mark

Might still be a temp pin issue if the loop is cranked up too far before the temp pin is withdrawn and moved up. To fix this problem, some riggers make the loop big enough that it can be pulled all the way through the next grommet before the temp pin in removed. -Mark

With respect to (1): that rule of thumb is not a rule. US riggers may do minor repairs on any parachutes for which they are rated. Part 65.125(a)(1). Examples of minor repairs: basic patch on a reserve canopy, not involving seams, crossports, tapes, or bartacks; restitching seams and binding tape; replacing harness velcro for cutaway pillows and ripcords where structural stitching is not affected; hand tacking. With respect to (2): I agree that resizing a harness within the approved range is major repair. -Mark

? In the US, senior riggers may do minor repairs to TSO'd components. -Mark

The following paragraph was in the very first draft of AC 105-2D I presented in the PIA Technical Committee, and remained unchanged through all subsequent drafts because there were no objections. AC 105-2E para 15.a.(3): "If an operation results in an approved configuration, the operation is considered a repair. For example, if a parachute system is approved with and without an RSL, then removing or replacing RSL components is a repair that may be major or minor depending on whether, if improperly done, it might appreciably affect airworthiness. Similarly, resizing a harness, when the original design permits a range of sizes, is a repair when the resized harness remains within the permitted range." For your ROL/BOC question, if both configurations are approved, changing from one to the other is a repair, not an alteration. BTW, you should just bite the bullet and get your master ticket. If our schedules overlap in Eloy AZ or Baldwin WI, I'd be happy to do your exam. Then even if someone were to claim ROL-BOC is an alteration, you could do it without asking because they are main components and a master rigger doesn't need to ask before altering a main component. -Mark

It is a change to the approved configuration. For example, most harnesses are approved in a range of sizes. Changing the as-manufactured length of the main lift web is a repair, as long as the result is within the approved range. On the other hand, most harnesses are approved with specific webbing types for each of the harness components. Changing from one webbing type to another is usually an alteration, even if the new webbing is stronger. For example, changing the main lift web on a Mirage chest & hip ring harness from Type-8 webbing (rated for 4000 pounds) to Type-7 (rated for 6000 pounds) would be an alteration. Similarly, hanging the MLW on an RI chest & hip ring from Type-7 to Type-8 would be an alteration. -Mark

PIA = Parachute Industry Association. There is no mention of PIA in the article. FAI = Federation Aeronautique Internationale. No, there's no reason to cede authority to the FAI. US tunnel flyers can form their own association, and compete against other non-FAI teams. I think they should. -Mark

Start of flare looked okay. After that, room for improvement. Finished flare early, so max lift occurred at around 5 feet and finishing trajectory was vertical and accelerating. Video is a little fuzzy, but feet appear to be apart on landing. Video is a little fuzzy, but it appears as though feet went up as hands went down. No PLF.

Morten Pederson. -Mark

The easiest way to get a replacement card is to tell the rigger who did the most recent repack that you lost the card, and could he or she please make you a new one. -Mark

$0. You get almost the same functionality if the pilot uses a smartphone app.

Also, the pilot is at risk:

Well, then, no. Not legal.

It depends. Is the rig going to be used for military operations, say, as an instructor/camera rig for military freefall training? Is the rig civilian-owned, going to be used by a civilian at a civilian dz? Is the rig owned by the military, but going to be used for fun jumps at a civilian dz? Please be as specific as you can. Also, are you "asking for a friend?" -Mark

1. We still fear Sentry, Sentinel, and KAP-3 AADs. FXC-12000s may fire as much as 1500 feet high. We have had cases of modern electronic AADs firing prematurely because of an open door, pressure-cycling the aircraft, and in more-or-less normal descent in the aircraft. 2. The fear of BOCs was never about premature deployments. It was about not being able to see a ripcord/deployment handle. 3. I can't think of anyone who was afraid of digital or audible altimeters. 4. My standard way of thinking is that you should be free to try anything you like, but you shouldn't make anyone else an involuntary test jumper. -Mark

If you do basic L x H x W to get volume, the Curv can accept more volume. If you look at a side view of most rigs, the back pad is flat from shoulder blades to where the rig rests on the top of your butt. Your spine is curved, though, so there's space between your lower back and the rig. The Curv uses this space for additional volume. As a bonus, it fits more comfortably along the curve of your spine. Yes. No. However, a newer design than the first-generation MARD is in the final stages of acceptance testing and is planned for release this summer. It will be fully and easily retrofitable to existing Curvs. Yes, and yes. -Mark

Do we know that the voltages for self-test are the same for different cutters? -Mark

Okay, I've read it. Is that the only patent you think is being infringed? -Mark

It is true that Rigging Innovations worked on a variation of the Wings Boost/Peregrine ACE, and I know there was a point where RI was negotiating with M. Fradet on licensing his patent. Perhaps this is why M. Fradet is under the impression that the RI MARD is based on the bridle-unfolding principle that is the basis of his patent. However, the RI project was abandoned in favor of developing a system with a different operating principle. The operating principle of the RI MARD (fancy marketing name to be announced later) is based on the "Invincibility" brake release by Loic Jean-Albert of Fly Your Body, Gap, France. I've attached a photo comparison to show the evolution from brake release to MARD. The top sample is an Invincibility release made to drawings. The center is the same release, modified with a guide ring, and mounted on a riser mock-up. The bottom sample is a pre-production MARD connection/release. For all samples, the left end of the cable (or pin) assembly is on a tape hinge, and the right end is inserted into a sleeve. For all samples, the operation is the same. Pulling the brake line/lanyard to the right (=up) keeps the connection locked. If you pulling the brake line/lanyard to the left (=down), the pin bends and slides out of the sleeve, and the connection releases. There are a couple videos taken at the PIA Symposium, including this one: https://vimeo.com/204347139. The evolution is straightforward, if elegant. A steel pin replaces the flexible cable because plastic would be easily damaged with expected loads. The steel pin and base (and base attachment tape) are hinged to provide consistent flexibility across temperature ranges. Finally, the assembly is miniaturized to fit in a reserve container. -Mark

In that case: it's official! Rigging Innovations announces a new MARD! -Mark

The load is applied to the piece of doubled 1000-pound spectra that runs across the mouth of the pin sleeve and is bartacked to the bridle. Collins lanyards are a response to the possibility of a premature opening of the reserve if the RSL-side main riser breaks/releases while the non-RSL-side main riser stays attached. The possibility exists for all RSL-equipped rigs, regardless of MARD installation. So how many such malfunctions have occurred recently? The number is not zero, of course, but it should be compared to the number of Collins lanyard-related malfunctions, which is also not zero. It's a matter of which risk you think is greater. Mark

This is from the days when a reserve was used in addition to, not instead of, a malfunctioned main. That is, if the main malfunctioned (total or partial), just deploy the reserve. Works okay when they're both round parachutes. Wiring the capewells shut prevents them from opening accidentally, and you weren't planning to cut away anyway. Plus, civilians didn't have to jump in winds where cutting away on the ground might be a possibility. The big controversy in those days was whether to have a pilot chute on your reserve. For a total malfunction, it wold be better to have a pilot chute. For a partial malfunction, you wouldn't need a pilot chute to throw the (chest) reserve down and in the direction of the spin. Mark

4a - The handles need to be peeled off the velcro. Velcro is very strong in shear, weak in peel. 4b - The TSO standard 22 pound pull is measured in the direction giving the highest pull force under normal operation -- that would be the "punching" direction. So yes, the pull force may be higher in that direction than it would be from pulling straight down, but it should still be less than 22 pounds. Also, we use a stronger set of muscles punching out rather than pulling down. -Mark

And except in Poynter's Parachute Manual, of course. Mark

Are we citing old references now? How about 8 Federal Register (Feb 2, 1943) page 1333: "25.601 Senior parachute rigger. A senior parachute rigger shall not make any major repairs to parachutes except to those types for which he is rated . . ." Which means there was a time when senior parachute riggers could do major repairs. Mark

In exchange for the government regulation we don't like, we get government recognition of skydiving as an aviation activity. Without that recognition, airspace would be hard to come by. -Mark