riggerpaul

The lanyard from the RSL to the actual 'hook' comes off of the hook. Then you get a convential RSL activation. I have seen videos of this happening; taken via handi-cam. I think everyone would like to know why. Just my thoughts . . . JerryBaumchen Agree. The red lanyard came off the hook. Seems to me that a spin with a high enough rate would mean the reserve pilot chute "sees" the relative wind as coming from the side. Having the reserve pilot chute pulling in that direction might slip the hook out of the lanyard. I wonder if it also depends on the direction of spin, with one direction being more prone to slip the lanyard off the hook than the other. Love to see your video. Is the reserve pilot chute pulling perpendicular, or nearly so, to the line from the jumper to the main?

MEL, I wonder if you maybe had an earlier, pre-publication version of the PRH when you saw this. I just used my PDF reader to search the PRH. I first searched for "12". There were hundreds of "12" in the document - page numbers, "12" inside other numbers, etc, etc. But none was part of anything that said "8 - 12 SPI". As a double-check, I searched for "SPI". Again, there were many occurrences that were not just the "SPI" meaning "Stitches Per Inch". But in all the occurrences where "SPI" meant "Stitched Per Inch", not one of them mentioned "8 - 12". So, in a nutshell, I couldn't find a single instance where the PRH said "8 - 12 SPI" for anything. (Yes, I know - too much time on my hands.)

MEL, why didn't you include the next paragraph in the material quoted from DRAFT AC-105-2D? Here's the paragraph I know you don't like it much, but this paragraph is pretty clear that mains and reserves have different definitions for major and minor repairs. Don't just pick the paragraphs you like when you quote.

Looks like we're going down that road again anyway. The FAA has never classified relining mains as a major repair, except possibly in AC 105-2C, which is not a regulation and which is open to interpretation. In the most common industry reference, Poynter's Parachute Manual, there are a number of references to line repairs and replacements, and all say a senior rigger certificate is sufficient for line work on a main parachute. That has been the case since the original Parachute Manual was published in 1971. The FAA may have looked at this issue repeatedly, but until they produce something in writing, we can have no confidence in what someone says they purportedly think. Mark You didn't even mention that the draft of AC-105 that is kicking around includes language saying a senior can replace a line on a main. I know that MEL argues that such a statement is wrong, but the very presence seems to indicate that there is a shift possible on this particular point. MEL, can you stick to the safety issues, please? Is the information about the techniques for a main reline wrong to the extent that following it will likely result in an unsafe parachute? That would be a safety issue. Worrying about who does the work, given that the work is being done properly, is a regulatory issue. Is that the only safety issue you have? Thanks!

Okay, we've beaten the horse to death on matters of record keeping and such. Nobody's going to die because of incorrect records. That's not saying that records aren't important. Of course they are for a wide variety of reasons. But I'd like to shift the discussion some, if I may. Mark (MEL), can you point out errors of a practical or physical nature? Is(are) there error(s) where the PRH says to do something in a manner which you feel is wrong, and might result in a failure of a component or system? Please, I don't mean this as a challenge or attack on you. If there are mistakes that might contribute to an injury, I want to know more about them. As I said, nobody is going to get hurt because my records are different from yours. But if there's stuff in there that could hurt somebody, that's a different matter altogether. Thanks!

If you are considering the Silhouette, don't forget to check out the Pulse.

They (AFS-630) is looking for someone to write a replacement manual. Mr. Johnny Malone is the POC AFAIK. I will post some ifo regarding "Issues" with the PRH later...right now I'm headed out the door to go skydiving. Later, MEL Is there a call for bids? Or is it just something some people are thinking about?

I've jumped both and I prefer 7 cells. Does that make me a bad person? Perhaps it would be helpful for the low-timers reading this if you'd explain why some experienced jumpers prefer 7-cells. Well, there are some classic statements that can be made, among them, things like - 7 cells stall less sharply9 cells have more power in the flare7 cells can sink better9 cells fly faster The problem is that we are in an era where these classic statements are being rewritten. Modern 7 cells have more flare than earlier 7 cells.Modern 9 cells don't stall as radically as earlier 9 cells. It does seem that, for generalities, it is reasonable to say that many many, maybe most, people like a 9 cell canopy for all around happiness. It also seems that people who grew up with the performance characteristics of 7 cell parachutes find that a modern 7 cell parachute is simply more of everything they ever wanted from a canopy. In the end, people really need to invest in the learning experience surrounding canopy selection. Jump different canopies. Demo canopies that you are considering for purchase. Each person's likes and dislikes are his own. One man's most hated canopy is surely another man's dream canopy. (PS Andy - please read your dz.com email)

Not mine! This manual has several issues and a contract has been inititated for it's immediate replacement. The "issues" range from personal opinion of pratices to lack of knowledge of the CFRs(FARs) in a few areas. ...but it sure has some pretty pictures in it! MEL Echoing likestojump's inquisitive attitude, please tell us all you can about the contract for replacement. What, exactly, do you mean by "initiated"? Is there a contract our for bids? Has the job been awarded? It is a single source procurement? Do you know who is writing or how much money the contract involves? It shouldn't be a secret of any sort, so please elaborate on your teaser.

While I applaud the concerns you have expressed, in this case, they are misplaced. It is an official FAA document, and as such, the FAA is the author of record. It is offered by the FAA free for download. Printing it or not has nothing to do with respect for the author. Had this document been published through commercial or private channels, I'd agree with you. But the manner in which this document was published removes those concerns.

Maybe it is time to try to talk less about cell count, and more about aspect ratio. While some say that the Velocity is a 7 cell, it has an aspect ratio of 2.69 (or higher) to 1. The Spectre has an aspect ratio of 2.14 to 1. Making generalization about performance or the strengths and weaknesses of a canopy used to be fairly well aligned with cell count. But as materials and construction move forward, we may find that such generalizations based simply on cell count will not work so well.

It seems to me that your best hope to get an answer would be to ask PD. If they tell you something interesting, perhaps you could post it here.

I can't tell if you're really serious or are using a bit of facetious hyperbole as a teaching example. If you're really serious, then, for example, car rental companies and ski slopes (slippery slope indeed!) should do the same thing with all of their customers, too. Well, that's sort of hard to answer. I suppose I'll have to say "facetious hyperbole". But, there is some truth to the idea that if you drug test some, you really need to drug test all. I don't like that idea even a little bit, but if some people really think drug tests are needed, then they really should take it to the proper conclusion, and test the customers too. What Matt says is true that in our US society today, it is up to the business owner to make this decision. Just as some dropzones mandate AADs, they can mandate drug testing. I really do think that if they are going to test the staff, they should also be testing the customers, because anybody in the plane should be cold sober while they are there. So, in that I don't think anybody would ever actually consider it, I was facetious. But, if someone really does want to mandate drug testing, let him do it all the way. I suspect they would quickly find sound business reasons to stop. -paul

There is daily use, and there is daily abuse. Apply to pot, alcohol, OTC drugs, prescription drugs, whatever. Pot will likely be legal again. Legalization came close to passing in CA last November. It this about the legality or the impairment? "Use" is not the issue, "abuse" is. Legality is not the issue, impairment is.

I would hate to be the DZO on the witness stand trying to defend that statement. If the DZO knew or should have known about the Safety meetings and did nothing to prevent them, he is screwed. Period. Is a defendant required to testify?

It occurs to me that if you really want to be sure that substance abuse isn't putting your business at risk, you need to test the jumpers too. Any one of them could do something that brings down the whole airplane. A truly safe operation needs to have all involved in that safety. Your staff deserves that same peace of mind as your customers do. So, if you test the staff, test the jumpers too. We're all in this together.

Got a link? I didn't see anything on their site http://www.flyaerodyne.com/download/SB140111.pdf I guess captain1976 has more friends than just Mr. Search.

I am not aware of any such "8 hour" tests. Are you? Sure, you can do what you want. But, there's another factor that you might want to consider. If you force a person who smokes some weed in a manner that would not affect job performance, to stop smoking that weed, there is bound to be some resentment. Maybe you'll know it, maybe you won't. But that person is a ticking bomb for you and your business. It would not surprise me at all that such a person would arrange a poppy-seed-positive just to have the opportunity to sue you to the poor house. So, are there really "8 hour" tests?

Well, I've been against testing without cause for a long long time now. I've never had to take one. As far as accepting it as commonplace, well, you can chip away at rights a little at a time, and people will hardly notice. But one day, they realize that their rights are gone. So, how much of this testing actually reveals anything? Mandatory testing is, to me, very much admitting that everybody would be a drug fiend if the opportunity presented itself, but we keep it in check by testing. If your employee smells a brewery or like he just got baked, FIRE HIM! If you don't have people who look stoned, they probably aren't. Testing didn't do that, good people did that. And if the same guy gets baked on his days off, what's it to you? If he demonstrates and impairment, FIRE HIM. If not, leave him alone. Matt, go have a couple of poppy seed bagels and have your test. Report back here to tell us how it feels when it shows up positive. (Yes, it really does happen.)

In CA, DUI is DUI. Doesn't pertain to just alcohol. I don't know how they establish impairment. Considering the effects of OTC drugs on the status of your medical, what it comes down to is presenting the illusion of safety, not the fact. According to the FAA, your pilot of tandem master can be messed up from taking an antihistamine. You are not testing for that. So again, you present the illusion of safety, not the fact. Others have commented on the ramification of that illusion. No need to repeat them here.

Sure, I think that regular drug testing is an invasion of privacy. We don't regularly have a breathalyzer on hand, though if one favors drug testing as a condition for continued employment, maybe we should. I have no problem with testing in response to an apparent impairment. But a positive test is not always proof positive that there is an impairment either. Testing is also a problem when certain drugs are in a hazy status. (Oh! I didn't think about that pun when I first wrote it. Sorry. Questionable or indeterminate status.) There are states with medical marijuana laws, and some that have considered legalization. In California, it is now only an infraction to possess small amounts for personal use. No trial, a fine, and no criminal record. For tandem masters and pilots, there are plenty of drugs that will invalidate their medical certificates. Do you suggest testing for them? They are equally illegal to be used while exercising the privileges for which the medical certificate is required. Now, please understand, I do not advocate JUI. I just don't like testing before the fact.

There are two ways to look at it. I don't know which should be the "correct" interpretation. First, there is the visual appearance of the problem. A horseshoe mal was named for the shape of the malfunction, and that shape was that of a horseshoe with the opening facing down. It went from the jumper up to an arch of equipment above the jumper, and back down to something else that was but should not have been attached to the jumper. By this definition, I wouldn't call the event of this story a horseshoe. But the other way to look at it is by the nature of the problem that results, that being that a simple cutaway does not let the main leave the jumper, and the chance for an entanglement with a deploying reserve is great. By that definition, this is a horseshoe. We can call it what we like. Maybe we should choose a new name. How about we just call it "your shit is snagged and will not leave without more help" malfunction? A "shit snag" for short. Then we can focus on something other than the semantics of the name, which really doen't matter a whole lot in the first place.

So, please tell us what your considerations are. I have no affiliation with any particular brand of gear. If you have things to say about a rig, by all means, say them. I'd like to know personally so that I can do whatever possible to be a better rigger. If you don't want to post, send a PM. Don't just leave us hanging.

Is it a BASE canopy? The student rig option sounds like a strong contender. If that isn't convenient, you might think about direct bag deployment.