riggerpaul

Jerry, of course we can disagree. And, to be sure, I am not taking the position that I think the regulations as written are the only way they could or should be. But you said - My intent is only to show the forum why I believe that the issue is addressed in the FARs. I make no attempt to say if the regulation should be that way. My only goal is to show that the regulation exists. I have said before and I will say again, if you choose to do what might not be allowed by the regulations, you should at least know what regulations you might be bending or breaking. We certainly agree that there is no regulation that simply says that you need a third parachute to do an intentional cutaway. The regulation is much more open-ended than that. The regulation says that you need "at least one main parachute...". So you are free to have more than one if you choose. But, no matter how many main parachutes you have, you must still have a reserve parachute, and the definition of "reserve parachute" includes the notion that you do not intend to use it at the outset of the jump. Maybe there are ways you can argue that the regulation doesn't really say that. But just looking at the definition shows that there has been an attempt to address the issue of what constitutes a legal reserve parachute. The way I read the definition is that whatever you choose to call your reserve parachute, it must not be your intention to use it at the outset of the jump. If you or anyone else wants to disagree with my interpretation of the definition, that's fine. But anyone who wants to make an intentional cutaway with a two parachute rig should certainly read that definition and decide for themselves if it covers the situation or not. You or anyone else have the freedom to interpret the definition differently from the way I do. But you cannot claim that the definition makes no attempt to address the issue. It would be irresponsible to proceed without considering that definition and deciding for yourself what that definition means. -paul

I don't mean to challenge your way of thinking. If it gets you to the same conclusion, go with it. But, as I see it, the definition of "reserve" parachute includes the idea that you do not intent to use it at the outset of the jump. A reserve is a certified parachute that will be held in reserve for the unusual condition that you need it. Anything that you intend to use at the outset of the jump does not meet the that requirement, and so cannot be your reserve parachute.

That depends on what you think of the choices of those additional 15%-30% who didn't care to make the effort before, but can vote more easily now. As Moshe said, the mail-in ballot hasn't been that hard to use. If that's what kept those people away, I don't know that I really want them voting now just because it is easier. Simply increasing the vote count may be literally more democratic, but it doesn't necessarily say we'll make better decisions. If it only serves to enhance the popularity contest aspects of the voting, then I would say, "no, it wasn't worth it". Of course, we won't know until we do it, so I guess we should give it a go.

The definitions I found for "emergency" included words like unexpected, or unforeseen. A couple were a bit broader, and said generally unexpected, and usually unexpected. Some also included the word sudden. In the strictest sense, it would seem that a dire situation that was created intentionally is not an emergency. It still comes down to the notion that a reserve parachute is expected to be held in, well, reserve, and not used as a matter of course.

I sent a PM to one of the more learned posters on this site asking him what I am asking you: Show me anywhere in the FARs that this issue is addressed. If and when you find it, I will admit to being incorrect. Simply: The FARs do not address this issue. That means that there is no FAA req'ment that you wear a 3rd parachute. In fact, every TSO standard since 1949 has had a req'ment to perform at least one live jump on the equipment being tested. Those standards only allow that the harness can be modified for the addition of another parachute. They do not require the installation of another parachute. If I am wrong on this, I will readily stand at the front of the line and admit so. Now, would it be intelligent to not have a 3rd parachute: H*** NO!!!!! In fact, for my one & only intentional cutaway I had a gut pack hooked up to the harness. I like to at least think that I am somewhat smart. JerryBaumchen First off, I hate to argue with you, Jerry, because you so often show me the error of my thinking. I don't particularly like some of the regulations we have, but when I can be convinced that they exist, I usually try to follow them. FAR 105.43 calls for a rig with at least one main parachute, and one approved reserve parachute - (emphasis mine) Reading 105.3 Definitions, a reserve parachute is defined as - (emphasis mine) An intentional cutaway can hardly be called a failure of the main parachute. So when you chop the intentionally chopped main, the next parachute you deploy is clearly used intentionally, unless you are contemplating suicide by skydive. But the definition of a reserve parachute is that you only use in the case of a failure of whatever you were using before it. So, in the case of an intentionally chopped main parachute, there must be another parachute, that is not your reserve parachute, that you intended to use. The reserve can only be used in the event of a failure of that parachute. Count them up. That makes 3 total. The one you intended to chop. The one you intended to use after the chop. And the reserve that you didn't actually intend to use. I eagerly await your response! (Honest!) -paul

It sort of doesn't. US Senior Riggers are not allowed to make patches over a certain size or near a seam. Small patches that are not near a seam are considered minor repairs. Patches over a certain size, or near a seam are considered major repairs, and require a Master Rigger. I am having trouble locating my document that contains the particulars of size and distance to seam. I am sure it is in Poynter's manuals somewhere, but I don't have that handy. The recent FAA Parachute Rigger Handbook that I have handy didn't seem to mention these particulars. If someone else has the info handy, I hope they'll post it. But, in this instance, it is of little consequence. The description of the canopy said these patches were applied at the factory when the canopy went in for a reline. They are allowed to do whatever they want, and I am hard pressed to think that their patches would not be of the highest quality. While I don't know if I would call that "strengthening", it is certainly not something to worry about a whole lot.

What happens to the obvious mistake in the last page?

possibility of an AAD cutter jamming on the loop ... " .................................................................... This is the first I have heard about cutters jamming loops. Rather, my experience has been that anytime a sharp edge touches a tight closing loop, the loop fails almost instantaneously. Rob Warner FAA Master Rigger Canadian Rigger Examiner factory certified to maintain FXC Airtec certified to install Cypres retrofit kits Isn't there some suspicion in the Polish Argus incident that the cutter was jammed on a partially cut loop?

Hand deployed reserves would be a lot less AAD-friendly. I don't think that we can go back there.

In computer security its called "security in depth". When one part fails, another part should make up for it. I don't see anything wrong with making the system perform better when one part in the process (the rigger) has failed, even if the end result never can become perfect. In this case one failure mode is traded for another. I think the riggers making mistakes is a more common failure than the cutter malfunctioning, but I don't really know. What you are saying is that you will accept certain rigging errors, but others are unacceptable. You will never make a rig that can get the reserve out if the rigger left his molar strap inside. But you accept a rigger who does not know how to properly size the closing loop. I think that is a bad way to approach the problem. We must not accept an inferior rigger. There are simply too many things he can do wrong that can never be accounted for. If the rig has a problem with a too long closing loop, maybe that is the problem that should be solved in the first place. Then you can leave the cutter in a place where a cutter malfunction does not lock your rig closed. Maybe the root of the problem is a rig that hides the mistakes and still looks okay. If the too long closing loop was clearly evident when you looked at the rig, you would not allow your rigger to tell you it was okay. AADs are a fact these days. Since they are so nearly universal, we should have rigs that don't jam shut no matter where you cut the loop. Then the cutter can be placed in the safest place and not be an additional source of problems.

The willingness to ignore the VFR rules for skydiving might in part depend on what the air traffic is like around your dropzone. I don't mean to say that is right or acceptable, but as you say, some consider these rules bendable. Where I am, I don't want to bend this stuff at all. My home dz is in some busy airspace. There are a number of standard instrument routes to/from SF Bay Area airports, but that traffic is usually well above anywhere we are. We are near a heavily used corridor for all sorts of lighter aircraft entering or leaving the Bay Area airspace. This includes both IFR and VFR traffic, so, it is not impossible that a cloud would have traffic in it. We also have an active glider population at the airport. Guess what, they share the VFR space around the clouds with us. As I said, I have no interest in bending any cloud clearance rules. There's just too much aluminum floating around where I jump. But if you are in the middle of nowhere, with little air traffic, I can maybe see where some might not feel as strongly as I do.

If you're worried about the cutter jamming the loop, then you would want the cutter below the freebag, not below the pilot chute - no? Of course that then gives you the potential for a too-long closing loop jamming in the grommets - but at least the ripcord should still work. Pick your poison... There have been rigs with the cutter between the freebag and the pin for a long time. That's why I mentioned the theory that a jammed cutter might still be "cleared" by a deployed pilot chute. And it is clear that the cutter doesn't have to be "below" the freebag for a too long closing loop to jam in the grommets. The Mirage didn't have the cutter below the freebag. And the Infinity didn't either, but Tony specifically mentioned the too long closing loop issue. Was I worried about jammed cutters before? Nope. Not until someone said that there's an instance where a cutter jammed on a closing loop, and the reserve didn't deploy. But moving to cutter so it might even stop a pilot chute from deploying takes the whole thing to a new level. Personally, I have a Javelin, and I like where the cutter is located, just above the closing loop anchor. If there are riggers making the closing loops too long, then fix the riggers. Fixing the rig is a slippery slope. There will always be something else to fix afterwards. The way I see it, we should have our riggers know how to close a rig, so that we don't have to protect ourselves from rigs sticking shut from a too long closing loop. And the cutter should not be anywhere that might interfere with a ripcord reserve deployment. The Racer presents an interesting problem for cutter placement. But maybe the two-pin design side-steps the issue of a ripcord deployment being balked. That's a whole separate discussion.

Mix in that there's some question regarding the possibility of an AAD cutter jamming on the loop, and I don't quite know what to think. If the cutter is below the pilot chute and jams on the loop, maybe it will still pull free? But if the cutter is above the pilot chute and jams, even the ripcord might not help anymore. Should be go back to pin pullers? Should we develop some sort of modern pyro-powered pin puller? (Those last 2 are mostly jokes. But, maybe only "mostly" and not "totally".)

So, where the heck are you? As has been mentioned, what is legal, customary and even safe can vary depending on where you are. So, where are you? If you don't want to fill in your profile, that's fine. But at least tell us what country you are in. Thanks!

There are countries where the cutter location is set by their laws?

Oops! You are right. Even though I checked the document you link before I wrote the post, I still did it wrong. My bad. The OP said he was in Ireland (I think, but seeing as how I don't seem to be able to remember anything for even a minute or two now, who knows?). That's why I asked what the unit of currency for his numbers was.

What is the currency unit for the price numbers you mention? Do you really get a battery and a service for 125 of them? If this were a US AAD, the maintenance at SSK is 180, and they get 85 for the battery. And then you pay for shipping both ways.

Actually, yes you did. You said, If I take a BASE course, and I make a jump with "that one chute", you are talking about a BASE rig.

(I have edited post to ask the question better. Sure, some in-plane rigging is a possibility, and I've done it myself. So, please let me ask the question a bit differently.) If your cutaway handle got pulled while you were still in the airplane, would you jump without fixing it? Imagine you were at the end of a long line heading for the door of the DC-3, and you noticed it then, would you jump anyway? Or would you stop to fix it and miss your group?

Do you take your skydiving rig on a BASE jump? If it is reliable as you say, why not? I never said I want 3 parachutes. But I don't want anybody to take one away from me either. The remoteness of the possibility will mean nothing to you when you are the one going in.

The cloud clearance regulations also apply when flying a canopy. If you open above a cloud, you must get 2000 feet horizontal from the cloud before you are less than 1000 feet above the cloud. You can fly under the cloud again when you are 500 feet below. As previously noted, these numbers are for below 10,000 feet MSL. Above 10,000 MSL, use the clearances mentioned in other posts.

Since I'm the one who was overly dramatic about losing 1 of my 2 chances, I'll respond. My response has taken some time because I wanted to be sure that what I say does not come from the heat of the moment. BASE rigs are different from skydiving rigs. They have different design goals, and they have different strengths and weaknesses. Would you and your friends put on your BASE rigs and head for the plane to do some freeflying? Maybe I am mistaken, but I don't think you would. If you read the recent Skydiver Advisory, you know that there have been enough cases of reserves failing to work for reasons as yet not determined, that there is some cause for concern. If I was BASE jumping, my concerns would certainly be different. But, in a skydiving rig, I don't want to give up any of my chances unless I absolutely must.

Have you ever seen film/video of a Gooney Bird land? Makes one wonder why they are not extinct. JerryBaumchen Ha ha. Goonies never land, they only arrive. Not a great name for an airplane. I only mention it for completeness - DC-3, C-47, Skytrain, Gooney Bird. (Yes, I understand that a DC-3 is not literally a C-47. Are there more differences besides the cargo door?)

Don't let's forget the name "Gooney Bird" either.

That's because this is dorkzone...the mob's torches torches are always lit. Mob or not, if somebody's dumbass fuckup just took away 1 of my 2 chances for survival, I'd be plenty pissed.