mark

Additionally, the 24 flat is intended for use in addition to, not instead of, the main canopy. In the event of a main malfunction, the reserve is hand-deployed: thrown down and in the direction of spin. With Type 1 deployment, the canopy begins to fill right away, and line extension is much faster because the drag of the inflating canopy is much greater than the drag of a diapered canopy. Inflation in that situation is still quite slow, as I can attest from experience. Mark

Wow, I did not know my rig had a quick release penis??? Capewell release. I'm sorry I remember when they were common on sport rigs. Mark

By regulation, an installed AAD must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. The manufacturer says the battery must be replaced if it is dead. So by definition, the rig may not be jumped with dead batteries in the AAD, even if doing so would be no more hazardous than jumping with no AAD at all. Mark

I hope you didn't intend to imply that Bob is less than a stand-up guy, but that's how it comes across to me. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it's not too late to edit your post to be clearer about what you mean -- or delete it. Mark

I agree that ability to inspect is not the same as ability to execute. I don't think I made the claim they were equal. I can't finish drywall with a damn, either, but that was a result of trying it and evaluating my own work. I didn't need anybody else to tell me how well I did, and while I was chagrined by Lynne's critique, I wasn't surprised. But I agree that a second set of eyes is almost always better, even when you're working within the legal limits of your certificate. Cheers, Mark

I'd like to use your example to make this point: a senior rigger with the plastic barely cooled on his card (updated idiom from "ink still wet on his certificate") is charged with the responsibility every pack cycle of inspecting reserve canopies with someone else's major repairs, and approving for them return to service. Now, if he can inspect someone else's work and approve it, why shouldn't he be allowed to inspect his own? Mark

Does a Cypres-2 automatically turn on and do a self-test when the batteries are changed (as one might guess they are at the service center 4- and 8-year inspections)? Mark

I'm not saying they should give it over to a private company - I'm saying I would like to see a well done, professional time trial analysis into what causes the delays, over a broad spectrum. In my experience, (as yes, I've done many studies like this as an Engineer) the government doesn't necessarily always have the right tools to get the right data. It isn't rocket surgery. One airplane on the runway at a time. One minute of runway time for a take-off or landing. So 60 take-offs or landings per hour. At some airports, there are more than 70 scheduled operations during peak hours, so delays are built in. Let's assume just landings. Airplanes 1 minute in trail at 180 knots = 3 miles apart. 60 landings per hour means the last airplane in that hour is going to travel at just 180 knots for the last hour of its approach. It doesn't matter that the airplane can go faster. It doesn't matter if military or other restricted airspace is opened. It doesn't matter if airplanes can be routed directly from one airport to the next instead of via intermediate navigation fixes. The solutions are a combination of more runways, rationing, and added fees for peak times. The best combination is a subject for Speakers Corner. Mark

Is it the case now that controllers can suppress primary returns when the screen is cluttered, so they can concentrate on the airplanes they care about? Would that have been possible then? Also, could the signal processing or filters be set to eliminate slow-moving targets like large birds (or skydivers), again as a way to reduce screen clutter? If it could be done then, was the radar set to look for a jumper, or just to follow metal aircraft? Mark

Is that an IF - or DO THEY... I would hate for people to start broadcasting that around because you put a hypothetical and someone interpreted at true. And.... It true, do you have the reference material available for that, I would like to read. From the PD Reserve Owner's Manual: "Any line, tape or webbing damage is a major repair. Lines may be replaced by a master rigger. However, it is recommended that these repairs be done at the factory. "Master Riggers map perform repairs that do not involve taking apart any partacks on the canopy. Special bartack patters are used that are not normally found in the field..." And the PD 42-stitch center stop-start pattern is slightly different than the standard Pfaff/Singer/Brother/Juki 42-stitch center stop-start. Their main canopy manual does not have the same language. Yes, I know this thread is about main canopies, not reserves. Hence Rob's hypothetical. Mark

Tomorrow, I will look in my 1971 Para-Gear catalog to see what kind of altimeters were common then. IIRC, most altimeters were aircraft altimeters, mounted in panels on chest reserves. That kind of altimeter is about 3 inches in diameter and about 3 inches thick, not suitable for a wrist altimter. However, if Cooper had an altimeter watch, he would have been a time traveler or space alien. That would explain a lot. Altimeter watches depend on a pressure transducer, which is electronic, not mechanical. Digital watches first appeared in widespread use in 1978 and electronic aircraft altimeters about ten years later -- and altimeter watches after that. Mark

No, it isn't hard to put on a harness while wearing a tie, but depending on how the harness fits, it pulls on the neck of a jumpsuit or shirt. I speculate that Cooper had the tie on as he was donning his harness, found that he was uncomfortable with his shirt buttoned all the way up, and took the tie off to unbutton the top button -- and with the top button undone, there's no place to clip a clip-on. As to why he replaced the tie-tack, I'd guess it was just reflex. I have one tie (really!), and when I take my tie off, I leave the tie-tack with it. Mark

I'm not sure if you are responding to me, or if my name appears in the RE: line just because it was the last post before yours. My personal position is the same as yours: anyone should be allowed to alter his own main parachute. Actually, my position might be more extreme than yours: I believe anyone should be allowed to alter someone else's main parachute as long as (a) that other person is able to give informed consent, and (b) the person doing the altering doesn't hold himself out to the skydiving public as willing to do those alterations for all comers, whether for profit or no. My position is not supported by the FARs, and I try to distinguish between what is and what I think ought to be. Cheers, Mark

Enjoy it while you can. When this regulation was changed in 2001, this section and others were rewritten to accommodate tandems. The previous version did not permit the next jumper to alter a main, so the current version does not conform to the NPRM or comments or response to comments. I expect to soon see a correction that will: -- allow the next jumper to pack his own main -- require a rigger (or rigger supervision) to pack otherwise -- require a rigger certificate to do minor repairs to a main -- require a master rigger certificate to do major repairs and alterations Mark

You and I both need copies of the draft before the new AC goes final. More importantly, the FAA needs industry input on this and the other issues you've brought up. Specifically, PIA (in the persons of the President, Cliff Schmucker, and Rigging Committee Chair, Terry Urban (Councilman24)) must solicit and develop a consensus view and interpretation of the FARs (and ACs, Orders, etc.) that the FAA can accept and we can live with. I hate to think our community could blow this opportunity to make things right, but we could wind up with the regulations as muddled as they are now, just in a different way. I have a refrigerator in my loft. The IRS thinks I need it to keep batteries cool. There's a cold beer in there for you the next time you're in the area. Cheers, Mark

MEL, Here's the final final: The definition of major repair is tied to its effect on airworthiness. There are airworthiness standards for reserves, so line repair or replacement on a reserve is work for a master rigger. Because there are no airworthiness standards for mains, repairs to a main parachute cannot by definition affect their airworthiness -- you cannot go lower than zero --, ergo the repairs are not major and can be done by a senior rigger. Cheers, Mark

"Controlled item that only DPREs and FAA personnel have" is not a public standard, therefore not an enforceable standard. My copy of AC 105-2C is different than yours. Mine omits the qualifier "main." The quote from section 12 is: "Examples of major repairs are replacement of a canopy panel or suspension line, or sewing a large patch on a canopy." I assert that my reading of that sentence as: "Examples of major repairs are replacement of a[n approved, i.e. reserve] canopy panel or suspension line ... " is just as acceptable as your reading, does not conflict with any FAR, and has been the industry standard practice since 1972. I am confident that in a court of law, my expert would prevail. Mark

That is just one of many mistakes in that book that is currently being evaluated and corrected. As always, the FAR's are law. The book is just a reference and on this issue a very bad one at that. Cheers, MEL Here's a previous reference: Poynter Volume 2 7.26 Line replacement in ram-air canopies A. Comment ... B. Applicable Canopies ... C. Repair Personnel Non-certificated canopy: Senior or Master Parachute Rigger Certificated canopy: Master Parachute Rigger Because the standards for airworthiness are different for reserves and mains, it is entirely appropriate that only master riggers might be permitted to work on one, but senior riggers might be permitted to work on the other. Poynter Volume 2 was published in 1991, so the industry standard for more than 16 years has been to allow senior riggers to work on lines. The FAA has had plenty of time to object and has not. The way we need to read AC 105-2C's example of fixing a broken line as a major repair is that it is a major repair if done for a reserve. Still not convinced? Poynter Volume 1 -- yes, the original -- says that replacement of a line is a senior rigger privilege if done to a main. Volume 1 predates the current AC 105-2C by a few years. Yes, the FARs are law, but they don't specify particular repairs as major repairs. AC-1052C is an Advisory Circular, so it is not law. It gives us guidance and insight into FAA thinking. If it is possible to read Poynter and interpret AC 105-2C without conflict, we should do so. Mark

Your profile says "Talon." Time to update? Mark

You're right. "Conflicts with" does not mean "overrules" or "supersedes." It just means the FAA is confused. Mark

Here is where the FAA published the final rule changing Parts 65 and 105. There isn't a specific section called "Preamble," but there is a significant section discussing background, issues, comments, and the FAA's response to the comments. It doesn't address the issue you raise, so if it's what you were told to read, the tellers have confused their whims with legal requirements. Mark

AC 105-2C, section 8: "Parachute alterations are changes to the FAA-approved configuration." Since main parachutes do not have FAA-approved configurations, the changes you make to your main are not, by this definition, alterations. That conflicts with FAR 65.125(c): "A certificated parachute rigger need not comply with Secs. 65.127 through 65.133 (relating to facilities, equipment, performance standards, records, recent experience, and seal) in packing, maintaining, or altering (if authorized) the main parachute of a dual parachute pack to be used for intentional jumping." The implication is that authorization is required for altering the main parachute. Confused yet? A senior rigger may do minor repairs, a master rigger may do major repairs. A major repair is one which, if done improperly, might appreciably affect airworthiness. For harnesses and reserves, the standard of airworthiness is tied to certification tests. For mains, there is no standard for airworthiness, so if you set your standard for airworthiness low enough, any repair is minor. The guidance commonly used is Poynter's Parachute Manual, and FAA-H-8083-17 (Parachute Rigger Handbook), both of which have tables listing repair limits, and repair procedures that include necessary rigger qualifications. The same repair may change from minor to major depending on proximity to critical components like seams, line attachments, and reinforcing tapes; and the same repair might require a master rigger if it's on a reserve. Still following along? The FAA definition of maintenance: "Maintenance means inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of parts, but excludes preventive maintenance." Using this definition, you need a rigger ticket to do any maintenance beyond preventive maintenance, but you don't need a rigger ticket to do preventive maintenance." From the aircraft world, preventive maintenance includes changing engine oil and airing tires. I think -- my opinion -- changing rubber bands and main closing loops would be preventive maintenance, and I hope your local FSDO is relaxed enough to consider parts exchanges that can be done with elementary operations (swapping one main pilot chute for another one of similar size, for example) as preventive maintenance as well, even though it doesn't fit the strict definition. Please do not press the FAA to make more exact definitions, and especially do not press them to give examples. The system we have works well to protect the public, and skydivers are not dying because of poor rigging or unauthorized alterations to main parachutes. If you ask a bureaucrat to make changes, the results will be more restrictive. Finally, I am one master rigger who thinks you should be allowed to do anything you want to your own main, and I would go so far as to say you should be allowed to do anything you want to someone else's main, too, as long as that someone else provides informed consent. Cheers, Mark

I did. The most current version, directly from www.faa.gov The point is, I know that the requirement is silly, as does everyone else in the field. But if we follow the "letter of the law", hell we'd pretty much never get off the ground. Good news! The table is required, the height of the table can be zero. When I got my seat rating in Nashville (before 1993), I secured the apex behind the toilet, ran the parachute out the bathroom door, across the family room, through the service door into the garage, and secured the harness to the tension board under the garage work bench. The FAA thought that was just fine. More good news! You have to have access to the table, but you're not required to use it. So long as you could have used it if you needed to, that's enough. Mark

You are right: the FAA has no definition of "manufacturer," and no minimum standards for "main parachute." You are also right: the FAA has no minimum amount of work you must do before you can claim to be the manufacturer. For amateur-built aircraft, the owner-builder must do 51% of the work, but there's no similar standard for amateur-built, or even commercially built parachutes. MEL is right: it takes a Master Rigger to make major repairs and alterations. That's not the whole story, though. AC 105-2C section 12: "Major repairs to parachutes may be made by a master parachute rigger, an appropriately rated parachute loft, or a manufacturer" [my emphasis]. "Manufacturer" -- that's you! As a manufacturer, are you authorized to do your own alterations? If you are authorized to do so by the FAA, then for sure. Further, most FSDOs will defer to your expertise as a manufacturer to determine the level of certification (if any) the repairman will require. Generally, the answer is yes, manufacturers may do alterations. If you are working on your own canopy, I don't think the FAA is interested in what you're doing -- their focus is on protecting the general public, not on protecting you from yourself. If you are working on someone else's canopy, you should have the appropriate certificate (Senior or Master, depending). Mark

If you do not like the angle in the book, rotate the book.