masterrigger1

The FSDO manager can elect an inspector to give the O&P but that Inspector has to hold a riggers certificate. It does not have to be a Master's certificate. Also, they will be busy and it most likely will be a date, well into the future, before they will/can give it. You can on the other hand request for another DPRE to test in your area. We do this every year. BS, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Crossfire I has 40 lines. (10 A) - (10 B) - (10 C) - (10 D) Crossfire II has 36 lines - Only 6 D lines The line trim is different, but only slightly. The brake set is similar... The uppers on both canopies are unequal lengths. The safire I has equal length UST's, not the Crossfire I. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Not actually true! Pete uses my line files to make line sets which are not factory line sets,,,,, neither or mine. They do measure out the same though. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

You can contact us at Skyworks Parachute Service. We have them in stock. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Chris, We never close the flaps over the drogue release loop until preflight. This helps ensure a complete look at it. Also, I noted that one of the reserve closing loops had an extremely large loop. This is not good as you really want the cutter to see only a single finger trapped portion of the loop. Glad you made it through it all! BS, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Tuffy, That is a great machine if it is in good shape. Rags from PD uses the same machine in his setup at PIA every two years. ( well, he missed the last one). The 188K has the same hook and race assembly has the 31-15. This makes it easy for parts. It has a wide range of abilities and IMHO the best canopy sewing machine around. It does have a shorter arm length than the standard machines, but for someone starting out, it is good enough. It also has reverse, just in case you were wondering..... Cheers, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Mark, I see where you are going with it, but I believe that it is a dead-end road. The word and definition of "supervise" is not going to change. The tasks involved and allowed will. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Yes. The difference is that there is not a rule that states the person doing the repairs has to have a certificate. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Here's some pictures of my canopy hanger. It is large enough to hang a 400 sq. ft plus canopy on, but you could just downsize the thing some. The garage door tracks really are great as it keeps it from swinging around. Cheers, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

That machine is a collectible. You might want to put it up somewhere. It is a vibrating shuttle machine, sometimes called a sliding shuttle machine. It differs in the way the top thread and bobbin thread are interconnected. On that machine the shuttle (along with the bobbin) pass through the top thread loop made on the upstroke of the needle. On other machines, you have a hook that catches, then flips the top thread around the bobbin thread. The machine that you have can sew a lot of different materials including very heavy stuff because of the VS and the way it works. I personally would showcase it and buy something else. Cheers, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

I have no idea why they wrote it that way. But, because there are no provisons of supervision, for a parachute intended for use,it makes it illegal if supervised and used. This is why they use mockups or "for training only" engines in the AP schools. I used old B-12's and NB-6 rigs that were not airworthy when I did my back and chest certificates. It was the norm back in the day to use un-airworthy rigs for your pack jobs. It still is at most rigging school courses today, but they are using more modern un-airworthy gear. Cheers, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

per·verse (pr-vûrs, pûrvûrs) adj. 1. Directed away from what is right or good; perverted. 2. Obstinately persisting in an error or fault; wrongly self-willed or stubborn. 3. a. Marked by a disposition to oppose and contradict. b. Arising from such a disposition. 4. Cranky; peevish. I really thinkk you are going after #1, but maybe #2 here with the word "preverse". In any case, you are assuming in your theories that the work preformed for training is to be used and the Regs are at fault or error. It is a flawed theory... The way it was explained to me, at a meeting about 6 years ago, the work for training (packing) is "Not for Use". The reason why is that the packing process is believed to be a continual inspection throughout the packing process. The certificate holder,(rigger), is the only one that can legally do inspections "for use". The same applies to an AI for annual inspections for aircraft. He/she cannot allow another person to do inspections for "return to service" work or inspections unless he/she follows up with their own inspections. With parachute packing, there is no way a post inspection can be preformed, so it cannot be legal. This was explained to me, in detail, by lead FAA personnel at a DPRE recurrent seminar. Mark, I replied, just do not know why the post is not there. But, I intend on being there.......... MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

What compared to What? The MC1-1C to a Sabre with casscades or to a Hop 330 tandem canopy? MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Mark, No, you disagree with the FAA and also myself. Supervision is not permitted on a rig that is intended for use. It states it plainly in the rule. Supervision is allowed for anything NOT intended for use, like training. It is that simple. You have to be a certificated rigger to pack a parachute FOR USE. 65.111 (a) No person may pack, maintain, or alter any personnel-carrying parachute intended for emergency use in connection with civil aircraft of the United States (including the reserve parachute of a dual parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping) unless that person holds an appropriate current certificate and type rating issued under this subpart and complies with §§65.127 through 65.133. There are no provisions for supervision for reserves intended FOR USE. There are provisions for the rigger to supervise a rigger canidate NOT FOR USE. That is the difference. Remind me to bring this up in the DPRE Recurrent Seminar for you if it still does not make sense to you. Cheers, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Well. you might want to educate him a little. It is illegal for anyone other than a certificated rigger to air, inspect, and pack a reserve intended for use. A rigger cannot supervise anyone else for this. Maybe what you are seeing is educational rigging at it's worst! Cheers, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

The rig can have the exact same part, but still be manufacturered differently. The whole 20 year life issue sucks. i have made my mind up NOT to support the manufacturers that do this. I used to be a big Para-Phernalia fan, but no longer. The same goes for Butler.... PIA needs to get their act together. With this measure, they basically state that a rigger does not have the ability or right to determine if a parachute system is airworthy or not. The FAA thinks differently as I hear it. The second part of the problem is that USPA and PIA issue a notice to riggers claiming that the riggers are responsible of determining if a system is compatible and airworthy!!! In this issue the manufacturer simply wants to push responsibilty of a poorly designed system over to the rigger. This would be just like Toyota stating that the garage mechanic down the road could OK the throttle issue that they are still going through. Both the USPA and PIA have no regulatory oversight with regards to riggers and their work. With that said, which train of thought does PIA have? Do you think riggers have the ability to and right to determine if a rig is airworthy or not? So which is it? From what I am hearing Part 149 may be coming back. If so, I would just make mine a repair station and rebuild the affected rigs. ...and yes that is legal. even now. BS, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

That's funny! Andy, Great job finding that canopy BTW!...real heads up! MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

No...Common Sense. That reserve has been packed because it had not been removed from service previously. If it had been marked, I do not think it would have been packed. I bet if you asked the riggers in question should it have been marked, you might just get a "yes" from them. Like I said the earlier TSO's referenced Mil Specs. I have attached a PDF file for you. Please note MIL-STD-849. It spells out the inspection process and standards. Mil specs were not just for fabrics and materials as you stated. Cheers, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Bunky, I have heard that these are pretty good machines. I actually have been looking at one on EBay also. Cheers, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Well, that's your opinion and I think you are wrong. Here's why! From the Old outdated 149 Parachute Lofts: 149.15 Reports and Records (b) Each holder of a parachute loft certificate shall report, on a form prescribed by the Administrator, any recurring or serious defect, or other unairworthy conditions, that he finds in a parachute or part thereof. Yes it is old, but shows the intent. That has moved I believe to part 43, but will have to find it for you. So you are speaking for everyone else??? How did that happen? I know of at least 10 different riggers that you do not speak for... that is just today alone. But....I will give you the data card issue...no pack, no data card entry. YOu do have to log all work performed in your log book though! You are correct, it is not my right but my responsibilty to do it. Have you ever done a destructive pull test that was positive? ....and then handed the now unairworthy canopy back to the owner? And as far as the label, the manufacturer usually identifies with defacing the label as voiding it. The old TSO's usually referenced the MIL specs on this. I believe if you will look there you might a few things. Again speaking for everyone....??? JFYI, That was a PD160R. Sent to PD because of of what is believe to be a chemical intrusion of sorts. It was brought in by a customer. Slight dark stain of the center cell topskin in two places. The UST's on the left were hard like they had super glue in about 10-14 inches of them. Also in the left stab B-C-D just below the stabs. You could literally snap the lines into pieces. PD returned the canopy as you see/saw it. Feel free to ask them about it if you are still skeptical. Cheers, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Mark, Sorry, But I just do not get what you are saying. Not complying with a service bulletin is in my world, a defect, therefore I would note that in the log. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Jerry, Yeah, I know, but it was "...an example" that Mark asked for. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Mark, I consider looking for SB's and AD's part of the inspection. Can you cite the document(s) that provide that info or guidance? From TSO-C23d... TSO-C23d 6/1/94 Page 2 (v) Detailed maintenance instructions, including specific guidance on the limits of wear and damage permissible to webbing material that would warrant replacement. (vi) The quality control inspection and functional test specification to be used to ensure each production article complies with this TSO, as required by part 21, section 21.605(a)(3) and part 21, section 21.143(a)(3). Cheers, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Gary, Agreed! But we are talking about a canopy that needs new ribs installed...and no one has the patterns need to make them! I think this issue would be pretty much universal in the outcome if you asked a few different FSDOs. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

The FAA cannot make you work on anything. I never said that anyway. What the FAA does expect you to do is note "any defects" found. In this case the rigger did not pack it, but did do work on it it in the form of doing research of which he found out that there was an issue. It is absolutely no different than if you found a acidic round parachute. You have the responsiblity to take it out of service.....and PIA has a procedure spelled out for the riggers. I have to ask why you would not make the effort to do it anyway? Simple. Call your local FSDO and ask them what to do when you identify an un-airworthy parachute or airframe component. BS, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com