mark

No. The channel is a AirTec thing. Unless John Sherman has changed his mind, the channel is not authorized for use on the Racer H/C. Cheers, MEL From a letter from Helmut Cloth (Airtec) earlier this year: "One of the side spin results of all our work was a development which allowed opening the reserve container of a rig like the Racer, not with a fixed loop, but with a floatable loop. It used a channel across the pilot chute top, which enabled the loop to run through it. The result was that a reserve container, like the Racer reserve container, would immediately open when only one of its two pins was pulled. In case of a loop cutting system, the container would immediately open if only one loop cutter would sever the loop. On a walk along Lexington Ave 20 year ago, I entered the Jumpshack building and showed this to John. He was impressed that this system worked always and without hesitation. But because of possible additional packing effort he didn’t want to have it installed in the Racer. I was a bit disappointed. Forth and back, then we negotiated a compromise. In all countries where John’s TSO for the Racer was valid, it was forbidden to use this running (floating) loop, in all other countries it is permitted. You can find this regulation in every CYPRES User’s Guide since 1991 under the Chapter "Repacking of Reserves". Mark

There, fixed it for you! Plastic-handle "Zak" knife (Para-Gear #K11505), I agree with you. On the other hand, newer composite ones (Para-Gear #K13505 or #K18505) do not break very easily at all. I tried freezing one, then pounding it with a hammer -- no problem. Mark

Hook knife construction might make a difference. Plastic/composite handle might be invisible, so all that shows is the blade. Mark

It would be quite some feet if you could. Mark

The harness/container manufacturers have a say in what AADs are okay for their rigs. An Aviacom reincarnation would still have to persuade them its AADs were acceptable. If it were as easy as just having a name other than Aviacom, then MarS would already have its AAD (shown by Alti-2 at the PIA Symposium earlier this year) on the market. Mark

91.307 says that a parachute available for emergency use (including a sport reserve) must be in date. You'd have to argue that your rig wasn't available for emergencies. Also, if you're wearing a sport rig, then you're subject to all the rules that apply to single-harness, dual-parachute packs, including repack dates. Mark

Oddly enough, the FAA unintentionally made it legal in 2001. Before 2001, FAR 105.43 required intentional jumps to be made with a single-harness, dual-parachute system. That section was rewritten to accommodate tandem jumps using dual-harness, dual parachute systems. Tandem jumps were previously made under an exemption to 105.43. The person who did the rewrite assumed the only alternative to a single-harness, dual-parachute system was a tandem system. The writer ignored the possibility of jumps made with single-harness, single-parachute systems (either pilot rigs or base rigs), or dual-harness, dual-parachute systems for an individual jumper (each canopy on a separate harness), or other possible configurations. Read 105.43 now. It says that IF a person uses a single-harness, dual-parachute system it must have such-and-such configuration. But it does not prohibit other configurations. Mark

AC 105-2D dtd 5/28/2011 has not been withdrawn. It is still "current." Mark

I've attached a copy of the meeting schedule for the most recent PIA business meeting, about a week ago in St Louis, Missouri. The first PIA meeting in 2012 will be similar. I wouldn't recommend it unless you really like going to meetings and you have the extra time and money. If you can wait until 2013, you could arrive a few days early for the Symposium (=toy show and some educational stuff) -- the business meeting is always scheduled for the weekend before the Symposium. It's going to be in Daytona Beach, Florida, which means if you get bored you can sky out to Deland, Space Center, Sebastian, or other local dropzones. Mark

Most red dyes are not colorfast; bleeding is normal even with certified materials. The most likely marker used was a Sharpie, and most Sharpie colors are acid-free. The canopy is likely to be safe to jump. "Likely to be safe" is not good enough. I'd recommend calling the manufacturer and asking if a litmus paper test would be acceptable. If there's any doubt, the canopy must be returned to the manufacturer for evaluation. Some education for the previous rigger would be a good idea, too. Mark

I learned from Dave DeWolf: use two pull-up cords around the pin, one on each side of the closing loop. Pull the pin up, put a temp in underneath it, pull the ripcord pin out. Repeat the process to put the new ripcord pin in. Mark

Assuming, of course, that he knows how long to trim the cables on the replacement cutaway, and has the tools and skills to do the job. As stated already. Mark

If the replacement handle comes with cables of the correct length and requiring only assembly, you'd be correct. However, replacement handles for sport rigs typically come with overlength cables plus instructions on how to measure and cut the cables to the correct lengths. Then the cut cable ends should be finished in a way that prevents snagging on the locking loop or other components. Mark

Not exactly. AS8015B 4.3.2.1 requires a representative group of users to pull a sealed ripcord without difficulty, but does not specify the maximum force required. ( :) - I just noticed that the person who numbered these sections had a sense of humor.) AS8015B 4.3.2.4 requires a maximum of 22 pounds of force to pull the ripcord, but doesn't specify the seal. If it is not hard to pull the sealed ripcord, even if it requires more than 22 pounds of force, the system meets the standard. AS8015A has essentially the same requirements. NAS-804 doesn't mention seals at all. Mark

1) The cutter is under the freebag, on the pack tray, on all Dolphins. 2) The closing loop appears to be the correct length, which implies that it was under some tension. In any case, the pilot chute spring was providing tension. This is different than the Portugal incident, which Aviacom says was caused by closing loop slack, caused in turn by the jumper leaning back on the rig and compressing the pilot chute while he was seated in a descending aircraft. 3) The Argus manual says Cypres material is acceptable for the closing loop, and this loop appears to be made from Cypres material. Mark

Here is the service bulletin I referred to: Madatory replacement of old cutters with plastic inserts http://argus-aad.com/images/PDF/sbamm021206_2.pdf I stand corrected. Mark

@ billvon: The Dolphin cutter location is on the pack tray, similar to Javelin and Wings. @ Tkoontz: Argus cutters have never had a plastic insert. You must be thinking of Vigil Type-1 cutters, most of which have been replaced by now. Mark

Here's one possibility: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=323234. Mark

Fixed it for you. While some Senior riggers are knowledgeable in harness work, all Master riggers have been tested in this subject area to order to receive their certificate. BS, MEL Fixed it for you. Senior riggers may not be allowed to do major repairs, but they are required to inspect previous work to ensure it is airworthy whenever they repack a rig. If they can inspect for a repack, they can inspect without repacking, too. Also, while most master riggers have demonstrated ability to do harness work, there is no requirement for harness work to be part of the practical exam. I have heard of at one DPRE who does not have a harness machine. Mark

Except that Vigils have been using cylindrical cutters without the problems alledgedly associated with Argus cutters. Also, the MarS M2 has a cylindrical cutter. It doesn't seem fair to make them (or their current and future customers) pay for another manufacturer's problems. Mark

I didn't realize that mocking conspiracy theorists constituted having outspoken opinions. Mea culpa. Although I actually do have interests to protect. I am a rigger. Mark

Nonsense. Some manufacturers withdrew their approval and have kept that position (for example, UPT, Sunpath, RI), some withdrew their approval and then decided Argus AADs would actually be okay (for example, Altico and Mirage), still others never withdrew their approval (for example, Wings). Some national organizations withdrew their approval (for example, Australia and New Zealand), other national organizations did not (for example, USPA). What exactly do you think PIA (or Airtec or AAD/Vigil or the Bilderbergers) threatened to do to manufacturers? Why did that pressure work with some organizations but not with others? Mark

That may still turn out to be the case, just not in the way you think. Mark

A FSDO might ask a local master rigger if he or she would like a DPRE appointment, but they don't have much to offer as a recruiting incentive. To apply for a DPRE appointment, you have to be an experienced master rigger with sufficient materials and equipment to give a master rigger exam. Once you have an appointment, you have to go to Oklahoma City for a 5-day course for new examiners. IIRC, the FAA charges $300 for the course, and you pay for your own travel expenses. After that, you get to develop oral questions and practical projects. This is a non-trivial task. Then the questions and projects have to be approved by the supervising FSDO. Every two years you get to travel at your own expense to a recurrency course the FAA charges money for. Fortunately, the FAA usually schedules a course at the same time and place as the PIA Symposium. In exchange for your trouble, you get to charge a "reasonable fee" for an exam, which in practice turns out to be about what you'd make if you spent your time rigging and not examining. (The exceptions are DPREs who run courses and get a little benefit from economies of scale.) A handful of DPREs account for the lion's share of exams; most DPREs do only a few tests a year. The rules for DPREs are basically the same as for Designated Mechanic Examiners, and there are a variety of reasons the FAA is unlikely to change them to make it easier for us. Most riggers are not legally current anyway. I'm not sure that having more DPREs so we can have more uncurrent riggers is a good idea. Mark

The buyer doesn't want your gear. He just wants you to send money in exchange for his worthless check. Mark