mark

What do you imagine an AFF student should learn about using a hook knife? How to clear a line over on a reserve? How often do reserve line-overs occur to AFF students? How often do they occur at all? Given the low probability of such an event, wouldn't your training time be better spent elsewhere, reducing the risks of more probable events? Mark

What do you imagine an AFF student should learn about using a hook knife? Mark

So we're pretty much sure the corresponding piece of velcro is on the top flap and not, say, on the bottom flap near the mouth of a BOC? -Mark

Sunpath offered dual release at one time. Mark

They do now. I just forwarded to USPA. Mark Baur Chair, PIA Rigging Committee

If the jumper's center of gravity is closer to the canopy than his aerodynamic center, he may also rotate on his lateral axis (forward or backward loop) or yaw axis (cartwheel). Mark

Most Cypres users manage to figure out which 3 weeks in the 13-month service window works best for them. For example, it's winter now in Minnesota and all the bears are white, which makes a good time for the 4-year service. Even f you jump year-round, the 3 weeks it takes for service are about 1.5% of the 4-year cycle. Reliability is not the same as availability, and putting the words "statistical equivalent" in front does not make it a good analogy. I jump an M2. Mark

You don't use it because it doesn't work? Or just doesn't work as well as counting? Also, "usually" means there are cases where at least one person does not use the counting method. What method does that person use? Sorry, I should have been clearer. I wanted to know what JWest thought. -Mark

You don't use it because it doesn't work? Or just doesn't work as well as counting? Also, "usually" means there are cases where at least one person does not use the counting method. What method does that person use? Mark

What exactly were you taught, and how well does it work for you? Mark

Quit asking that question before you get an answer you don't like. In any case, riggers are not required to keep records of work done on main canopies and other non-TSO'd parts. And I just really can't remember who did the attaching. Mark

PD wasn't making Navigators in 1992. A Navigator is a 9-cell hybrid ZP/F-111 canopy. What is being sold might be a PD-218 7-cell main. I'd give about $0 for such a canopy. FL-1519-R is a Flight Concepts Firelite, early 80's technology (30 years ago!). It is not a PDR-176. I'd value it around $200-300. Maybe. Most people would value it less. The RWS (not UPT) Vector II was made before Cypres AADs. It may have been modified to accept an AAD. Tf not, you will need to send it to UPT for alteration, or find a master rigger to alter it for you. The RSL may be a factory installation or other authorized installation, or may have been added after-market by someone else. If it is in good condition, complete with risers, 2 bags, 2 pilot chutes, etc. and if it doesn't need additional work, then it might be worth $200-300. This system is old enough to go out drinking. You should just go out drinking with it. If you buy this rig, you should plan to be the last owner. However, you might get lucky, and you might break even with the money you would otherwise have spent on rental gear. If you think you're lucky, then buy a lottery ticket, but send no money to the seller before he ships it to your local rigger for inspection. That's $0. No shipping, no half-down, no nothing. Mark

that is some fucked up logic right there It's actually math. If you have a 5% chance of something going wrong and do it once. You have a 95% chance of getting away with it. If you do the same thing 10 times while maintaining the 5% risk you have a 60% change of getting away with it every time. If you do it 100 times while remaining at a 5% risk factor you have a .5% change of getting away with it every time. But the more you jump the risk factor goes down because the experience factor goes up. I have no clue what the statistic is for 'camera incidents/camera jumps' is so I can't give you detailed numbers but I can safely say that it is far less than 5%. You haven't by chance taken college statistics have you? You do realize each event is its own set of odds. It isn't cumulative otherwise people would be raping a roulette wheel. I never thought I'd be writing this: I agree with JWest. Simple version, coin toss with a fair coin. What are the odds of going some number of tosses before getting heads? With 1 toss, the chance of getting heads is 50%. With 2 tosses, the chance of getting the sequence T-H is 50% x 50% = 50%^2 = 25%. With 3 tosses, the chance of getting the sequence T-T-H is 50%^3 = 12.5% With 4 tosses, the chance of getting the sequence T-T-T-H is 50%^4 = 6.25% JWest's example: the chance of success (the equivalent of tossing heads in the simple example above) on any one event is 95%. The chance of success on each of 10 events is 95%^10, approximately 60%. The chance of success on each of 100 events is 95%^100, about 0.6%. The calculation assumes the events are independent, that success on one does not affect success on others. However, as JWest correctly points out, the events are not truly independent, and the chance of success probably increases with experience. BTW, some unrelated fun with statistics: Mr. Poisson says the chance of you having a malfunction on your next jump is greater than going any number of jumps and then having a malfunction. Mark

Not exactly. There were at least two meetings where we discussed possible models, but there was not a consensus on content. There was at least one complete proposal brought forward, and I can revive it again at the next meeting. There are several issues that need to be resolved: 1. Do we want a universal rigger certification system that would be accepted in the US as well as other countries? Is the FAA likely to accept such a system, and if not, would other countries adopt FAA standards? Who would be responsible for oversight? I think this is the most difficult issue, since even within the EU there is no standardization. 2. Do we want to add another certificate, "Rigger", to rank just below a Senior Rigger, and authorized just to pack mains without supervision (or, Canadian-style, to also pack reserves and do repairs not requiring a sewing machine)? What is the likelihood the FAA will be willing to develop the certification standards and tests required for such a rating? What is the likelihood the FAA would allow USPA or PIA to administer a national or local program, and where would the funds come from? 3. What should the ratings be? Currently, the ratings are: back, seat, chest, and lap. Should there be no ratings? A rating for ram-air and a different rating for round? A rating for sport and a different rating for pilot emergency rigs? If a sport rating, should there be a separate rating for tandem? Should there be a requirement for type-specific training, so, for example, if all you've packed is Vectors you'd need supplemental training to pack a Javelin? 4. What provision, if any, should be made for periodic recertification? 5. Should the FAA ditch the whole rigger certification business altogether? If the FAA is not in the rigger business, then it is even less in the skydiving business, which means we would fall further outside the FAA's mandate to promote aviation. What happens to airport and airspace access and other benefits of having the FAA on our side? Right now we have an imperfect system, funded mostly by Other People's Money, Other People being mostly the non-skydiving, non-rigging public. -Mark

Can't be a step-through if the lines were assembled correctly and the lines on the rear riser are still correct. Mark

I wasn't asked; this is new to me. -Mark

RI Talon is TSO'd for exit weight of 254. If you are jumping this rig, your exit weight is around 280 or higher and you are a test jumper. -Mark

Is a firing altitude of 1085' adequate for my customer? Mark

Sturdy enough, yes. But that is not all. I have a big-boy rig with a TR-335 reserve (TSO-C23d, rated for up to 430 pounds). What altitude should the AAD be set to fire at? Does it make a difference that the user has been clocked at 160mph (which is less than the placard limit) in stable face-to-earth freefall? Mark

I'm sure you'll find somebody who will tell you what you want to hear. Mark

On the other hand, the US distributor for M2 is Alti-2, a company with a very good reputation. And we hope everyone has learned something from the Argus experience. -Mark

It is not irrelevant even for master riggers. If it is a repair, I can just do it. If it is an alteration to a TSO'd component, I must get permission -- and that can be a lengthy process. Mark

Because mains do not have to be approved. Why would you choose to interpret "configuration" to mean "manufactured configuration" instead of "designed configuration?" And specifically with respect to chest straps, which manufacturers specify exact lengths as opposed to a range of lengths? Mark

That's it? Why would you choose to interpret "configuration" to mean "manufactured configuration" instead of "approved configuration"? BTW, the correct reference for your quote is 8900.1, Volume 8, Chapter 5, Section 8, paragraph 8-476, subparagraph B. Mark

That came from 8300 Volume 2, Chapter 28 IIRC, which was the inspector's handbook. It also is a test question in the FAA Parachute rigger's written test and has about 4 different variants of that question. 8300.10 Volume 2, Chapter 28: "Certificate Parachute Rigger/Added Rating" has been withdrawn, and the contents incorporated into 8900.1. It didn't contain the definition you claim anyway. 8900.1 also contains no definition of alteration like the one you claim. But I'm sure it's there somewhere. If you keep looking, you will find it! When you do, please quote it. The written test has a number of Part 65 questions on alterations (who may do alterations, which ones are required to be logged), and 4 questions which give examples of alterations (dyeing a canopy, installing an AAD, and 2 questions on plating hardware). There are no questions that ask about the definition of "alteration" or that suggest that changes to the as-manufactured configuration are alterations. Mark a not-so-young rigger over 35 years of experience with parachutes and parachute regulations