mark

Aside from Icarus and Parachute Systems, of course. -Mark

I've sent back 8 or 10 canopies for inspection/recertification. Some come back with a new data panel good for 40 packs/25 jumps, some for fewer. One came back with a death certificate and is now used just for test packs. Some are recertified with no work done, some get a line set (like the three canopies I have there right now). I'm never surprised about the ones needing a line set; there are lots of ways to damage PD's snag-prone lines. Your current Infinity has pretty good protection for free bag Velcro. What about previous rigs? Mark

Let's blame it on student equipment made for guys. On your next jump, see where the over-the-shoulder part of your rig is after your canopy is open. It won't be on your shoulder, the way it is when you put it on and gravity makes it sag. When your canopy opens, the harness snaps up and out, and bangs into your raised arms. Guys sometimes get similar bruises, but not as bad because usually the harness fits better and their shoulders are wider. Mark

I think this might be true. Do you have a source for past and current statistics? Mark

That's it? Mark

Also, no BOCs to replace, and reduced chance for premature deployment.

UPT and RI also offer pull-outs. -Mark

Echoing what Terry wrote a few posts earlier: 1. If you insist on a Swift+ reserve, you will get a canopy that was designed 30 years ago, when wing loadings of around 1.0lb/ft^2 were common for experienced jumpers. 2. The canopy will have been manufactured 25 years ago. There is no such thing as a new Swift+. It will likely come with an incomplete history, i.e. you will not know how many times it has been packed or jumped, or in what conditions. 3. Your canopy will be an orphan since the company that made it is no longer in the sport business. 4. The Kevlar tapes and the particular variety of Spectra lines are not common, which makes repairs more of a hassle, and the canopy's span-wise construction is something that most riggers today are unfamiliar with. IIRC, there are also two Service Bulletins, one for improperly shaped ribs, and one for improper bartacks on the lines. -Mark

From your original post: Is that solid enough for you? How about posting what you found on the FAA website? For the rest of us 91.307 is the only FAA regulation about pilots wearing parachutes. Nothing in there about a pilot needing a parachute for skydiving operations, nor needing a parachute unless it's a cabin-class aircraft, nor needing a parachute because the door is operated in flight. Mark

Can you provide a link to the particular section of the FAA website? Mark

http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/About-AA/The-12-Steps-of-AA The AA program is not required, though. Mark

Now the usual repack price is the equivalent of three lift tickets. That's just too much.

If you don't get the answer you want, keep asking. Eventually you'll find someone who knows more than the manufacturer. Mark

The learning obstacle you describe is called "interference." It occurs when similar actions produce different results. For SOS systems that simply attach cutaway cables to a normally-situated ripcord handle, interference is a problem. There is at least one SOS system that does not use a conventional ripcord handle, and does not suffer from interference. That system is in use at the US Air Force Academy, which has used it successfully for decades, as well as some civilian dzs. I would be cautious about drawing conclusions from anecdotes. Although there might be cases where reversion to SOS-style cutaway/reserve deployment procedures has led to injury or death, there may be other cases where out-of-sequence or improperly performed two-handle procedures have also led to injury or death. Mark edited for typo

Sorry, thread drift ahead: Can you say more about why you think SOS is dangerous? Mark

The manner of the repair has to be approved, not a particular repair itself. We've seen enough "nonstandard" stuff to understand why they might say this, but in the US, specific approval is not required for repairs and alterations (appropriate to your certificate) you do to the main. Mark

The PRH is partially correct. It would be an alteration if the harness were changed to an unapproved configuration. It is not enough to be an alteration to simply change from the as-manufactured configuration. If a change to the as-manufactured configuration were an alteration, than patching a canopy would be an alteration. When a harness is approved, it is approved in a range of sizes. Changing the size within the approved range is a repair. (Sometimes it's not even a repair -- it's just moving the webbing through the adjustment friction adapters.) Changing the harness to a size outside the approved range would be an alteration. Mark

For US riggers: All repairs must be done with procedures approved by the FAA or the manufacturer. If a repair is "ghetto," it is not approved. Specific rig-by-rig approval is not required by regulation, though. There is no FSDO paperwork required for repairs, either major (like harness resizing) or minor (like basic patch). There is no requirement to note repairs on the packing data card. The only requirement is that it be logged in the rigger's logbook. In one sense, this is okay, since the entire system must be inspected before approving return to service, and it doesn't matter whether a part is original, replacement, or repaired. A notation on the data card is irrelevant to the inspection. On the other hand, we would like a way to tie a particular repair to a particular rigger or rigging shop. Right now there's no way to do that unless you already know who it is and have access to their logbooks, and assuming the repair has been done within the previous 2 years. -Mark

Not actually true Jerry. Not actually true, MEL. Jerry is writing about manufacturing. Your Part 65 reference is to maintaining. Mark

PD-218R fits. Also Optimum-253. -Mark

Yes. Although as Mr. Pobrause noted, it's frequently easier to take maneuver things if the reserve is out of the pack tray, in which case it's getting repacked. -Mark

Why did you ask it as a moral question instead of as a legal question? -Mark

Countersink bit works well for #0. You'll need to hold the stud side with channel lock pliers to keep it from spinning. Alternatively for gommets in general, grind down one jaw of a pair of side-cutters. Make several different sizes. Bigger gets more leverage, smaller gets you inside smaller grommets. Mark

The quote from 8900.1 is actually verbatim from 65.111(a) -- no change from the original 1962 version. That part of the regulation was in existence at the same time as Part 149 (Parachute Lofts), which clearly allowed uncertificated persons to work under supervision. Supervision then and now means: observes to the extent necessary and takes responsibility for the finished product. Same church, different pew: The NPRM (64 Federal Register No. 70, page 18304) and 2001 rule change (66 Federal Register No. 90, page 23543ff) included the attempt to regularize the supervision of dz packers. There is nothing in the NPRM or 2001 rule change preamble to suggest that the FAA was intending to limit supervision to main parachutes. We know the rule change was poorly written -- typos, grammar, etc. -- so the the privileges phrase should be read as it was intended: Supervise for types for which rated, and in addition, supervise packing main parachutes IAW 105.43(a) or 105.45(b)(1). The reason why main parachutes need to be mentioned separately is because they do not have "type." Only reserve parachutes have "type." If main parachutes were "back type" parachutes, a person could pack 20 mains to qualify for a senior ticket. Mark

Could you provide the reference for the guidance, please?