mark

Would you say your risers are about 1" wide? Or closer to about 2" (the same width, more or less, as the main parts of your harness)? Mark

Cypres and Vigil both continue to record to the surface after firing. I don't know about MarS or Argus, but I would guess they also continue recording. Mark

Read by itself, this sounds as through one needs permission to make non-TSO'd components. In the U.S. (and Canada, too, I think), there are no restrictions on who may manufacture non-TSO'd components or what materials they might use. Mark

"Subpoenaed" means "compelled to appear," and usually applies to _fact_ witnesses, someone who can testify to what happened in a particular case. An _expert_ witness, on the other hand, is called to express an opinion, not testify as to facts. In many jurisdictions, an expert witness's testimony cannot be compelled; that is, they cannot be subpoenaed. Are you: -- being subpoenaed as a fact witness? or -- being called voluntarily as an expert witness? or -- being subpoenaed as an expert witness? Mark

For those who are not familiar with US politics, a "liberal" is someone who tries to achieve with government coercion because he or she cannot compete in the marketplace. Oddly enough, that also applies to "conservative." Just depends on whose ox is getting gored. Mark

8300.16 deals with aircraft major repair and major alteration approval. See the decision tree in Figure 3-1, which references Parts 21 and 43, both aircraft regulations. Inadequate citation. What legal clarification? From the reference above: ". . .issues involve mechanic certification and approved training schools outlined in parts 65 and 147 and the maintenance standards for parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35 aircraft, engines, propellers, and their component parts and parallel provisions in parts 21, 43, 91, 121, 125, 127, 129, 133, 135, and 137 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)." Still nothing for parachutes. Finally, with respect to the attachment regarding Mr. Collins' request for legal interpretation, it refers to AC 43-13-2B, which contains some specific FAA-approved alteration procedures for aircraft. Not parachutes. Do you have any other sources for definitions of "alteration" as it pertains to parachutes? Mark

14 CFR Part 1, Definitions and Abbreviations, does not include a definition of "alteration." Part 43 applies to aircraft, not parachutes. Parts 65, 91, and 105 do not include a definition of "alteration." Is there another regulation that applies? AC 105-2E has a definition of alteration includes the statement that changes resulting in an approved configuration are major or minor repairs, not alterations. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that having a Y-strap on a tandem passenger harness is an approved configuration and that adding a Y-strap to a harness would therefore be considered a repair by UPT and UPT's FAA ACO. Mark

I dunno. The Y-strap installation looks like unthreading/re-threading friction adapter (something most of us do with chest straps pretty regularly), threading some shock cord (easier than threading an AAD cutter cable in a Mirage), and a little bit of sewing. Let's say someone really screws up the sewing. What's the worst that's likely to happen? The manufacturer isn't saying that a senior rigger can do this master rigger work -- I agree, that would be contrary to regulation. The manufacturer is saying this is a minor repair, a judgment that is within the manufacturer's expertise to make. Since it is a minor repair, a senior rigger may do the work. Mark

That's actually a reasonable issue. The skills required to build a rig (working on mostly flat pieces of new fabric until the container corners are boxed) are different than those required to repair. Mark

The PIA Technical Committee meetings were open. Dave DeWolf and others were present at the outset and were specifically asked for their input. IIRC, you were included on email asking for additional input, even though you were not a PIA member at the time. All of Dave's suggestions were included, and he never objected to the stuff you and he object to now. Contrary to your allegations, none of this was done in secret, and all had the approval of PIA. You could have been part of the process; you chose not to be. Mark

There is no repair that cannot be done so poorly as to create an unairworthy result. If you search dz.com, you'll find several threads regarding who can do line repair/replacement on a main canopy. MEL and Dave DeWolf argue that line repair/replacement on a reserve is a master rigger task (and I agree), and therefore the same standards should apply to mains. My position with regard to mains is: (a) Since the original Poynter manual in 1971, we have always made a distinction between repair standards for mains and reserves, and in the certificate (senior or master) required. For example, Poynter Vol 1 7.25 Method 1, Replacement of Supension Line from Link to Link in Continuous Line Canopy, calls for a master parachute rigger on a reserve, but allows a senior parachute rigger to do the same task on a main. (b) Reserve parachutes have the characteristic of "airworthiness." They are tested to TSO standards, and manufactured to FAA-approved QC standards. Main parachutes, on the other hand, do not need to meet any performance or production standards. They do not have the characteristic of "airworthiness," that is, they are neither airworthy nor unairworthy. Riggers are not required for manufacturing. Adherence to an approved QC program is. Main components, everything from risers up, can be made by anybody. Imagine yourself in court with Dan Poynter. Now imagine he's sitting at the other table. Mark

You may be thinking about Raphael Pirker, who was fined $10,000 for careless or reckless operation of an aircraft. He was flying a 5-pound mostly styrofoam drone. The admin law judge ruled against the FAA last spring, but the NTSB has appealed. The government's claim is that any flying object, no matter how small, is an aircraft subject to its regulations. The way I read the government's claim, though, is that AC 91-57 Model Aircraft Standards is not binding on itself -- which might lead one to the conclusion that ACs are not binding on anyone! Mark

Well, yes. But then you'd still have an emergency. Mark

The police returned the AADs to the families. The families declined to make them available to investigators. Mark

I agree. But playing devil's advocate: 70% of 6000 pounds is still in excess of the 4000 pound strength we'd have if the harness were Type-8 instead of Type-7. We know Type-8 harnesses are strong enough. This harness won't break on the next jump, so why not make a jump, inspect, make another jump, inspect, etc. to see if the fray gets worse? Maybe the harness would last until it needs resizing for the next owner. Mark

Type-1 webbing (PIA-W-4088), or tape (PIA-T-5038)? If 4088, then 9/16" 500# is much more common. Is there a reason why you need the extra width and strength? If 4088 9/16" is ok, let me know what color, how many yards/meters, and where to send it. Mark

I converted a Strato-Star to 7 cells in the early 80s. The cost of the materials was about the same as a used Strato-Cloud, and the result packed and flew like a Strato-Cloud. Mark

We are lucky there is no 51% rule for parachutes the way there is for homebuilt aircraft. Nothing prevents you from manufacturing your own canopy from available subassemblies. You could, for example, manufacture a McOrdell-150 out of Stiletto-150 fabric (pre-sewn by PD) and a MEL line set. Mark

Yes, you're right. Anyone can be a manufacturer of main canopies, main deployment bags, main pilot chutes, etc. Mark

USAFA uses FXC-12000 on student mains. Mark

It is a DJ Associates SSA, stainless steel friction adapter intended for use on skydiving equipment. Not a stock photo: https://www.miragesys.com/products/mirage-g4/leg-strap-friction-adaptors/ Mark

Jeff Johnston is the harness/container guru. Mike is the DZO at Deland. Mark

The noose tightens around the bridle above the folded stiffened section created by the narrow-folding and sewing. You would have to do more than just release tension on the noose to release after that. You would need to apply enough force to loosen it: the reserve pilot chute pulling on the bridle would need to spread the folded portion enough to overcome friction and the noose-tightening force from main canopy drag. I'd be interested to find out if and how this scenario was tested. As another poster has noted, this is not a TSO-required test scenario. It's a trade-off. Faster deployment in most situations (whether you need it or not -- how about just not visiting the basement?) vs. complexity and some possible failure modes in rare situations. Mark

Also, The Skyhook, Booster, RAX, and Air Anchor are all intended to disconnect if a horseshoed main is cut away, which allows the possibility of using the reserve pilot chute to deploy the reserve. It appears as though once the Trap is sprung, it does not release. If so, it would tow the reserve pilot chute in the cutaway horseshoed main scenario. Perhaps I am missing something; I hope I can be corrected. I don't think there are enough data points for us to say which scenario is preferable: the MARD disconnecting when you want it connected (as with Skyhook, etc.), or staying connected when you want it disconnected (as may be the case with Trap). Full disclosure: I have done some work on competing MARD prototypes. Mark

Yes. Mark