hit the gear. Protect your handles! As far as keeping it all legal, the pilot only needs to call the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the airspace on the phone 1 hr prior to jumping. Give them the location, altitude, and time. Then the pilot must call them on the radio before jumping. As long as you aren't over a congested area on the ground (requires waiver) or an airport (requires airport management permission) the FAA does not care where you land. Finding permission on private property is best, and not that hard actually. If landing on public property, such as a park or open space area, be sure to check local regs. Assume that any rules prohibiting hangliding or paragliding will apply to you as well. You'd be surprised how often it isn't covered at all. Use common sense though - don't be the one who gets a rule to be made (think: early morning- no one around). So basically just read FAR part 105 and WATCH YOUR HANDLES. You don't need a DZ to go on a skydive, jumping out of a variety of small airplanes over new places is lots of fun! Just think it through and be safe.

Interesting.....someone posts about gear stolen in CO and you are quick to offer up "facts" on what actually happened. Then you drop names of people involved and then try to snake away claiming they are just "theories" and "assumptions"! It sounds to me like you are the one trying to stir the pot. We just want to get our gear back. IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS, PLEASE CALL THE POLICE. I would like nothing more than to have the "legal guys" to settle this. That's why I am simply stating the facts and asking people to contact the authorities if they know anything. You were the one who brought up the ownership dispute, you were the first to suggest it had anything to do with this theft.

Quit jumping? Never. Despite all the drama here (and this is just the tip of the ice-berg), some of the coolest, nicest, best people around jump out here. There are only a few assholes....and they can't stop us from having fun (though they try). You should stop by sometime and check out our blue skies and white mountains!

If this is still part of the ownership battle, I'm sure what items that didn't belong to air brush, inc. would be returned. Again, haven't spoken to anyone out there so it's an assumption on my part that organization was just recovering their gear. As far as any ownership dispute goes, the current owner of the property has been completely upfront by clearly asserting his legally documented claim to the gear in question. If a certain individual had a legal claim to the property in question, then there is a legal process for asserting ownership and recovering property. If the theft that occured was indeed a "recovery" operation, then it was done illegally. Sometimes people get away with that because police don't often like to get involved with what they deem to be "civil" disputes. But by taking other things that clearly were not in dispute, they made a BIG mistake, and simply returning them will not make their crimminal liabilities go away. I am disgusted by anyone who thinks it is okay to surreptitiously take matters into their own hands when there are legal avenues that have not been pursued. That is completely underhanded and unethical. WFFC: Glad to hear these are just your theories and assumptions and you are'nt actually in contact with any of the parties. Still wondering why you are bothering to post. If you have any real knowledge I'm sure a subpoena could be arranged. OTHERWISE, YOU SHOULD DO THE RIGHT THING AND CALL THE FREMONT SHERIFFS AND TELL THEM WHAT YOU KNOW.

A number of rigs were stolen from High Sky Adventures at the Fremont County Airport over the weekend. The concerned parties have contacted the police, who presently are investigating this as a felony theft. There is an ongoing ownership dispute over some of the tandem gear stolen, despite the fact that its ownership is well documented (an officer of the Goodyear Corporation can sell tires to whomever). Not in dispute is a long list of other equipment that was stolen, including personal and student rigs, altimeters, a cash register, a credit card machine, personal files, and a computer. All of this was STOLEN after an UNLAWFUL ENTRY to our hangars. At this time, we do not know who did this- perhaps WFFC can give the Fremont County Sheriffs a call at 800-967-2302, since he seems to know all about it. We do have a prime suspect, but I won't put out that name until the police issue an arrest warrant. If anyone has any information please call the number above. WARNING TO WFFC: You do not know as much about this situation as you may think, please refrain from making posts unless you have the FACTS. You clearly have not read the bylaws and articles of incorporation of the business in question, and obviously you have not witnessed anything first hand over the past 2 years. Stay out of our business!

I agree that in the past, trophy hunting did lead to extinction/endangerment. I was refering to modern times, where mere human existance is a bigger threat to wildlife than managed hunting.

Then I guess we have no argument, since I never felt special or particularly clever for hunting, I simply prefer it to store bought when I have the time and am willing to take the effort. (Two people making two trips to pack out an elk on foot for 8 miles is work!) Most of us today only survive through the miracle of modern science and technology, myself included. But I do think the average rifle hunter would be better off in the woods with no gun, than the average consumer would be.

I'm not a trophy hunter, but I would like to note that many endangered species have been saved by trophy hunting. I don't know too many "eco-tourists" who would be willing to pay $15,000 to take a photo of an elephant, but trophy hunters will pay that much for a tag. In many instances, that license fee is the only thing that makes it economically feasible to maintain a suitable habitat. Trophy hunters aren't making these animals disapear, humans are continually displacing them from their habitat, through development.

Ironically, I believe that those who wax poetic about "leveling the playing field", and using only the most primitive tools while hunting are turning it into an arbitrary game. If going to the grocery store to buy pre-packaged meat (or fresh produce and vegetables in the middle of winter in Colorado, for that matter) that was raised on a farm, killed and processed in a factory, and delivered in a freezer truck on an interstate highway is morally acceptable. Then so is hunting, no matter how you stack the odds. I used to live in a part of Alaska where hunting actually was less effort than going to the nearest grocery store, and I had no moral qualms with making it as easy and convenient as possible. These days I mostly go to the store, but when I do hunt, I believe the extra effort is worth the satisfaction of having the freshest, most organic, free-range meat possible. Others would rather just pay twice as much to have the the label in the store say the same thing. I think killing it and cleaning it myself gives me a little more appreciation for where it all actually comes from, even if I didn't use rocks or a bow. Getting wound up about morals or effort is a suburban hunters game. I never met a true subsistence hunter who didn't prefer to use rifles, snowmobiles, gore-tex etc. As far as the fenced in internet killing, I don't think that has anything to do with hunting. It is a completely seperate matter. If killing for mere amusement is the purpose, than I agree, I would rather see it done gladiator style.

I don't have much experience with the .40 S&W cartridge, but in 9mm and .45, the Speer Gold Dot is the way to go in 124gr. and 230 gr. respectively. These round have an excellent track record and are top performers in tests. The bonded construction keep them together even after penetrating hard barriers, and they expand in a reliable, controlled manner without clogging like others. Hydrashoks are okay but in testing are more prone to either clogging and failing to expand, or jacket core separation after passing through a hard barrier, leading to shallow penetration. Anything will work fine on bare gelatin, for more challenging conditions the Gold Dot is a performer. A round that doesn't penetrate is more of a failure than not expanding at all, if I can't find Gold Dot, I carry Remington Gold Saber (very accurate, but prone to occaisional clogging), then Winchester SXT (also occaisionally clogs) in that order. If I can't find those I'll carry good old FMJ. Its reliable, predictable, and actually, the only thing I have ever used or seen used first hand on humans. (but I have used all types of rounds while hunting, rifle and pistol, and my opinions are based on that in addition to second hand reports and testing) Remember, with pistols its shot placement that counts. Expansion only matters on marginal hits. Energy transfer is a myth in handguns, you need at least 1500 fps to do tissue damage from cavitation. I suggest the 180gr. for a .40. I agree a rifle or shotgun is a better weapon, but since I keep mine in a safe while I carry a pistol all day, its usually the pistol that is most accesible. Sure, if I have time I'll grab an M4 from the safe, but chances are the .45 will be in my hands first. So practice, practice, practice....

OK, before we get too crazy celebrating PeterK and Rauk, I want everyone to know that PeterK ranked very poorly in the Flour Sack Aerial Bombing Nationals a few weeks ago, he still hasn't figured out how to be a tandem passenger with out falling off, and the last time I saw him jumping, he was flailing and screaming like a frightened monkey. And as for Rauk, well he still doesn't know how to pack a Sabre in a way that doesn't require emergency procedures. And their Fan Club is a total joke, its full of teenage girls and small furry animals, and all I have to show for it is some cheap lockpicks and a list of random number sets. I suppose some congrats are in order, its not everyday a BASE jumper lands a sweet sponsorship deal with a major player in the latex industry, I just hope it doesn't all go to their heads. Next thing you know, they'll be calling themselves the "A" Team!

Does anyone have any thoughts as to the suitability of line release toggles for slider down jumping? Could they be used as an alternative to the standard line mod (routing brake lines outside slider grommets and riser guide rings)? I would also be interested in any feedback on LRT's in general, I have only seen Vertigo's.