tdog

Looks - well I am fond of red. For the rest of the advice you seek, you will have to give a lot more info, like the SIZE of the container.

I vote.... To the left of the post, where it says your name, picture, licence, etc... There should be a "skyXXXX" count. Everytime you say this word online, it adds one to the count. Once you get to 10, you are banned for a week. 20 bans you for a month. 100 bans you forever. 1000 (although you can't get past 100) - pulls your reserve handle when you are not looking. Why does every argument about the USPA have to go into this.... Crap happened in 2007. Move on. Make your DZ a better place. Increase safety. Increase training..... Stop giving a crap about that company. It is likely most of you never have been to a DZ that takes their certs, or ever met someone who has given them money. If your heart is really in it, go to your DZO and thank him for not taking the certs, or telling him you all will buy him Pizza if he will stop. See why he does take them. Build a better marketing plan. Stop bitching here... And back to the thread at hand... Get rid of the group membership program and replace it with the group inspection program. Those who pass get EARNED advertising rights, instead of purchased advertising rights. And, as with anything earned, the USPA can publish guidelines that will weed out the trash - if they have the balls to do it. There is very little trash really, just some DZs and resale programs.... The rest is good. Oh ya... Go jump too. It frees the mind.

Cool.... I just wanted someone to clarify - so no one would spread incorrect rumors, how hypothetical his comments were.

I say - if all things being equal - you NEED to buy from the company with the shorter waiting period. Mirage will hold its own against a Talon any day... If they SUPPORT their customers with BETTER lead times because of BETTER management of their factories or whatever, you should SUPPORT THEM with your business. One of my biggest complaints about all manufactures is the quote 15 weeks and take 20 weeks trend they all seem to have. Mirage has never done that to my friends who have ordered, so give them the money because they are being responsive. THE ONLY WAY to get manufactures to be motivated to be more responsive in this fast paced world is to support the ones who are, and let the others know why you gave the business to them. That is my two cents.

Keeping the reserve flaps wrinkle free is difficult on some sizes. Once the famous large winkle forms on one packjob, it tends to last forever on all further packjobs. Other than that, I have seen no major differences between Mirages and the other top-of-the-line makes in terms of lasting. They all need preventive and regular maintenance around 500-1000 jumps - a stitch here, a stiffener there... (Oh, don't do neon colors. My friend got orange and black, and mirage used the neon orange when he wanted the rusty deep orange. It still looked cool, believe it or not, so he kept it... But half way thru the first season it started to fade. On it's second reserve packjob, you could see "lines" on the flaps where the color was exposed to the sun, and he packed indoors and treated his rig with kid gloves. But I think this would be true for any manufacture). AND - as he said... Mirage owners tend to be a pain in the butt - like Volvo owners... (Could not resist)

This is why I don't like jury duty (the way it is currently run): ME Dear Clerk, I got this summons for jury duty. I already have airfare the next day to Europe. I want to serve, but can we postpone the service until right after the trip? Clerk No... Here is what you do. You show up. You wait until they pick the jury. If you are selected, the judge will ask if there is any reason why you cannot or should not serve on the trial. At that point you tell him you have airfare, bring your tickets, and you will be dismissed. ME Is that not just a waist of everyone's time? Why not have me show up when I can serve? Clerk Just do what I say.... THE DAY OF THE SERVICE ME SHOW UP ON TIME. ET. AL. 7AM THEM Dear Jurors, thanks for showing up today. Right now there are no trials on the books that need new juries. As long as I have been doing this, the likelihood that we will need you is zero. However there are procedures we must follow. You must wait until 1PM. There are a few rules. First, you must wait in this room. If you leave, even just to walk down the hall, you will be in contempt of court. The fines are strict. The bathrooms are located in the back right corner. The coke machine is in the back left corner. Second, no use of cell phones. In 5 hours, you may leave. Clearly - the solution to this "problem" would have been to let us all leave and come back in two hours. Why? The room was not air conditioned, 150 people were sitting in 75 chairs, and the weather outside was 100+, and I was wearing "presentable clothes". (I so wish I took my friends advice to wear the shortest bathing suit possible and "legalize smack" tee-shirt with a guy smacking his wife FOR smack - just because of the heat).

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.

I was told by a person at the DZ over the weekend on the plane that a friend "back home" (a very good swooper apparently) called saying he just had a cypres fire at the bottom end of his swoop, reserve came out after he was on the ground, the PC fired low. Nothing new to learn from it - same as the previous ones - from all the questions I asked. Proof - Cypres units are firing in swoops. There are Cypres units (software) out there that are swoop friendly. Maybe if you have a sub 100 canopy and can get near Cypres speed you should buy one? Anyway - I encouraged this person to tell the friend to send a report to the USPA or write a little news snippet for Skydiving Magazine, so it can be tracked... These things are happening more frequently now. Swoopers are getting too good. Unfortunately I have told you EVERYTHING I know about this, I did not ask names, canopy, location, etc. However the person who told me is credible.

It is very possible that one or two half days a month, away from those papers, could free your mind, and cause you to be more productive when you return home and have to work. You say you daily read these forums - and daily watch videos... Here is my solution.... (I am not a grad student, so check my math) Monday 20 minutes DZ.com, 20 minutes video. Tuesday 20 minutes DZ.com, 20 minutes video. Wednesday 20 minutes DZ.com, 20 minutes video. Thursday 20 minutes DZ.com, 20 minutes video. Friday 20 minutes DZ.com, 20 minutes video. 40 minutes * 5 days = 200 minutes 3.3 hours = 1 good jump, or a few good jumps, depending on how hard you push for it. Solution - spend all week working on papers instead of dropzone.com. Spend Saturday mornings jumping. .... Now, if you can't still find the time... Do a an AFF FJC and level 1, if you want to. Maybe try to get a few levels done... You can always walk away and come back in 18 months. You will be "uncurrent" and you will most likely have to redo some training, but truth be told, your knowledge and experience never goes back to zero... Hence, in 18 months you will be pickling up somewhere between zero and complete knowledge of when you left. It might cost more this way... But, why the heck not do it, especially to reward yourself for finishing a semester or paper or something....

Tools - the FARS are clear - if you don't got 'em - you can't do it. Data - if the data is made available to a master rigger, it is also available to the general population. There is no secret data holding ground that 200 packjobs and 3 years in the industry gives you. Skills - ok, I agree... Replacing a torn rib is a work of art. I am not that good. I sent my canopy back to PD for that very task. I know when to say no... Replacing a broken or worn line.... Pretty darn simple, so as long as you have access to a bartack machine. It takes hours, not years, to learn to make a quality finger trap and bartack. The tool count, other than the bartack machine, is less expensive than the line you actually will consume. Maybe I was painting with too broad of a stroke. Maybe what I truly believe is that lines on a non-approved canopy, should be minor repairs, as I believe it is an easy task to learn and do properly. This is supported by my personal belief that (although I am not suggesting the FARs support), a rigger cannot make something unairworthy, that never was certified to be airworthy in the first place!!! Hence, the definition of major repairs (repairs that could change the airworthiness of a component) cannot apply to non-TSO mains, as they were never TSOed or "Approved Parachutes" deemed to be "airworthy" from the factory floor... Hence, all repairs to mains are minor repairs as "airworthy" is subjective without a standard to follow. P.S. As I told MEL in a PM... If DPREs and those who issue letters suggesting an applicant is ready for testing, are not confident their applicant knows when to say "no, I don't have that skillset, I can't do it", and they are not tested on basic bartack and fingertraps, then we have bigger problems in the rigging community...

I never said it WOULD all the time. I suggested it COULD. And, I believe that a canopy WOULD stay inflated long enough to have enough drag to make the impact or pull on one riser enough to hang your entire body weight on it... It takes a second(s) to collapse, milliseconds to fall a few inches. Proof, today I kited my canopy and the winds were causing the lines to go slack momentarilly... The canopy stayed inflated and in a drag producing state long enough to "snap it back" into flight.... Any way you look at it, IF I knew my helmet was entangled with the lines I would do EVERYTHING possible short of not deploying my reserve in time when "game is over anyway", to get the helmet off before cutting away. I just don't like hanging from my neck. I also believe that camera helmets with ring sights and exposed cameras are not a good thing to mix with RSLs. My point was - priority one is to get the helmet off your head, priority two is getting rid of the main.... (Another reason, trying to remove a helmet under load might be harder)

And - with or without a RSL or skyhook, your body weight hanging from your neck, coupled with a few inches of fall after you released one riser, could have snapped your neck... I am no expert, but this is how they all die on the old westerns on TV, except they use ropes. I know I heard a prominent container manufacture owner discuss this very "problem" with any camera setup, and thus argues with or without an RSL you HAVE to clear the helmet first, thus the RSL is not a problem after you clear the helmet as it becomes a normal cutaway. Likewise, someone with an RSL can always disconnect it right before they chop should they determine they don't want the RSL to fire. It takes about a second or less to do, and it has crossed my mind before... However, the Skyhook does have the advantage of the Collin's lanyard, such that if you did not have a camera entanglement, and the RSL business end riser disconnected from your accidental pulling on the cable under linetwists, the RSL would have pulled the Collin's lanyard and the other riser too, thus prohibiting 1.5 canopies out. The collin's lanyard + skyhook technology to me = safer than rsl and safer than none. Kind of like airbags in a car, they can kill you, and have killed people in the past... But I don't disconnect the fuse. Personal preference... Your choice not to jump one is valid.

And... Motivation number two... Since I only rig for friends and people I know... I know I can replace a line, I was trained to do it by a master rigger, I have done it... A friend delivers a canopy to me. I say, "your steering lines suck. You need new ones from the cascades down. You need to take it to the only master rigger in our state who is actively working right now, but he is on vacation, or send it the factory." He says, "I will when I have time... I already have my airfare tomorrow to the boogie. Too bad you could not fix it right here and now." He then has a malfunction and... I would feel worse in my heart that I followed the (I believe silly) regulations than just fixed the problem... I mean, a steering line required a fingertrap, which I train all my aff students on so they can make a closing loop, and a bartack. With some talent, a few tools, you can even make it the right length on the first try! This is not rocket science.... (Note, if it was his reserve or something TSOed I would have no problem saying, "I hope your airfare is refundable or you can find someone out there to pack your rig, because I can't.") Face it... Skydivers take the path of least resistance. If you can do a relatively simple line replacement for a friend, they will allow you to. If you require them to go way out of their way, they are less likely to get the repair done, and add danger to the system.

MEL, If: 1) Poynter's (both 1 and 2) believe a senior rigger should be able to do it. These books have gone thru major revisions and no one convinced the author to change, and the FAA looks to these books as reference materials for rigger knowledge. 2) PRH (FAA approved document, despite your belief it is full of errors) thinks a senior rigger should be able to do it. 3) There are no TSO Standards for manufacturing or testing of mains - anyone can do it - from a rigger to a college kid's science project - and the community knows that mains are not TSOed so they choose their purchase on reputation of the brand, and they choose the maintenance by people they trust, sometimes themselves. 4) The industry accepted practice is that anyone can work on anyone's main, and the skydiver alone, himself, determines if he is willing to jump that canopy - face it - it happens EVERY DAY. From a brand new student being instructed how to change the lengths of their brake lines to swoopers making new linesets and sliders of different materials. 5) There are no solid facts proving the current system is broken in the form of incident reports. then why not advocate and push the FAA, in the current revision process that DPREs and riggers are participating in, to change the laws to reflect industry standard practice??? If the FAA doesn't regulate AT ALL the manufacture of mains, how can they get involved in the repair? It is NOT a certified component and there is NO GUARANTEED or TESTED airworthiness from the factory floor, nor a master rigger's loft... To me this is about a non-certificated component with no regulation on the design and manufacturing - and hence, a skydiver should be able to choose who they want to repair or fix their main. I am confident from your posts I know exactly your opinion as to what the LAWS are. I want to know why you are so firmly in support of them... So why do you believe a master rigger is the only one competent to repair a lineset that had no certification process in the first place, and the factory did not need any rigger or TSO process to build, approve or install? And my motivation... Since you posted you believe I am crying that you are taking something away from my basic rigging certificuite.... It is not that.... It is... Everyone I know with some passion towards rigging participates in the maintenance of their main. As a rigger, I am sometimes delivered mains. I am sometimes delivered mains people are thinking of purchasing for "inspection". If I don't ground a main that I believe is airworthy but I believe is altered - I am accepting liability. If I know it is altered, I have no way to prove who did it, to prove it was altered "appropriately" because you yourself pointed out no records are required to be kept. You as a master rigger face the same liability. Maybe more than I, since I am not to be trained and tested, per your previous posts, on basic line replacements, so there would be no way to prove I, as a senior rigger, should have the knowledge to identify repair techniques, but YOU DO.... It is far, far fetched that I would be in a court room, especially if I conduct myself professionally... But, it would suck to face a wrongful death civil suit because of a main that passed thru my hands for "inspection", but a family trying to find closure took out their pain on me... That is why I advocate rules = accepted industry practice, good rules = enforced and followed....

You should bring the kids up to the DZ sometime so they can see and learn about the second half of the skydive. I know a few real good guys who started packing parachutes when they were 14 years old and because they started early, are world class... Derek (Hooknswoop) might vouch for me that I am one of the "good guys" (ok, probably not, especially when I play devils advocate online).... However, he has my contact info and I can give you and the kids a bit of a tour of the DZ... Heck, if they want to be bored stiff, they could sit in on one of the first jump courses to start learning about parachutes and stuff, so the picture is completed....

Jumps on a skyhook rig: 1000 Jumps on borrowed gear: 10 Reserve rides on skyhook rig: 0 Reserve rides on borrowed gear: 1 And I always wanted to try my skyhook too... (My reserve ride was a non-rsl rig too). Bianuan, You can have the RSL removed, or you can simply connect the RSL to the hard housings of the cutaway cable and just not have it connected. The Skyhook is designed to release in the case of a total malfunction, and by leaving it disconnected, you are fooling it into thinking you are having a total every time. Me.... I am a rigger, an AFF instructor, and a pretty current skydiver (300+ fun jumps a year)... And, my next rig will have a skyhook too... Personal preference.

Ok... Reserve (a parachute with a rigid design, testing, and manufacturing process - TSO - maintained by riggers) is to Cessna (a plane with a rigid design, testing and manufacturing process - maintained by certificated mechanics) AS A Main (a parachute with NO design or testing requirements that can be sewn in a garage and skydivers have altered and repaired for years) is to an experimental plane (an aircraft that can be made in a garage, no certificated mechanic to repair). DISCLAIMER, I DO NOT KNOW MUCH about experimental aircraft, other than I have been in them and jumped out of them. However I do know that - there is a HUGE difference between how things are regulated in the design, making, manufacturing, altering and maintaining of aircraft that are experimental and not. My friend with no ratings made his plane from a few preassembled parts and fixes it when it breaks. So, I thought in terms of aircraft... Does that work???

I know - it would be a tough case to prove. There are two venues where I could possibly have to defend myself; civil court for a civil lawsuit seeking money and an FAA investigation. I have differing opinions how the defense would work in each venue, I am not a lawyer, but I do have a pretty good knowledge of the court system from being in the business world. But again, this thread is not to argue the defense of a court case - and I HOPE TO NEVER HAVE TO BE IN COURT. HENCE - I am trying to advocate that the FAA rules match reality of what skydivers, manufactures and riggers accept as common practice in the field - and MEL in this very conversation indicated most people are in violation of these rules because they are so unenforced most people do not know they exist! This thread got people talking and thinking. My biggest concern is that right now there are a few riggers (not me) talking to the FAA, and these riggers are advocating things to change in the rigging testing process and other aspects of rigging. I have no way to know what is being said and what is being advocated - however I wonder how much of what is being advocated is coming from the consensus opinion of the PIA, USPA, and community at whole versus a few riggers and DRPEs expressing their goals with FAA employees they befriended. I will stand firm that: 1) mains have zero manufacturing requirement per the FARs, people like Brian Germain have sewn them in their garage. If I (as a rigger or not) wanted to sew one today - I could. I could sell it. I would not even have to test it before selling it. Skydivers have always purchased mains on the reputation of the manufacture, and accepted the risks for doing so. AND skydivers I know have their main repaired and altered by people they choose and trust to do so, including themselves. The community concensus from people I talked to is that the reserve is god - it is highly regulated and in maintained in the world of riggers. The main is more like an experimental aircraft, there are no manufacturing requirements, and it is maintained in the jurisdiction of the skydiver and people he or she trusts. 2) skydivers for years and years from what I have been told, and for as long as I have been in the sport, have been repairing and maintaining and altering their mains. 3) skydivers and riggers I have met have successfully determined what (on the main) is within their skillset and when to refer the work to the factory - such as when a friend of mine replaced his own brake lines with no rating, or when I sent a canopy to PD, even though the repairs were within my skillset and rating as minor repairs (patches) because I wanted a higher quality product due to the size and location of the patch. 4) replacing a lineset or line safely and accurately does not take the skillset of a master rigger (many years in the business and hundreds of packjobs of various types) - I was taught by two (master) riggers how to do it in a few hours. I would never do the repair on a reserve, or even claim I have the experience to modify a container - I respect the fact master riggers have a huge skillset to prove before they start digging into complex projects. However, dumbing down the average skydiver with rigging knowledge and senior riggers to the point they cannot even replace a line on a canopy that had no manufacturing regulations or testing regulations - is just sad in my book. 5) Incident reports show that the commonly accepted practice (which appears to be illegal now) of riggers of various experience levels (the canopy owner, friends of the canopy owner without certs, and Sr. riggers) maintaining, altering, and repairing mains - has not been a safety issue to the general public especially, and not even skydivers. (The general public is what most of the FARs relating to skydiving try to protect) Hence, I hope the people who are pushing change, pushing revisions, pushing clarity in the rules - take a step back and ask, "we all know the FARs are being broken, and the FARs are not clear in this regard... What is the action plan to bring both aspects to the forefront so the rules match the common industry practice deemed statically safe from incident report history?" This is my personal opinion, my opinion only... Maybe you agree, maybe you don't.

Ok, so we both agree that most people do NOT comply with this regulation. From my swooper friend who has an aftermarket removable slider, to my crew dog friend who has a different type of lineset, to my own (former) canopy that I built and installed a lines on - many skydivers and senior riggers "major repairs" or "alterations" to main parachutes. Looking at the fatality and injury statistics, I see no concrete evidence to prove that the altering and major repairs of mains by users and senior riggers has caused any statistical risk to the skydiving population or the general public. Further, without people like Brian Germain going out and playing with airlocks and cutting and building his own canopies, or swoopers changing their lineset trims to increase performance, the advancement of parachute technology would be hindered. And, the FAA has no published requirement for the way in which a main is manufactured, a guy could buy a kit like they used to sell and make one, or I could build one at home. The FAA definition of a reserve (approved parachute) is one that meets the TSO standards, which specifies testing and manufacturing requirements, whereas a main is simply the primary parachute in a dual parachute single harness system. So, why would the REPAIR and ALTERATION of a main be MORE strict than the manufacture of the same component? Why can I legally build a main, but never repair it or alter it? To me, this is a fundamental problem that everyone who has been around this sport longer than I agrees - has been an age old problem not talked about in hopes it will go away. Hence, regardless of if the currently proposed modification to the FARs is a "Revision", "Fix", or "Change", - I think we should be advocating to the FAA that they adopt as rules what has proven to work in the field, so skydivers, DZOs, riggers, and manufactures don't get the added liability of accepting as "normal practice" something that is against the rules. As to the applicability of a senior rigger having the skill to complete a "major repair" on a main canopy, lineset replacement and line attachments are load bearing, and are normally considered a "major repair". I wonder why the practical test standards, published by the FAA, and administered by the DPREs for SENIOR rigger have the following tasks, as the argument I am hearing implies no senior rigger (or canopy owner) can ever do these tasks: -->The examiner shall select at least one TASK from each AREA OF OPERATION, except AREA OF OPERATION VII. A senior applicant is not tested in AREA OF OPERATION VII Parachute Alteration. Area of Operation 6 - Parachute Repair. Task B - replacement of a lower steering line. Task D - line attachment loop replacement. Task G - cascade line replacement. Task J - replacement of a continuous suspension line. Task K - Suspension line replacement in a ram air canopy. Lastly, thank you for the discussions... I have learned a lot today by having to dig thru the FARs to best understand them.

In the "other thread" someone posted a quote supposedly attributed to a well respected rigger: I have read a lot of FARs this morning... I still cannot find anything that says how or who can manufacture or design a main. § 105.43 covers the fact that intentional jumps must have two parachutes - a main and an approved reserve. It says how the main and reserve have to be packed. For the definitions of a main and reserve § 105.3 defines the reserve as: and the main: § 65.111 says who can pack, maintain and alter the reserve {65.111(a)} and main {65.111(b)}. So, isn't it ironic that the main has NO manufacturing requirements as part of the definition, but it seems the interpretation and push to revise (fix) the wording in the FARs is towards regulation of alterations and repairs? I laughed my butt off in the car coming back from lunch today. I envisioned this conversation: [FAA INSPECTOR] I understand you altered a main canopy for your friend. You happen to be a rigger and you also were not the next person to jump it. You are in violation. [ME] Sir, you have your facts wrong. I manufactured a new canopy for my friend with various spare parts that he gave me. I did this not as a rigger, but as an everyday guy who makes things. You see, you don't have to be a rigger to make main parachutes! [FAA INSPECTOR] What spare parts? [ME] A complete main parachute, I just discarded the parts not airworthy to be recycled into a new canopy, and manufactured a new one with parts. [FAA INSPECTOR] That sounds like an alteration. [ME] Sir, the definition of manufacture is, "put together out of artificial or natural components or parts". I had parts and raw materials that were not airworthy alone, useless really, I put them together and manufactured a canopy worthy of flying. I guess this is just a sarcastic way of saying, the system is flawed if the canopy is not manufactured to a regulation or spec, and people can't alter or make major repairs after it is made. And PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DPREs and other riggers - don't push the FAA to TSO mains.

That is VERY funny. Sad but true. Maybe we can get it changed so the rules follow accepted practice in the field, as skydivers are not dieing due to fixing or repairing their mains, and there are not enough master riggers to replace every broken line out there when skydivers can't fix their own. :-) (if true)

In the context I was told, the intent was to further prohibit. Maybe I am wrong.

(This is a tangent off of a thread I started this morning. I apparently am a troublemaker today. Sorry... While the last thread was a devils advocate - ask questions thread - to get people thinking... I think this one is MUCH MORE SERIOUS as a MAJOR rule is being changed). Mark L., I have thought long and hard (ok, an hour) about something you sent me privately. You did not ask me to keep it to myself, I would have if you asked... I am posting it because I think the community has the right to know and right to comment to the FAA before a major revision is made. I have talked with friends who are and are not riggers, and they are concerned too. You said you believe that part 61.111 was re-written and is about ready to be published with the word "alter" being removed and this change is a "done deal". You did not indicate if you had anything to do with this change, so I am not accusing you of anything other than sharing the news. If I understand correctly, this will mean that, I, as a skydiver, cannot make any changes to my main... This has nothing to do with hiring a rigger to do it... I am talking about myself - going to a well equipped loft, or my basement sewing machine, and making a major repair or major alteration, like a new lineset when my old one fails, or repairing a load bearing seam, for my own personal use, on my NON-TSO, non "approved" main. I think a lot of people who make a practice out of maintaining their own gear and tweaking it for swooping will be very upset when they have to accept additional liability, or break the law, for modifying their own main... Almost every pro or near-pro swooper I know has done something to their canopy that was not approved by the manufacture. I have made my own linesets to factory specs, and made mods for the sake of learning and personal preference. My canopy will no longer be "acceptable" to fly because it is not in factory spec, nor did ANY rigger approve them... And, this removal of the word "alter" does not grandfather in old canopies or allow me to document when, who, or how my main was altered. Specifically, the main canopy has no packing data card assigned to the canopy to track who and when it was altered, which will further complicate enforcement of this rule, most specifically, allocating liability in the case of an accident where no documentation proves who did nor did not alter the equipment. Are riggers now required to take mains out of service if they have no documentation that the alteration was approprately performed? Do they get sued for not grounding the canopy when the next of kin finds out their son modified their canopy and it was inspected and passed? This is a bag of worms... Here is the section I believe you indicated was revised and will be published in a few weeks: Community, If this is true, and I have no proof other than a few e-mails that I will not share since I was not the original recipient, and the PM I received today, so I believe personally it is... I personally am of the opinion that this is a BAD THING. If you agree, and I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO, or you disagree, and I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO, you probably should speak your mind. Signed, a skydiver (not wearing any informal or formal rigging hat).

I have read them. I am pointing out that they are conflicting to "standard industry practice." I intentionally left this open so it could be debated. I pointed out a lot of this as devils advocate because most skydivers in PRACTICE are not following the rules, and thus - should the rules be changing (as apparently they are being revised) to further clarify how many people truly are breaking the rules??? Maybe the rule needs to be clarified to allow what is standard practice in the field? For an example, without a master rating, can someone like Brian Germain put a lineset on his own canopy that he may or may not sell or loan to others??? He has. Does he have a TSO inspector since his main is not TSO approved???? Maybe he does, I don't know? Mains are not "approved parachutes". No TSO stamp on mine... But in practice, I know many people without any rating who made new linesets or did major repairs to their linesets (like replace a large quantity of lines).

I know you don't want to argue this on the net, so please don't feel like you need to reply. However, if true, that is too bad... For an example, Brian Germain has a senior rigger's rating accoring to his DZ.com profile, but he has done some pretty incredible canopy design and repair work in his day. Does he have to now hire a master rigger in his shop to sew his newest prototype canopy or fix a canopy sent in for repair? What about changing brake line lengths for a friend who discovers with a canopy coach their main is not appropriately dialed in... I used to help friends do that all the time when I had no rating. Now that I am a senior rigger I can't? The owner can't? Or changing the slider or lineset materials on a canopy for softer openings? Or having a removable slider? Or making your own lineset? I know there is a fine line between minor repair (what a senior rigger can do) and an alteration. Laws should always reflect accepted industry standard practice, and I don't think I can find many fatalities or injuries to suggest users and or senior riggers "altering" canopies to be a safety issue. By making laws that contradict standard practice, it places liability on everyone involved. I believe it was mentioned that a revision to part 65.111 was being made? What is the wording in that revision?