masterrigger1

It really depends on who does the patch, the type patch that is applied, and also how well the patch is installed. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Warm Springs, GA was run by Banks Brasille and closed in 1995. Elijay, GA closed about 1996. Barnwell, SC - Vikings of Denmark- Closed about 1996 ish And my all time favorite DZ, Beaver Valley Skydivers in Beaver, PA closed late 1990's. [inline Beaver_Valley.jpg] Lots of good times at these places! MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Simply remove the lines and re-sew the three point WW. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

You usually do and I respect that to some degree. Not really. I have already been in discussion with the FAA regarding these issues. If it is found that the TSO item is not meeting the same standard as previously tested, it can be pulled. Jerry, if you think that a towed PC is not an issue or considered defective, we have a real problem here! Again, see previous quote. The videos and my personal eyewitness data shows that the PC is weak. Maybe we need to add some qualifications to the TSO standards to qualify that. I have witnessed videos on here that were longer than 3 seconds.... I am glad you agree on this one. The FAA is looking at this very issue right now just so you know. Again see above.. Negative! You might want to speak to the FAA on this one. Take an airplane for instance: Cessna does their testing and states what is compatibile with what from their own testing to comply with the TSO. A mechanic that wants something else that differs with the TSO either has to get a field approval or a STC for that change.In this case the mechanic has the full responsibilty. We on the other hand are simply assembling standard assemblies that are TSO'd with in the same family of TSOs. If you look at the old 23B, you will not that it states what canopy the H/C is compatible with right on the label. Look at some old containers if you will. The Manufacturers no longer comply with that for some reason. MEL Got tandems to do... Busy weekend Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Well That one has one of the items I mentioned. The H/C... Did this one have the newer Fabric? Yep, two items. I am very familiar with this one BTW.... MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

I would like to see that data. In the last, lets say 15 (estimate) most recent fatalities, they all have used one piece of equipment, if not more than, one piece or part that I have pointed out in my previous post. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Lee, If you really think that the gear is not the major issue, you have an issue IMHO. I will lay it out in plain text for you. There are five issues: 1. The OPT reserve snivels. Several openings have been filmed at longer than 3 seconds which is the standard for TSO certification. Previous canopies meet the three second rule. So there is a major difference in performance and design. 2. H/C's ( all of them) have been gradually locking down the reserve and main flaps with "new and improved" methods which hinder deployments. 3. Reserve Pilot chutes had been filmed "towing" after a successful cutaway on the Wings container. I personally have witnessed one towing after a dual deployment. The main came out just before the Cypres fired. The Cypres fired and the pilot chute deployed and was towed at 30 plus MPH and never extracted the freebag. In this case it was a good thing; in other cases it was bad. 4. Speedbags from Jumpshack take longer to deploy a canopy than did the previous, simple two stow version freebag. Simple physics applies here. 5. TSO standards- The TSO standards have changed over the years which has allowed some manufacturers to slide through some loop holes regarding deployment times. Deployment times are a key component in not dying in this sport in case one does not know this. Yes, the person needs to responsible enough to the pull handles, but at the same time if the gear is equipped with an AAD, it should save the life of the user. This is why we install them. When we install the AAD into a system, it as a system should work as designed. If it does not, we have effectively a failed system as a whole. So when several people are lying dead after an AAD fire on those systems, those systems should be reported as such to the FAA as failed systems. I can assure you neither the PIA, USPA, or any manufacturer has done just that. By reporting this to the FAA, they (FAA) will in turn go to the manufacturer of each component to assure that that equipment meets the TSO and also could issue an AAD to pull the equipment from service. Testing for performance standards and compatibility is the responsibility of the manufacturer and the FAA; not PIA. The bottom line is this: We never had these issues with Vector IIs, earlier Javelins, earlier Talons (except for all of the ADs and pilot chute issues),Ravens, Firelites, PDR reserves, and etc. We do now have issues with the newer gear. The new gear IS the difference between then and now....period. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

This is exactly why we have a set syllabus for each type of certificate already. We teach the essentials that are needed for the certificate plus some additional items. Fees are usually based on a per day rate. Like Mark has already stated; it is really not cost effective to have an apprentice working in the shop in the way that you have described earlier. It is best to have a set learning objective and a plan to meet that objective with both the student and instructor at the beginning. This should include the course material and cost. Cheers, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Nope, he gets them from me. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

You beat me to it! A lot of people do not understand the theory of what you just said though. For you that do not understand this, parasitic drag cocks the PC. Which means that if your kill line PC has moved a little, do not worry because the same parasitic drag will re-cock your PC unless the kill line is caught inside the bag. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

It has a lot of photos that makes it really shiny. The basic jest of the manual leans towards Rigging Innovations equipment,...like 95% leaning....... I could understand this If they were not located right by one of the worlds largest DZs were other gear was readily available. I cannot find any info in there that IMO is considered fantastic though. It is a simple numbering system, so I do not understand the issue with locating the information there. The difference in my errors is that mine are for a forum. Theirs was for a subject matter book that should have been both proof read and peer reviewed by someone outside of their click; which the later was never really done. I also usually get on here very early in the AM where I am both still trying to wake up and rush out the door resulting in a very error prone situation. Depends. You never know what 12 gray haired ladies sitting in a jury box may think! MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

If the gear is manufactured under 23f, I would say that is true. But gear that holds a previous TSO like 23b, etc.. that gear has to meet that previous standard. Also. if the H/C is manufactured with lets say 23b, then it still needs to meet the standard regardless of what canopies are in it even if the canopies are manufactured under TSO 23F. On these earlier TSO'd rigs, the three second rule applies regardless. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Absolutely! Get both Volume I and II. They both have a lot of reference material that is still used today. The Parachute manual that Peter referenced is not a very good one. It has numerous errors through out it's context. Bad enough that it is being re-written right now. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

I guess it depends on when you start timing. I am going from handle pull. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

You probably need to look at several times. He is probably near terminal again if not at terminal when the AAD fired. Just going from the rotation of his feet is 4.3 seconds to impact. The early video on the same page has about a 4.0 flat second deployment. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Ken, Here's is one that falls in the 4-6 second category. http://www.deepseed.com/d-spot/blog/liam/inside-no-pull-cypres-save-0 Look for the shudder of when the P/C is released and also when his feet rotates which is about 1-2 seconds into it. You can find them on YouTube. You can also find some of them on here. Simply type in parachute malfunction and sort through them with a stop watch. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Not quite! You really need to look at some recent cutaway videos. I think you might just get a wakeup call. There are several that are in the 4-6 second range and some even a little longer. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

I never said that. I do think (since they have the incident report and etc...) they should man up and let everyone know what gear is in question. No, I am not proposing that. I am saying that certain gear needs to be certified again by the manufacturer. This is exactly what the PIA AND USPA should have done instead of issue a notice to riggers which was a failed attempt to put the onus on the rigger instead of the manufacturer. With regards to the "can of worms" statement. Sometimes you have to take out the "stinky trash" so to speak...Somebody's go to do it or it never gets done! MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Several points here: 1. Yes 5% is acceptable on my end 2. I think the 3 second rule needs to hold up in at least 95 of 100 tests by the manufacturer. The same type parachute (not the exact same one) should be used in a SPC (Statistical Process Control) mode were a sampling on the finished product is pulled and then tested. 3. The same with a random rigger that packs the same: not necessarily the same factory rigger. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

If the FAA was petitioned and the equipment was questioned by the FAA; the it would be the manufacturer. I do believe a third party needs to also witness all testing in the future though. Who that would be is a good question though. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Mark, I would go with the low number of 95%. If 95 of 100 deployments in testing met the 3 second rule, I would consider it to be in compliance. I think expecting anything higher is improbable or maybe even impossible. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

USPA did everything except put their name on it. They were joined at the hip with Cliff Schmucker of SSK (read AirTec here) during all of this. They issued notices on their web site, posted Manufacturer's SB, and also issued notifications to DZO's. Yes they were involved.... Everything we do opens USPA up for litigation. Also, by USPA knowing that unsafe gear is being used and not sharing that information to it's members opens them up for litigation. According to a board member that called and informed me, the reason that the hard deck was raised was because one of the leading canopy manufacturers asked for it. Their latest and greatest reserve snivels as can be seen on various videos located here and on YouTube.com. Add that to a low cutaways or AAD fires and you have dead people! Sound familiar? MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

You are missing one thing that USPA can do. They can dis-allow any members from using gear that is questionable or unsafe at group member DZs. The previous Argus issue comes to mind..... MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

It is not just the AAD manufacturers. PD has a the OPT reserve which takes longer to open which PD self admitted in their first ads. Wings has issues with reserve pilot chutes not getting the freebag out... several videos out there of this. The list goes on.... PIA needs to address these issues, but hey, it's "the fox guarding the hen house" scenario. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Not Assuming..just using the information that was provided. It was a theoretical response to a given scenario. ...and then we would know that they did not do their homework and didn't know what they were talking about,... at least for here in the USA. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com