mark

If you look in the security and scam forum here, you'll see two posts near the top. The first is titled "New Scam Tactics." When I just looked a moment ago, the first non-sticky post was about a PayPal scam. Just from your description of the process, it looks like you're the next victim. Mark

Mark, Did you mean a Maximum operating weight or test weight? Maximum operating weight. Test weight is maximum operating weight x 1.2. Mark

I can't believe you intend to imply that a jumper is not responsible for inspecting his own gear. As to whose responsibility it is to deem something airworthy "for the purpose it will be used for during the I&R," all the rigger who inspected and repacked it is legally required to do is to certify it is airworthy at the time of packing. That really is the FAA position. No rigger is required to certify that anything will be airworthy in the future. Mark

I don't get the idea of test method 2. What are the folks at PIA trying to do?! Find a way to certify a 55 sq.ft reserve? No. The goal is to get a reserve that can be jumped in the same wind conditions as the main. Your personal wind maximum may be lower, but there are plenty of skydivers who are comfortable jumping their highly loaded main canopies in winds of 25mph or more. A smaller reserve would be a better match for those conditions than a larger reserve. A serendipitous benefit would be a reserve that plays nicer with the main in the unlikely event of a two-out. Mark

All TSOs are basically 1 or 2 page letters which accept another organization's standards as the FAA's own. For C23b, the standard is NAS-804; for C23c, AS8015A; for C23d, AS8015B; for C23f, PIA TS-135. The standard of TSO-C23d (AS8015B 4.3.7) required an average rate of descent not more than 24 fps, and total velocity (along the flight path) not more than 36 fps. The FAA wanted to keep that standard for C23f. For both 23d and 23f, manufacturers can choose to TSO at any weight equal to or greater than 220 pounds/100kg. It's tough to design canopies that wingload at 2.2 (that's 220#/99 sq ft) and still meet the rate of descent and total velocity standards in the "unaltered post-deployment configuration," that is, with the brakes stowed. One solution is PIA TS-135 Test Method 2, which allows a jumper to flare the canopy to meet the rate of descent and total velocity maximums. The FAA doesn't like that Test Method 2 requires a jumper to be conscious and capable. What the FAA is saying in TSO-C23f is that the PIA can include Method 2 in the PIA standards, but that portion of the PIA standards is not included in the FAA standards. Mark

Whose responsibility was it to inspect the gear to deem it airworthy on that 10th jump? Mark.

It's 24' diameter if you laid it out flat. Projected/open diameter is less. OTOH, the original intent was to be in addition to, not instead of, the main. Mark

Your hypothetical rigger might say instead, "Your leg strap junction is airworthy right now. Here's what to look for that would make it unairworthy. If that happens, stop jumping it and bring it back for repair." As to whether a rig that will be airworthy for only a short period of time is defacto unairworthy, I think we will agree that it's okay to pack a rig for water jumps, and it's okay to pack a student or tandem rig when the AAD will need service after the end of the jump season but before the passage of 180 days. As to your particular example of a harness that could be expected to last only some number of jumps, I'm at a loss as to how one would even start estimating the number of jumps, or how one might keep track of jumps to be made in the future, or what one's responsibility might be if the equipment is loaned or sold. Jeepers. If there's a problem with airworthiness, the solution is to fix the problem or refuse to return the equipment to service. Mark Mark

No. Just before the canopy goes in the bag, the nose is down, the tail is on top. If you run the lines at that point, they're as straight as in a pro-pack, no 90-degree twists. Mark

Riggers do not certify future airworthiness. All we do is certify airworthiness at the time of packing. Mark that means for the next 180 days. Aka the (short term) future. Like it or not, that's how it is. @ 181 days your'e in the clear. But you already know that No, it does not mean for the next 180 days. It means exactly what I wrote: airworthy at the time of packing only. I cannot know if the rig will be airworthy even tomorrow. Who can certify the future? Further, the regulations permit me to pack something I know will not be airworthy for a full 180 days. Mark

Riggers do not certify future airworthiness. All we do is certify airworthiness at the time of packing. Mark

Could it be done via "minor change?" That way it wouldn't apply to previously sold equipment, but would apply to new production. Mark

I fired a couple cutters last week. Cut a ripcord cable. Then cut the ripcord pin. Kinda fun, though not particularly meaningful with respect to cutting closing loops. Unless we are going to have steel cable closing loops some day. Mark

The idea was originally to point to the main ripcord, which was mounted on the right main lift web, about where the cutaway pillow is now -- before cutaway pillows were common. It worked then, because it used the gesture's conventional meaning: "Look there!" Nowadays for students under stress (but I repeat myself), it retains its conventional meaning, "Look over there!" which leads to much hilarity when the student does exactly that. It's time for something better. How about a closed fist, which at least mimes the action of grabbing a ripcord or pilot chute handle? Mark

MEL's claim, I think, was that the center "C" lines take more force than the center "A" or "B" lines. I understand that the center "C" lines take more of the load from snatch force, but that's different than claiming they take more load generally. My question for him still stands: if the center "C" lines are taking more force, why is it that the center "A" lines are more likely to break? Mark

Since there haven't been any legal decisions, you are asking me to speculate. Since it is not illegal to drink and rig, then you could plausibly argue that all of those days are equal. Mark

To the best of my knowledge, it's never been litigated. I don't know anyone who has been cited because he or she was uncurrent. We don't know how many hours you'd have to work to have it count as one of the 90 days. It would be easier to prove you were current (or not!) if you kept a work log, though. Mark

Since the previous thread got locked before I got a response: MEL - How could I find out the amount of internal pressure created inside the tail during inflation, and how that compares with the internal pressure in the rest of the canopy? What is the source for the fact that line burn is the #1 cause of blowouts? Do you think the tightness of the center "C" line larksheads is a result more of forces during internal pressurization than because of, say, lower-surface inflation earlier in the process? If the "C" lines take more force, then is it a myth that the lines most likely to break during deployment are the center "A" lines? Should Precision be switching to continuous "C" and "D" center lines instead of just continuous "A" and "B" lines on their reserves? Thanks, Mark

The 22# pull is measured "in the direction giving the highest pull force under normal design operations." (AS 8015B 4.3.2.4, AS 8015A 4.3.2.2; NAS 804 doesn't give a direction of pull.) I think you'd get higher pull forces by pulling at a right angle to the main lift web, that is, when the user is punching straight out. Aligning the pull with the housing should produce the lowest pull force, which is useful for checking for the minimum of 5 pounds. Mark

Yup. Mark

Edited from 50, to 70, then to 80-ish pack jobs? That's progress, of a sort. One more edit and then he or she will be okay. The regulation for US riggers requires 90 days of rigger work in the previous 12 months to be current. Depending on when exactly in the fall or winter of 2011 he or she earned his rating, there's still time to stay current. Mark

MEL - How could I find out the amount of internal pressure created inside the tail during inflation, and how that compares with the internal pressure in the rest of the canopy? What is the source for the fact that line burn is the #1 cause of blowouts? Do you think the tightness of the center "C" line larksheads is a result more of forces during internal pressurization than because of, say, lower-surface inflation earlier in the process? If the "C" lines take more force, then is it a myth that the lines most likely to break during deployment are the center "A" lines? Should Precision be switching to continuous "C" and "D" center lines instead of just continuous "A" and "B" lines on their reserves? Thanks, Mark

If all you need is a go/no-go gauge for your rigging work, consider calibrated weights. I have a 22# shot bag for ripcord pull tests (downside: rig has to be oriented so the desired direction of pull is straight down), and an 8# shot bag which adds to the 22# to make 30# for the PD fabric pull test. I went to the post office on a couple of slow days, and the lady behind the counter thought it was kind of fun to be involved in a parachute project. She was quite helpful as we counted out the very small quantities of shot to get the weight to within 0.1 ounce. For the 8# weight, that included the weight of one fabric clamp. Mark

= big bucks for a rigger willing to unfairly exploit any 'approval' rule I never though rigging was a way to make big money......unless you're crooked (standardized requirements are a big win here to keep people from abusing rules like those for income - or to keep excessively conservative types from running roughshod over customers/the converse is true also - keeps riggers that are too loose from being flippant about real safety condition.) The name of the rigger who made the initial determination has been left out of this thread, but it is clear that many of us know who he is. No one who knows him would say that he was using his position and reputation to make big bucks, and all of us would agree that it would be especially unfair to suggest that he is crooked. Mark

What amount of pressure is there in the tail of the canopy (I realize "it depends," but a ballpark figure would still be useful for me) and what amount pressure differential is there between the high pressure area and lower pressure areas? Mark