mark

The FAA does do not view it that way, maybe Poynter does but we do not receive our certificates from him. There cannot be two different standards for airworthiness for the same exact repair.It is either airworthy or not. MEL Perhaps the FAA is not as monolithic as we think. They cite Poynter as a source in the Practical Test Standards, after all. In other news, which questions exactly did AFS-630 agree to eliminate or change? Mark

You mean the "other" Sandy Reid book, Volume II? No, I was referring to Poynter's books. Poynter Volume 1 says a senior rigger can perform a line replacement on non-certificated (main) canopies. The procedures are for round canopies, and include link-to-link replacement on continuous line canopies. That's a non-trivial task, and in my mind asks more of a senior rigger than line replacement on a ram-air canopy. Poynter Volume 2 contains acknowledgments of quite a few people who helped with the book, but in the end Dan Poynter takes responsibility for its contents, no one else. Volume 2 contains instructions on line replacement on ram-air canopies, which allow senior riggers to work on mains, but require masters to work on reserves. In both volumes, there are different standards for mains and reserves. For example, in both volumes, repair limits are frequently more generous for mains, and in both volumes, the required certificate for any work on a main is frequently just a senior. And that's the way it's been for nearly 40 years. Mark

Sigh. This stuff is not rocket science, and is easier for a rigging student to learn than how to make a decent basic patch, given a reasonably competent instructor. Poynter expressly says that a senior rigger can perform a line replacement on non-certiificated (main) canopies, both round and ram-air. If you're not using The Parachute Rigger Handbook or Poynter's, what are you using to train your rigging students? Mark

It's okay to talk to martians it's when they talk back you need to be concerned georger. Speaking of ESP, has anyone tried the "remote viewing" technique to find Cooper? Ingo Swann was the original CIA remote viewer at Stanford in the 70's. He wrote a book "Penetration" that can be found online about some of his work with the spooks. I can't say I believe everything but a good story anyway. I wonder if they had him work the case? It's the right time frame. Jeez. Cooper will be found in a dark place, near water.

I hope my snips haven't taken your words out of context. Poynter has been a generally accepted source for many years, but it is neither error-free nor up-to-date. The same can be said for the Parachute Rigger Handbook. If you look in Poynter, the reference to cutting with a scissors is in preparation for fingertrapping. If you follow his instructions, you will be screwing your fingertrapping needle onto a scissor-cut line. He also writes that the bartack should be close to the formed loop. The diagram doesn't match the text. And Icarus does not bartack close to the formed loop the way PD does. Does that mean Icarus is doing it wrong? Mark

The PDR-281 is rated for 300 pounds, max. Not 300-ish. 300. max. That is the legal limit. If you exceed 300 pounds, you expose everyone associated with your jump (instructors, pilot, dzo) to additional liability. Why would you do that to your friends? Mark

The 150mph limit is for the aircraft, not the jumper. (Ref: NAS 804 para 4.2.1) However, the OP says that he's planning an exit weight of 301 for a reserve that's TSO'd to 300 pounds. He's already over the limit, so he's asking if it's okay for a student to be a test jumper. Plus the estimate of 35 pounds for breakfast, shoes, helmet, jumpsuit, radio, altimeter, goggles, and rig is unrealistically low. Mark

I am not familiar with Canadian rules. However, in the US there are senior rigger level repairs that require a sewing machine. For example, PD says that canopy holes less than a certain size and more than a certain distance from critical components may be repaired by a senior rigger. And Poynter says line replacement on a continuous line non-certificated (main) canopy may be done by a senior rigger. Mark

I disagree. The ease with which a repair may be made is only one factor in determining whether it is a minor repair (=may be done by a Senior Rigger) or major (=must be done by a Master Rigger). By AC 105-2C para 12, a major repair is one that "might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness." For the proposed repair, the issues are structural strength and, if the length of the bridle is changed, performance. I'd say it's a Master Rigger task. Mark

Updated instructions as of 8/25/2009: http://www.unitedparachutetechnologies.com/PDF/Stagging-loop/INSTRUCT_008___Split_RSL___Vector_3_Installation_Instructions_14_17_45%5B1%5D.pdf "Stagging loop" -- spellcheck must have been turned off. Mark

Well, yes. But the lap rating is enshrined in Part 65, which requires an regulatory rule change to update. The written test can be revised with no notice at all, and the Practical Test Standards are revised on a 5-year cycle, so there is some basis for the hope we can change things for the better. Mark

I'll second that, if the FAA is receptive to our input and review. The Practical Test Standards need a lot of work as well. Mark

Which side is the reserve side? Is it always the left side? How about on a 182, where the left-side jumpmaster starts with two grips? How about on other aircraft where the left-side jumpmaster is in a better position to control the exit? Is the idea of a "conditional rating" that if the jumpmaster screws up there won't be serious consequences? If that's the case, why not just dispense with the apprentice and make it a 1-jumpmaster jump? I don't get it. Mark

What is your time worth? In the Twin Cities area, skilled carpenters make $60/hour; plumbers charge $100. And have you checked the shop rate at the local Ford dealer? Should you make less? In most areas, the spread between the less expensive and more expensive riggers is about one jump ticket. You can be the low-price leader if you want. You'll attract a lot of business from the folks looking for a deal, and they will nickle-and-dime you for the very best possible deal, all the time, every time. On the other hand, if you aim to do the very best, you will not lack for customers, even if you charge for the extra effort you make. Asking the equivalent of an extra jump ticket spread out over a 180-day pack cycle does not seem unreasonable to me. Mark

Not so much. If the newer Optimums meet the published standards of TSO-C23d, they can be approved now. No need to wait for resolution of issues in C23e. Mark

I have cleaned out my dropzone.com email account and all private messages. Please cancel my premium membership. Mark

+1. I'm going to go away for a week. If the ad, or one like it is still here, I'm going to go away for a month. If I go away for a month, I'm unlikely to come back. Forget about renewing my premium membership while ads like that are on this site. Mark

Get video. Mark

I'm a rigger. I'm not so familiar with Wings containers that I could tell from the photo whether there is a problem with the pocket design, the pocket manufacture, or something else -- or even if there is anything wrong at all. I don't think I'd be able to pass judgment without either seeing another Wings container with a similar date of manufacture, or talking with the folks at Sunrise/Wings, or preferably both. Based on the OP's posts, if he were my customer, I would seriously consider offering him my free service. Mark

No.

I have no idea what TSO standard PD was aiming for. There was considerable overlap between the standards of C23d and C23e, so I don't think there would be much, if any, redundant testing. It is PD's choice to certify under the standards of TSO-C23d now, or wait to see what the standards of TSO-C23e might be. Mark

Yes, the TSO-C23e was withdrawn, which means TSO-C23d is still in effect. Mark

PD's statement is artfully worded. PD could use the TSO in existence right now, TSO-C23d, to certify its canopies, assuming they meet the performance standards, as they have for all the canopies they have certified since TSO-C23d came into effect in 1994. PIA's discussions with the FAA have been over the proposed standards for TSO-C23e, not C23d. Mark

Irony.

The presence of a maintenance entry (for example, "inspected IAW PDSB-002 and RWSB-230505") does not relieve of us the responsibility for verifying compliance. At most, it is a reminder that we should be checking all previous work. As far as liability is concerned, we riggers are responsible for the entire system, including all previous work at the time of delivery of an airworthy system to a customer. Once the rig is in the customer's possession, he assumes all responsibility for keeping it in an airworthy condition, including returning it for maintenance if necessary. If a customer loses documentation, and by doing so renders the rig legally unairworthy, that's his problem and his liability, not ours. Mark