RiggerLee

In a technical since I'd say that it's a master rigger job. Major repair. However the reality is that things like this are dome by senior riggers all the time. I should point out that a master rigger can supervise the work. That brings up the question of what constitutes "supervision". Some people would say available for consolation. So in theory if there was a master rigger on site at the dropzone that would count. It's a bit of a stretch but that's the kind of argument that they've used for packers working on the floor. Maybe one of them is a rigger and is there for available. If he comes over and inspects it when they are done, I think that should count. Generally this consist of him yelling from across the room, "Are you done yet?" If he's satisfied with that as an inspection I say it's on him. Some would say that he's supposed to be standing over your shoulder at all times. That's BS. Never happens. Even in training scenarios they check in only periodically at stages in the work. Around here you can't throw a rock with out hitting a rigger. One at least is generally a master. That's why I never bothered getting mine. In this case since there is no paper work who's to say how closely he was supervising people. Maybe that should change. It's different in Europe and other places. But the reality is that work on mains is often done by senior riggers or even just by the owner. Since there is no paper trail... no proof no foul. Don't give that answer in your test. Just take it to heart. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

This could be an interesting opportunity for a Darwinism study. Think about it. We've had some pretty good gear for a while now. Cypreses have saved countless lives of people who should have died and removed them selves from our sport. We are growing week from a lack of natural selection. If it were not for high performance canopies I think that we would have degenerated into... bowlers by now. This could be just the thing to thin the herd and remove the incompetent. I think it should be sold in every gear store. I even think it should be offered as an option on every rig. It's an intelligence test. Do you want the curved pin or this thing? If they chose the nail then they bounce and eliminate them selves from the sport and the gene pool. It's GENIUS! Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Wow. So much conversation over some thing that is obviously a bad idea. We must really be board. Some one needs to start a better thread to entertain us. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Found this as well, it was at the bottom of his pm. Simon simon.perriard@gmail.com Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

So this was a conversation that was going on a while back in several threads on base jumper. There was a lot of interest and testing done following a couple of very public accidents where people ether towed PC or had hesitations. There were a lot of issues explored including flap design, bridal design, and pins. The guy in Europe is named Lucifer, his screen name on basejumper. You can contact him there. I have some of his early pins. They are almost exactly like the prototypes I was playing with. He was farther along and I just dropped it as there was no point in duplicating the investment in the stamping tool. It was going to cost about $7,000 to set up. And I'd rather buy them from him then to try to pay off the investment. Samples I got from him are NICE. Every bit as good as the standard pins we use here in the US in the new, non locking design. Here is one of the threads: http://www.basejumper.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2985577;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; There were several other threads where connected issues were discussed and some really interesting testing was done. And a lot of conversation was in PM. I'm surprised you haven't heard or seen any thing about this. I think it's a noticeable improvement with relatively few down sides. Not that he's set up to stamp and tumble polish the new pins There's no reason why people and manufacturers can't start to switch over to them. It's just that there are tens of thousands of the old pins setting out there on the shelf right now. People order them by the thousand and then just use them for years till they finely have to reorder. Hell I think I still have 500 or so of the old pins in a drawer down stares in the shop. So it may be a while before you see them in wide use but there is a better mouse trap out there for any one that wants it. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Time will tell. I don't see it but let Darwin decide. By the way, there actually is a guy in Europe building a better closing pin. It came out of some base jumping incidents involving PC's in tow. I was working on almost exactly the same thing but he was farther along in the tooling. He'd already payed for the stamping dies to produce them. I think it's a good design. I told him to run with it. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Sounds a little too low down to be a temp pin issue. Knifeing between two grommets of grommet and cutter. Do you have an AAD? If so what type? And where is it located, by that I mean which flap is it on? If you tell us the container that might answer that question. I hate to say this but it's the price of the very thin loops that we are using these days. It's a result of the transition to sub flap cutters on AAD's. This is why my closing loop is made from 750 lb spectra. Que the hecklers. In the past I've also known riggers to make there loops from 500 lb spectra. Note these are non AAD equipped rigs. Stiffness is far less of an issue with out an AAD. Having said that I may some day die from a bent pin. An impact that would break a cypers loop. might on my rig just bend the fuck out of my pin and lock it closed. It's a chance I've chosen to take as a trade off for the security of a real loop. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

If the wings is going to be on the agenda could you also raise the real issue of their pattern sets. It would be annoying to retrofit but there is no reason for them to continue forward with a flawed design. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

The wings is a bit more open at the bottom. And as the wings is a bit more draggy then the vector, and the vector three does not total, clearly the cupped corners at the top of the side flaps of the reserve tray that lock the top of the bag into the container are clearly the problem. QED Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Who uses the Vector 1 any more? Not saying that it would be a bad thing if they went back to some thing like that. But that's history at this point. Vector 3's manage to open. And they are a crappy PC. They don't have a big cup at the top of the side flap... Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I think vector is the worst in terms of drag. I think it would be addiquite if the upper corners were more open. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I just happen to have an unpacked wings sitting in my lap right now. I don't think it's the bottom corners of the reserve tray so much as the upper corners. If you look at how it's constructed, the reserve tray is sewn into the main tray. The U shaped sew line is a good half inch inside edge of the back pad. The main tray is then sewn to the back pad 1/2 inch out side that. The top edge of the tray has an ear at the corner that comes up higher allowing a more diagonal cut to the top edge of the flap. This allows the top edge of the side flap to better cover the top corner of the free bag, makes it pretty. The wings free bag is designed with a lot of volume in the upper ear. It's pleated in the top of the free bag and has more volume there ten any rig I can think of. The make that extended ear, corner of the side flap, wrap over that greater bulk at the top corner of the free bag they tacked it down to the outer edge of the main tray/yoke/riser cover. It's on that outer sew line 1/2 inch beyond the sew line of the tray. They also left some slack, a pleat in it between the tray and that zigzag tack to give room for that ear. So the objective was to make the top corner of the side reserve flap wrap over that corner and then pull it down so that it cupped over it and did not pooch up. Make it pretty. Well they did that. It forms a very nice cup over the corner of the bag. Depending on the shape of the shoulder and where the yoke rides over the shoulder it can bee a really good pocket. Pick the rig up by it. Or in the case above, tow the PC from it. You'll see things like the above in many rigs. Just not to the same extent or all together. They basically built little box corner at the top of both corners of there side flaps. I can hook my fingers into the corners and pick the rig up by them. Doesn't have to be this way. Let's look an another rig at the opposite end of the spectrum. The Icon has hardly any ear on the top of there side flap as I recall. Not only does it not extend over beyond the bag but the top edges of the bag tend to extend out. I think it's the icon that I'm thinking of. This is fixable. Wings just needs to do some work on their pattern sets. PC isn't that bad. But the cap on it could be smaller. You don't need that big of a cap. It's just holding the spring back. It has less advantage to lever open that top and bottom flap. And the bottom flap doesn't need to be so stiff and heavy and complex. Do we really need all those stripes and piping and shit? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

So what your saying is that you have a very nice soft opening canopy. And you're complaining about that? Would you like to trade for one of the canopies I've jumped? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

As the the Javelin thing. Even when done properly It still leaves a stiffened lip for a line to sench bellow. When yo pull on it the tong would squeeze in below that lip giving it a good place to catch on and lock down around. Pull and you start breaking those stitches and stripping the tape upwards. I think you're looking at the after math of a horseshoe tearing that stitching. I never thought much of that retrofit mod. I don't think they had a lot of faith in it ether. They went 10,000 rigs and 10,000,000 jumps before it happened the first time. I think it was propaganda so they could say that they fixed some thing. They figured they could go another 10,000 rigs and another 10,000,000 jumps before it happened again to one of their "Modded" rigs. And I'd say those guesses turned out to be just about right. Actuaries rock! Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

How about retacking the ripcord housing? Repairing, shortening, replacing or just retacking broken zigzag stitches of leg pads? How about replacing dinged, burred grommets? Replacing broken had tacking on reserve PC's. Replacing loops in pop top PC's Like strong PEP. Tacking risers, ripcord pockets. Most manufactures allow sen riggers to do repairs on their canopies. They generally give some kind of guide line as to what constitutes minor and major, Size, distance from seam, location on canopy, etc. Point is we work on TSO'd components all the time. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Botched? or just what happens when you do the mod? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Unless the art work is awesome, like some of the old racer pop tops. So to the question of SB and who the manufacturer can authorize to perform them. If the manufacturer is making a change to the system. Establishing a new approved design, possible discarding the old one, then is performing the SB, bringing the rig into compliance with this current approved configuration, an alteration to the design and who can they authorize to perform it? Examples: SB on the old Reflex containers where they pulled the grommet and slipped in a peace of tape and reset it upside down. Could they authorize a senior rigger to perform this SB? Let's take a bigger example. The Mirage cypres cutter mod. Moving the Cutter from one flap to another and sewing that channel on. Bigger job but I should point out that the very argument for being able to include the AAD in the design at all is that it in no way affects the normal function and airworthiness of the rig. That was the argument for it not affecting the TSO. So whether it works or not, whether the wires are under stress and break or not. None of it theory affects the normal function or the TSO. So if it's irrelevant to airworthiness, the argument for it's inclusion in the first place, could they authorize a senior rigger to perform that SB. If this is not an "Alteration" and the function of the AAD can not affect airworthiness is this a minor repair or a major one. Some of this is stretching the point a bit but bringing it back around to the original question. What are the boundaries of what a manufacturer can authorize a senior rigger to do in a SB. By the definition of any action that brings a rig in to compliance with an approved configuration being a repair not an alteration, and if the manufacturer has a lot of leeway in determining what they call a minor or major repair, then they could in theory authorize many SB to be performed by senior riggers. I don't really see any of this as a problem. Generally I think SB are well written and do not stretch the pribbledges or capabilities of the rigger that are authorized to perform them. But the Masterrigger1 guy brought up the question and all else follows from it. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

In theory, if you did it a lot or if it was a big bend. Remember the pin is like formed by a hammer extrusion process. It's pretty tough and ductile/malleable not sure the correct word in this context. We've been straightening minor bends in pins forever. So in a properly made pin, excluding the capewell fiasco, straightening a small bend is no big deal. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Ok, so if a harness is approved in multiple configurations, or in this case lets say over a range of lengths. And you are calling this change from the original construction length, with in that range, a repair because they manufacture other containers of that pattern set to those lengths. In other words there is a president for it to be built in that approved configuration even though this particular rig was not. And based on that you call this a repair. So how about the ROL to BOC question? If they built this rig in both configuration, and you were to change it from one to the other, would that be an alteration or a repair? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Cop out. You can do better then that. So what if the manufacturer also builds the rig with BOC's? The manufacturer builds that version. Is it still an Alteration to change This rig to That version? If you say yes based on the original version of this particular rig then how about some of the other examples I gave concerning the materials tracking issues with repairs now no longer matching the original construction data? Changes in harness measurement? Changes in components like ripcords, cutaway handles, main PC, main bag, main slider systems? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Started to write this earlier but I got distracted. It's always been my understanding that only a Master rigger can sign off or apply to the FAA for approval for an alteration. The two I did through the FAA were signed by Stanford. I think the more interesting question regards the manufacturer. We've always been lucky here to be top heavy with really good riggers. Multi generational. There has always been a Master around to sign paper work on a repair or SB or what ever. Some places are not as lucky. Manufacturers have a motivation to authorize senior riggers to perform SB, AD, alterations, maintenance, etc. on there equipment. There are some standards that you can reference regarding what constitutes a minor vs. major repair. Those debates are eternal. Often they conclude with "What does the manufacturer say?" Some of them are clear but a lot have really... lose definitions. Some I don't think know the difference. As to alterations I've been told by manufactures that a master did not even need to call them to get approval. It was when I needed to add another set of three rings to my container for cutaways. It was clearly an ALTERATION. I wanted to send them a drawing and get them to sign it. They were telling us to just do it. That's when I got to drive down to the FSDO to at least get some one to sign it. That's an extreme example but SB are a lot more common. My question comes down to this. What constitutes an Alteration? Is there an actual definition to this? In theory there is an approved configuration for the equipment, a drawing some where reflecting the "Design". You could say that an alteration was any thing that took it out of compliance with that "Design". Example: say you wanted to re trim your canopy steeper. Crw guys do this sort of thing all the time. I think that would constitute an "Alteration". But what if the company has multiple specs for that canopy, several trims, also common. In this case it would still be in compliance with one of their "Designs". If they allow senior riggers to replace lines or reline canopies... Is this an alteration? By the same logic. Say there is a "Design" a SB comes out to fix a problem. Let's say that it's to move the closing loop on the main from a tong to the bottom flap. They have now established a drawing for this. This new configuration is now the "Design" of the rig. If a senior rigger repairs the rig to bring it into compliance with the "Design" established by the manufacturer is he altering the container. He took a peace of equipment that the manufacturer had declared unairworthy. and brought it back into compliance with the manufacturers "Design". If it had a broken line, out of conformance with the drawing, and he repaired that line, bringing it back in to conformance with the "Drawing". Would that be an "Alteration"? You could define "Alteration" as any thing taking the equipment out of conformance with the manufacturers established "Design". You might define a "Repair", be it minor or major, as an action that brings a peace of equipment that it out of conformance or standard back into conformance with the manufacturers "design". Under this definition many SB, approved "Alterations", could come under the heading of "Repairs". And if it is the manufacturers prerogative to define what constitutes a "Major" or "Minor" repair on there equipment, often people list the manufacturer as the first authority on this and industry standards as the second, then in theory the manufacturer could authorize a lot of SB. Next question. If we say that there is a "Design", a "Drawing" for this peace of equipment and that any thing that takes it out of compliance with that "Drawing" constitutes an "Alteration". How specific do we want to be. For every container or canopy out there, there exist a file. For example when I worked for Stanford, There was a file for every rig he ever built. It contained every thing, the original order form, specs on the container pattern set, every measurement in the harness, ripcord and housing lengths, tracking information on every peace of hard ware, fabric, webbing, all tracked through purchase order number back through lots in every supplier. You could pull that file and know literally every thing about that rig. So, lets say you decide to lengthen the main lift web. Common work done by master riggers every where. Take out one stitch pattern, move the webbing down an inch, and resew with the same pattern. Rig fits the new owner now. Is this rig still in compliance? It may match the original manufacturers "Design" but it no longer matches the "Drawing" and data in the file. Measurements have changed and the thread no longer comes from that lot. If fact where does that thread come from? Where is the control or specs for it? In the file that junction was inspected and signed off. No more. And it's not like those dimensions can't be important. Harness fit and design isn't actually that simple. People have fallen out before. This is just one example. What about replacing a lost ripcord? That length is specified and can be critical. Sound silly but I'll give you a precedent. Javelin says that you can't replace their ripcord with any other even from another TSO'd manufacturer. They have their special terminal pin. It's in their drawing. They call that an "Alteration" and do not authorize it. My point is that maybe we should be treating these things less casually It's not that much of a stretch to ask some one to notify a manufacturer and get permittion to alter a MLW. It could be a standard form and then the manufacturer could have tracking on that. If it needed to be repaired they could send materials or hardware and have tracking information on both rather then to have it replaced with twenty year old webbing and a peace of hard ware from Para gear and don't get me started on the thread. So what is an "Alteration"? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Agree. I don't think $25 would cover the annoyance of the shrinkage you will get when you wash it. Washing a tight rig can turn it into a night mare. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Let me preface this by saying that I have never been in the military. What follow was explained to me by some one who has been. He was rather drunk at the time of the conversation and my memory may be imperfect as well. I do think that there has been blatant abuse and violation of the civil rights of the prisoners in custody in the "War on terror". I firmly believe that it is unlawful to hold them indefonantly. At least this guy got some kind of trial and sentence which puts him ahead of many. This may shock you, I realize I sound like a winy liberal when I say this. The truth is I'm about as far right as you can get. I ran into Gangus Kan at a party the other night and we got to talking politics and he basically told me that I needed to chill out. My solution to all of this is that we need to follow the law. I talked to a retired army officer about this once and he straightened me out. There are "Laws", rules, or at least agreements that cover this. They go back for centuries. When you fight a war. Every one picks teams just like in gym class. They all put on uniforms, skins and shirts. They line up on opposite sides of a field, just like in gym, and they fight. It's like dodge ball in PE. That's how it's done. There are agreed on penalties for cheating. If you are caught fighting out of uniform you are hanged or shot depending on what ever is most expedient, some times there isn't a good tree or rope available. That's one of the rules. There are other rules, or at least gentleman agreements. Like you don't serrate the edge of your bayonet or use hollow point/dumb dumb bullets. There are lots of rules that we've agreed on over the years. Like you don't put some one in a cage and set them on fire and watch them burn. In fact there are a lot of rules about prisoners. You actually have a responsibility to protect them. That is if they fought by the rules. I think it's time that we all started following the "Laws", rules, agreements that every civilized nation on earth has committed to. I believe that it is a violation of their human rights to hold these people indefinably. Ether they play by the rules like good solders, in which case they are prisoners and have the rights of prisoners, they are laid out in the rules. Or they are an... "Unlawful Combatant", I think that's the right term. By the laws of land warfare that is not allowed. They must be marched out into a courtyard and hung by the neck until dead, or shot. When ever we catch one of these people fighting out of uniform, with out a direct chain of command, I think there were some other requirements but I can't remember them, we need to execute them. They should be interrogated. That's fair. The rules allow that. But once you squeeze every ounce of intelligence out of them they must be executed in a speedy and humane manner as stated above. It is a violation of there innate human rights to imprison them indefently with out trial. This is my understanding. Apparently they actually have classes in this when they make you an officer. Could some one chime in and clarify this for me. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Sorry I wasn't clear. I mint a master rigger if it was a non TSO'd part or the an approval from the FAA/Manufacturer for a master rigger if it was a TSO approved part. My bad. It's my illiteracy showing through in my writing. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Define, non structural. There are approved, TSO'd, componants and... every thing else. A main container is not TSO'd a main is not TSO'd but still it's not supposed to be altered by a non rigger. If an "alteration" is approved, almost any thing could be done even to the reserve tray and harness. There isn't really a definition for "non structural". So depending on how anal you want to be, sewing a "patch" whether it's painted or not, onto a component could be called an alteration requiring ether a master rigger or FAA/manufacturer approval. In theory even the Mud flap which is about a "non structural" as I can think of. Reality is way different. We all have horror stories of the abuses suffered by innocent containers at the hands of their owners. The "Marksalot" rig, If he didn't want the stripes to be pink he shouldn't have bought the rig. The "Glitter" rig, I suspect there were drugs involved. The Epoxy rig, don't ask. In most cases these poor abused peaces of equipment continue to serve there owners fatefully even in the most abusive relation ships where all of their self respect has been stripped away from them. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com