tdog

Question... In conversation with some other riggers/skydivers the following came up... This question is for riggers and/or people that know the regulations and can cite their source. I previously thought that the main canopy was not regulated in any way, meaning everything above the 3rings or risers, depending on how you interpret that part of the regulation, could be completely modified, altered, manufactured, adjusted, repaired, or designed by anyone. If I wanted to jump a bed sheet on four strings, I could... If I wanted to cut off one cell and make it an 8 cell canopy that only did right hand turns, I could. We all know swoopers heavily modify their sliders, and CrEW dogs are known to make mods too... It is standard practice to tweak your main. Heck, I know of a main that was completely remade when it was damaged heavily - like complete cells added - by an owner's friend who did not have a master rigger's rating. The other party argues that only a master rigger may alter a main canopy, and that the regulations simply allow a senior rigger or the user to alter packing techniques. So... This question is not about what is done in the field, we all know skydivers "participate" in the maintenance of their main... But, the actual regulations... Scenarios: 1) A friend without a rating alters a friends main canopy, per the owners request. 2) The owner alters his own main canopy. 3) A friend, who happens to be a senior rigger, alters a friends main canopy, per the owner's request.

Travis, that is exactly what we are doing. Cool, 'cuz I just went to the PIA website and found the documents used in the FAA exam are the current revision. Kinda' makes me wonder why no one told the PIA their documents were wrong for the last 24 years before the FAA adopted them as being an authority?

You made my point. And I am not a pilot so when I said pump, I agree - it was a valve. I just reread the incident reports so I could learn more... But the fact you were able to in such detail point out how I was wrong, proves as a Pilot you know about DESIGN, and my point is a RIGGER should know about DESIGN... So, indirectly you made my point, and the fact we don't have checklists as riggers when things go wrong like pilots do ("hey, my canopy opens hard, what should I do"), proves we might need to know MORE about design than a pilot??? But that is just opinion and distracting from the point of this thread.

Yes, the document is reprinted as "PIA Technical Standard 100, by Parachute Industry Association Publications." The document was officially adopted by the PIA on January 23, 1984, and approved by the member companies that, at the time, made approximately 90% of the ram air canopies. Or so it says - in it's own first paragraph, as if to give it creditability. Fortunately or unfortunately, a document that is as "official" as the PIA document - with the opportunity to have been revised for 24 years, I think is a valid source for test questions. If anything, PIA it is the BEST source, over any one handbook written by one author (poynter, PRH, or anything else) even if we don't agree with the official PIA opinion. I am getting phone calls, emails, PMs and posts that all seem to say, "Foul, the FAA has used the wrong guy and the wrong book for the test." I somewhat agree... However, in life there are no definitive answers on ANYTHING. I bet I could find many errors or things that have changed since publication in Mr. Poynter's treatise... So, if you think PIA has the definition of Plumb Line wrong, go to PIA and get that document revised. Then immediately notify the FAA that they need to substitute the new PIA document revision. Since when has google and websites been the authoritative source for rigging. I think the PIA's documents hold much more credibility than most other sources. Ok... Wanna make the test more clear... Have the question rephrased to say, "Per the PIA TS-100 document, the plumb line is...." Also, I would firmly support moving the source materials for the written to PIA documents over Poynter's or PRH, as PIA technically has a solid peer review process and is supported by the industry. Just my opinion.

I know we both are entitled to our opinions and I certainly am not egotistical enough to think I am always right.... However, I don't agree. 1) Pilots are expected to know (basic) instrument questions and show some instrument proficiency to get their certificate (from what I have been told) as they might accidentally encounter instrument conditions and need to survive. 2) I look at it differently. Instead of saying knowing design is like knowing instruments for a pilot - I believe it is like knowing mechanical systems. A pilot is expected to intimately know the mechanical systems of the aircraft he is going to fly... This allows the pilot to handle emergencies, and inspect the plane before takeoff, and read the gauges to know if there is a pending emergency. In another post I pointed out that the longest glide by a commercial airliner ever was caused when a fuel leak was handled incorrectly by pilots who pumped fuel into a quickly emptying tank, instead of turning off the crossfeed and letting the leaky engine and tank go dry. They lived because random luck of poor weather diverted them 20 miles closer to the island, if the weather was good, the plane would have crashed into the ocean. If the pilots would have had a better knowledge of the basic fuel systems, they would have diagnosed the problem and never won the Guinness world record. This is where KNOWLEDGE never HURTS... Even when on the surface it seems not applicable to the rigger. Riggers (of any rating) knowing the stuff in the design questions in the PIA100 document is no different. It simply allows them to communicate with the manufacture when a tough to diagnose problem is encountered with a customer's canopy (such as a main that opens poorly), and allows them to inspect properly the manufacture and repairs as completed by the manufacture. Honestly - when I took the test, I had no clue about Tbeam and Ibeam canopies. So I used the pen and paper provided and drew out what I thought they would look like. Every question made sense, and by drawing them out - I scored 100% on these questions... I felt stupid, so I went home and read the PIA100 over and over again (how I know I got 100% by educated guessing) and am proud of my new found knowledge that I wish I studied before the exam. I encourage all DPREs and those involved to not dumb-down the test, but embrace the (simple) design questions in the PIA100 and expect students to know more, not less. It is only 10 or so pages, and took me 15 minutes to learn.

For the record, all the questions I was asked, (randomly) were from the PIA documents reprinted in the PRH, especially the controversial parachute design questions ALL came from PIA Technical Standard 100. Hence, I feel that, the questions are fair to study and fair to know. The question I hated about AADs because it made the examine determine the importance of the word "cutter" comes from this non-pia text: The question I hated about crossport tears and the net effect to the controllability of the canopy is NOT in the PRH, as I used acrobat to search the words "tear" and "crossport" and found no reference...

I used to think: "Great, I would be judged by a bunch of my peers too stupid to get out of jury duty." Now I think: "Great, I will be judged by people who actually leave their homes, go to work, are smart, and have things to do..." I don't know which one is worse...

I saw the aftermath of what happened when I sat down with the DPRE and showed him some of the questions I was asked and he started spreading the news... Specifically, multiple people all agreed, "a senior rigger does not need to know that. That is master rigger stuff." I cry BS... A rigger should know HOW it is made so they can INSPECT it. Not a single question I was asked in canopy manufacture was inappropriate. I thought they all were good. Maybe 6 questions on angles was too much considering no rigger really changes angles, that is a manufacturing thing... And, as I posted above, I did not like the manufacture specific questions. My concerns... For an example, there was a question about a tear in a load bearing rib on a ram air canopy. The question asked how the canopy would fly, with answers like, "spin uncontrollably", "completely malfunction", etc. That question has NO RIGHT ANSWER... I could tear 10 canopies and I bet all ten would fly differently. I could even see a "complete malfunction" should the tear spread, canopies "blowing up" are not a new thing, and it has to start somewhere - like in a tear.... So I am going back on the record to say, I was not as concerned about the TYPE of questions asked, but instead HOW they were asked and WHAT study "hints" and "reference guides" were made available and THAT I was not told the bank was completely different... I will tell everyone right now... Read the Parachute Rigger Handbook on the FAA site... Know the PIA documents in that document that describe angles of canopies, by heart. Be able to draw the canopy with all the angles. Know which documents are the source materials for the various TSO classifications as shown in a matrix in that book. Know the old obsolete test bank, as some questions remain. Know the FAA FARs that relate to rigging. Know how much to over stitch various stitching when replacing torn out stitching. Know how to add "seat" to your existing "back" rating - as in what testing is required. Know how various spanwise and chordwise canopies are built, how they are sewn, how the fabric is cut, how the line attachments are made. Know how to "upgrade" to master. Know how to attach "old skool" rounds to risers (knots, stitching, etc). Know what the stabilizer does, and why low and high aspect ratio canopies are effected by it. Without any of the warning everyone got when I started the first thread, I took the test without studying the materials, and did rather well. I was frustrated at the wording, and no warning of the change - not the type of knowledge tested...

I have been privy to conversations between DPREs. If you notice, I started the "other thread" on this when I took the test and was the first to bring this to the DZ.com community's attention. The DPRE forwarded an email from an FAA employee to me, asking me to make comments on the FAA customer service form. I sent this: FUNNY SIDE NOTE. The FAA software interrupted my submission and asked me if some of their FAQs would answer my question before it was submitted to a human. Of the few options given, the obsolete test bank was linked with something like, "Where can an applicant learn what to study for the written test." My point exactly.

I have a friend with a 170 that has some "aftermarket" adjustments to the nose. I jumped the DZ's 170 Sabre 1 on an AFF back to back - and was told it was a Spectre as I threw on the rig. It opened like a Sabre - nice and quick, so I counted cells under canopy and counted 9... The very next jump I borrowed my friends 170 Sabre 1. I braced for impact and pitched. He did not tell me it was a modified canopy... It sniveled so long I had climbed up the front risers to get it to open (with some but not a lot of exaggeration). It is the softest canopy I have ever jumped... And everyone that jumps it agrees... So, if your canopy slams you, let me know, and I can get pictures of the mod I think... And on a side note - when you borrow gear to make quick turns, "life is like a box of chocolates".

Being it would be political suicide for me to say why I (evaluator) was unhappy with this person by name... In the immortal words of George Bush Senior: "not gonna' do it." However, I will say that the personal insults and threats of physical abuse, even if just being threatening figures of speech that implied death if carried out, caused the candidate to demand his money back. I took him out of the room and we completed the evaluation dives in a fun way, and he got his rating that he earned. You know what surprised me... This candidate, who was a young person who also was the type to take things personally and get emotional, did not complain of the personal insults as being the primary complaint - but that he "wasted his money to be mentally abused and learn nothing." And... as an evaluator, I was not paid a dime from the director, and delivered candidates who had 4 hours of ground school and NONE of the required "automatic unsats" covered. I had to retrain them from scratch on the bureaucratic procedures of the rating, even though they were good teachers already. This director added NO value to the students, and the students said so. In the director's defense, the course happened at a busy time when he was distracted a bit, however someone who demands a good chunk of money, expects his evaluators to work for free for TWO DAYS to complete all the training, and gives his students 4 hours of unproductive classroom time - is just a waste of everyone's time. So... Go back to all my previous posts in this thread. I recommend Bram to my worst enemy and my best friend because I know he will treat them fairly. I hear good things about Jay too.

I apologize in advance for being a snippety b*t&h... But... Without knowing the test bank changed (because I had no warning like I gave you guys) - I got well above 80%. There has been a long standing debate between some of my friends on learning methods.... 1) Find an instructor and take a week long course and see what you can jam in. 2) Find a mentor and work in their loft. I did the second. I worked under the DPRE and Master Rigger, in his loft, for one night a week, for almost a year. Every time he had an obscure parachute or issue come thru the loft, I was invited over to "help". Not a single word or concept on the test was "new material" to me even though the material was a complete surprise... I just had to really dig hard in my memory, and draw canopies on paper, to get the answers... So the question of irrelevancy. At least the questions moved from all old school material (how to field repair a cone - rotating it 180 degrees) to square parachute design and construction. The questions (at least the ones I was randomly given) were MOSTLY on the design and building of square canopies of various flavors (chordwise and spanwise). I just on the phone read these posts to my mentor and DPRE, and he and I see differently. He believes for an example, that the reference line and plumb line, are irrelevant to a senior rigger charged with the task of inspecting and assembling and packing a parachute. I agree, as a rigger I don't need to know these things. However to really know the parachute system I do? So where should the design knowledge stop???? The method of attaching the ribs to the top and bottom skin of the parachutes of various designs was tested... Some would say, "if there is damage to ribs, you will send it to the manufacture to get repaired". But, short of seeing stitching tears, if the skin is still attached but one fabric is torn out of one of the two lines of stitching, it could "look" right, but be damaged... So maybe this manufacturing knowledge is important? What comes to mind... There was an aircraft incident a while back because one engine was spilling fuel. That engine was feeding off of it's own wing tank. The pilots saw the tank empty, so they turned on the cross feed from the other wing. Soon they realized both tanks were emptying at an alarming rate. The plane ran out of fuel... The pilots blamed the checklists for not covering the scenario in enough detail, as only a word or two covered the issue... If the pilots would have stepped back and drawn the fuel storage and delivery system on paper, and asked themselves (not using a checklist) - what could be the most probable cause for the fuel loss, they would have "got it". To do this, they would have to know the complete design of the fuel system (where the valves and pumps and where the storage is). I am not a pilot, but even I know this from being curious about planes... When I saw the pilots on TV getting praise for setting the record for the longest glide by a commercial aircraft, I thought, "they should get the award for being the most stupid pilot ever. Duh, if a tank is empty, and you pump more fuel into it, and it still empties too fast, you got a leak!" So is the same true for rigging? By knowing all the "irrelevant" design questions, including things as detailed as where the reference line intersects the chord line (that was a real question I had) - does it prove the rigger candidate has an intimate knowledge of the gear he is working with, to a point that when the checklists fail, he can step back, draw out the system, and discover what is truly wrong hiding behind the surface? Looking at the test bank as published online, versus the new questions - I think they made a HUGE step towards relevancy to the modern sport (and even pilot) rigger. Anyway - done rambling. My two points are: 1) I believe learning under a bunch of riggers, and picking one primary mentor, was superior (for me) than trying to take a formal course. 2) The written test in the current form is relevant as it tests on parachute design and manufacture, whereas the oral and practical tests on the actual work you will do as a rigger. Combining knowledge of how it is made, with knowledge of how it is repaired and assembled, means you have total grasp of the complete big picture... Just my two cents. (And my other two cents - the test bank, as delivered now, NEEDS to be released in either partial or complete detail by the FAA. The highest level commercial pilot knows what questions he will be asked, why shouldn't we, even though we are such a smaller market segment.)

Simple solution. Send me the kit. In 5 or 6, maybe 7 years - I will return it with a log of how I was able to use each tool.

Scott, I actually thought the landings in Eloy were better than the national average. Although I only landed in the experienced landing area in front of the hangars when I could get back. The two times I landed in the alternate, I saw a few more dirt stains on jumpsuits. That is probably pretty sad, huh? You think landings suck, and I was impressed they were "better than average." I had a long conversation with a friend about Safety Day. He was talking about EPs, seatbelt use, etc. I asked him, "how many people at our DZ have been injured about seatbelts EVER, or can't figure out how to use technology in every car since the 50s???? I tried to express my thought on all things in life - pick the low hanging fruit, spend the least effort to make the biggest change... Statistically - the one major injury at my home DZ by an experienced jumper last year was broken bones from a low turn. All over the world, this is how people are getting hurt. So I suggested to him - safety day should put 100% focus on landing and (intentional) low turns to practice for the (unexpected) necessary low turns. His response to my idea of low turn drills - "way too dangerous." Is it not irronic that people don't even think we should DRILL and PRACTICE for something that is bound to happen sometime - the necessity for a low turn.

For some of us - it is like going DOWN to sea level. You should try my DZ - last summer one day the calculated density altitude was around 10,000 in the landing area. And most people could still land on their feet. However I will say, landing in Eloy on a colder winter day is easy. I kept wanting to do downwinders just so I could feel "at home".

At those prices, I would go to Spain too.... (Granted, if I could get a bunch of fun jumps near home I would pay the money, but if your jumps near home are not good, then, you have a good point.) I would make sure you tell the DZO and BPA why you are not giving them your business. But I am guessing you already did that here.

Ok... Downloaded the trialware of UltraISO. Made a CD image file of the CD. Opened the image file, and dragged and dropped the files out of UltraISO to my own file folder. UltraISO removed all the "?" and other characters. Problem solved. And - I DID NOT USE A MAC.

Nope... "Cannot read file."

Did you have fun? It looked like you did... But what would I know. I am just one of those internet guys (and an instructor too). AFF is so easy, if you don't make it harder than it really is.... Just keep going out and having fun, and your instructors will see an awesome student....

Funny thing is - every time I have had line twists or something, my motivation to kick harder is because in the back of my mind I have thought, "Damn, if I chop this, I have like an extra hour of packing to do tonight..."

I read or heard on a radio show, Bill Booth (maker of your rig) say - that the one thing he wished he could un-invent was a pullout - as it added, in his estimation, more risks than rewards. But, your opinion may vary. I like consistency - so my BASE rigs and Skydiving rigs all match - BOC...

hehehe, thanks dude. Have you surfed some of the links of photos in this thread to see Emily in a wingsuit - and on my facebook site - because she makes wingsuits look good.

For the record - it was a balloon jump on the Ghost. Photo attached from the balloon. The video is kind of lame, but has a funny ending when I turn the camera on myself... www.indigox.com/ISawMyPC.wmv It was a two way from 4000 feet (the other guy left a second after me to video the exit and fly my pattern). I pitched at 2,800. Nothing. I oscillated head high to get it off my back. Nothing. I looked over my shoulder and saw a wad of shit at full bridle extension, a few feet behind my shoes, and the bridle maybe a foot higher than the leg wing. I reached for my cutaway and had it pealed. It opened. Put cutaway back. The PC was packed BASE style (mushroom, fabric on outside, mesh folded in half as the core with bridle on/in the mesh). Yes, the PC was cocked on the ground. I even verified it twice. I guess 7 seconds to get a canopy full of line twists is not that scary, except for the fact my body clock is trained lately for slider down BASE openings from 5 second to impact objects.

In 4way Open: Airforce Invictus 1st Colorado Revolution (self financed students from the Airforce) 2nd. (During the season I was the videographer for this team, so I am bias) Ok - so you probably want to know all the scores: http://www.uspa.org/news/images/Scores-standings-final.xls

Yes, that is what I saw too. And... This year I landed in the main landing area every jump except for three, where I could not get back due to the (balloon) spot(s). This is a huge change from last year where I was running far far away from the chaos. I was very impressed. I only was cut off once. We did a freefly, we went fast, I was open around 2K right over the main landing area. I saw I was the lowest and closest canopy and over the landing area, so I tried to sink it down quickly to set a pattern and give separation between the other groups... But a tandem videographer cut me off on final and I had to do a braked turn to avoid him, putting me on the opposite side of the landing area crossing the center line, which is a no-no when you set up your pattern on the other side... I have good video of his canopy, I kept it to remind me of what this boogie could have been on every load.