mark

Requests to test outside the supervising FSDO's geographical area must be approved by the FSDO that has appointed the DPRE and the FSDO/IFO (International Field Office) where the test will occur. The test location must be approved, to ensure it is adequate for the test. This may require a site visit. The FSDO/IFO where the test will occur may wish to observe the test, but I don't think such travel would be funded -- the IFO for Canada is in Houston, Texas. I don't know of any DPREs who have tested outside the US. Also, your applicants will need to submit an 8610-2 Rating Application Form to a FSDO, and because of St George, FSDOs are reluctant to accept applications from outside their geographic areas. Pre-Covid, applicants were required to appear in person. And there are a couple extra steps a DPRE must take before testing someone whose application has been approved by a FSDO other than the one supervising the DPRE. Your applicants will likely also have to travel to the US to take their written tests. Discouraged yet? It might be easier to move your course to the US.

I'm looking for contact information for the owner of Lone Star Parachute Company, also known as Parakit, Inc. --Mark

I cannot. The rig is either airworthy, or it is not. Airworthiness is determined by inspection of the rig, not inspection of the data card. What question of airworthiness can be answered by the data card?

When we did testing for the RI MOJO, every jump was an opportunity to lose the prototype device sewn to the reserve bridle. I added a pocket for a Tile, and it came in handy a couple times. No effect on packing or deployment. Of course, on a production freebag/bridle, this would be an alteration requiring FAA or manufacturer approval.

Unfortunately, most rigging courses are focused on reserve packing proficiency, plus the small amount of additional knowledge required to pass the test for an entry-level parachute rigger. If you are interested in how things work, how they are made and how they break, how to fix them when they break, you will need to be an active rigger. The way we learn and get better is by inspecting every rig that comes through the loft, evaluating the work done by the previous rigger and hoping to find something that is different and better than our work, then upping our game. If all you work on is your own rig, you will be just a perpetual entry-level rigger. At best. (Also, you will also always be legally uncurrent, although I don't know anybody who has ever been busted for that.)

No. The descent rates are measured at the maximum operating weight. See AS8015B para 4.3.7.

This is unlikely to be true. As a consumer, I rely on a company's representations as to the performance of their products. If there is a secret waiver, it might allow a company to produce a product, but it will not shield them from liability for failure to meet published standards. PD and others are free to placard their canopies at less than the TSO-limited weight, but this is no different than publishing maximum weights based on experience.

Atair? If so, the seams were sewn, but the fabric was an impermeable composite. The fabric was cut to size after being manufactured in sheets. The intriguing idea was that the fabric could be laid up with reinforcing strands imbedded so reinforcing tapes wouldn't have to be added later, although this would require custom lay-ups for each panel. Very hard to pack, since the sewing perforations were the only way for the air to escape.

Have a look here: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/6373343/military-javelin-mj-complete-parachute-solutions I think you have stuff that is not in use by civilians. Not that it couldn't be used by civilians, I just don't know of any MJs in civilian use. Equipment identical to this is in military use, except that the most likely reason it's available to you is because it has exceeded its military shelf/service life. Also, if I were a military buyer, I would reject it because I couldn't be sure of its history. In other words, the value for jumping is roughly $0. The value to a wannabe or a collector is, of course, whatever you can negotiate. -Mark

What reasons did the compliance group give for its conclusions? -- Mark

For FAA approval, any requirement for approved materials and traceability will be in the production certificate. Only critical materials need to be approved and traceable; exactly which these are is a matter of negotiation between the manufacturer and the manufacturer's supervising MIDO.

An MC-4 canopy control line has one line continuous from toggle to canopy, and other control lines branch off from this one continuous line. Is this the same thing as "trunk and branch"? If not, how are they different? From the MC-4 manual, a close-up of the branching off from the continuous control line:

The polyurethane coating is not for waterproofing. The coating adds stiffness to the fabric, so the fabric holds its shape better during manufacturing. It's the wide fabric equivalent of condition "R" tape and webbing.

Gorgeous workmanship!

About 10 minutes work. Freefly Bungee Loops

Freefly Bungee Loops

70's is before acid mesh was a problem. Does the canopy even have mesh? --Mark

US patent 8,074,934 B2, 13 Dec 2011. Also, French patent 2 706 855, 1993. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know if US companies are required to honor non-US patents. I also don't know if this patent has expired. --Mark

"This force evaluation is measured in exponential exertion."

This rig comes with a MLW-mounted hook knife standard.

I know people like that, too. A label that says "put lines here" is not sufficient for stupid. Twice, eh? DIdn't figure it out the first time?

Not exactly. Depending on when the disconnection occurs, it's possible to launch the bag with enough momentum for the lines to pay out and for the bag to open without the help of the pilot chute.

No. You get to the "V" stage when the reserve bridle is first stretched from the bag to the MARD, as the bag is lifting out of the container. The MARD needs to stay connected until the canopy is out of the bag. After that it doesn't matter much if it remains connected or releases, except it's nice if it remains connected to the main -- easier to find everything.

During a MARD deployment, just as the bag is lifting off, the MARD device is pulling on both the bag and the more-or-less inverted reserve pilot chute. The bag/canopy has mass, the pilot chute has mass, and both legs of the inverted "V" of the bridle stretch and recoil repeatedly. The masses are different, and the legs are different lengths, so the magnitude and period of the recoil oscillations are different. If the pilot chute leg loads while the bag/canopy leg unloads, the MARD device disconnects. This is the case for all MARDs in common use, except the Infinity MARD.

So after a week of back-and-forth emails, here's what I have: A porosity test is required. Anybody with a porosity tester can do the test. There are no special qualifications for the tester, no calibration standards for the equipment. The porosity test must be done at least twice (to get a "mean average"), but maybe more, one of which must be the center cell. All the tests are "normally" done 12" from the nose on the top surface. If there are normal places, there must be alternative places, but these are not specified. The center cell reading can be an indeterminate amount higher than 3 cfm, as long as the average is 0-3. If the average is higher than 3, there's nothing to prevent you from doing additional tests until you can get the average down to 3 or lower. If you are happy with the results of your inspection and the porosity test, you can put the canopy back in service for at least one pack. After that, additional packs/jumps might be authorized, but I never got an answer to repeated questions about the correlation between porosity test results and additional packs/jumps. No new scorecard on the canopy required, so no way for the next rigger to know if the porosity test was done or what the results might have been, or how many additional packs/jumps might be authorized. Findings should be recorded on the data card, even though there is no data card retention requirement in the US, and the data card is not a maintenance record in the US. Findings should also be recorded in the rigger logbook.