riggerpaul

(Sorry to repeat. Those other posts weren't there while I wrote this.) Are you in any particular hurry? You say you weigh 175. Is that in the shower, or out the aircraft door. If in the shower, you likely weigh more like 195 out the aircraft door. I see you jump at Mile Hi. So, you have a field elevation of about 5000 feet. What is your currency THIS SEASON? Are all of your jumps last season? First guess - no, don't go to the 170 now. Get current, and then, after they've seen how you are performing, talk to the instructors and S&TA at your dropzone. You have a lot of stuff stacked against you - not a lot of jumps, (probably) not current, high elevation. What's the hurry?

Argus is grounded here in ALL rigs (not only student and tandem). Licensed skydivers can not jump with Argus, yet they can jump without any AAD. I'm not kidding - if you are licensed skydiver, and you have an Argus in your rig, then you have to turn it off prior to making a jump in Poland cheers, Bart The posting with the translated Polish Airworthiness Directive said, "All AAD Argus devices used in the Republic of Poland and used by tandem pilots and certified in Poland parachuting training organizations are grounded."Is there a problem in the translation? My reading of this translation is that it covers tandems and students, but doesn't say anything about regular licensed jumpers.

Aren't these services (Priceline, Orbitz, Travelocity, etc) essentially different in that they get lower prices for the consumer? I was under the impression that SR increased the price of the jump. I don't know about this new service. Does it increase or decrease the cost to the consumer?

(Asked only in the interest of a more complete understanding. Knowledge is power.) Do you need any particular level of probable cause before destructive inspection is authorized?

Thanks for the tip. I'll keep that in mind. I don't think we've seen many seats in the loft at my home dz, but I'll talk with the master there to see if this is an opportunity for my. I am not too fond of the notion that we would pack a rig many times, essentially for our own convenience. If the packing is really the source of much of the wear and tear on the system, then we are essentially stealing some of the life of the equipment from the rightful owner. Or do you think I might be too ethical in this? Besides, if MEL is correct about the supervised work not being allowed into the air, the work must be redone after I do whatever I do. All in all, it is a sub-optimal situation.

The rule (not interpretation) has been written as it stands now for many years. It was not changed in 2001. That rule, 65.111 paragragh (a) can be read in the very early versions of poynter's in it's original version. That would be well before the 2001 "re-write". The regulation was written with the same intent as the one for IA's. We, the skydiving and rigging community, never read the rule for what it really meant. I too, was quilty until this was pointed out to me very vividly by the FAA a few years back. Cheers, MEL Yes, 65.111 has not changed much. In 2001 they added stuff relating to tandem parachutes. But 65.125 is where it says what type of supervision a rigger may provide. And in the earlier 65.125 there was no mention of anything in Part 105. If only said that a rigger could supervise any work that was a privilege of his certificate and type rating. When a mechanic supervises and apprentice, it means that the mechanic takes the responsibility for the work on his certificate, even though the apprentice did the work. The work is not re-done. That being the precedent, when a rigger supervises a student rigger, the certified rigger is allowed to take responsibility for the work on his certificate, even though the student did the work. Why should the work be re-done? The restriction on supervising relating only to main parachutes seems to have come with the poor wording in the change of 65.125 in 2001, where it refers to paragraphs in Part 105 that speak only of main parachutes. Regarding IAs, isn't it still the case that an owner can assist the IA in his aircraft's annual inspection? That is, the IA supervises the owner, and the work is covered by the IA's certificate. Again, when supervised by an appropriately rated person, the work is not re-done. What different intent did the FAA tell you about? Because it would all seem to hinge on that. Thanks for any clarification. -paul

That's a lot of the reason I am still a "Senior" I just cannot see doing 100 chest repacks, when I will essentially never see a chest reserve again. Maybe it is supposed to be considered a rite of passage, and my not wanting to do them makes me unworthy. But to me, it just sounds nuts. I have had discussions with at least one person who says that the 2 types thing was likely to be removed in a rewrite of the rigging stuff in Part 65. But that rewrite never came, so here we are.

Now, for all practical purposes, we don't log our main parachute packing. So, it would not commonly be possible to "present evidence" of main pack jobs. And also for all practical purposes, when you go to a rigging class, you are likely going to pack and log reserve parachute pack jobs, since that's what they are trying to teach you. But a back pack parachute is a back pack parachute, main or reserve. Just one more bit of silliness in our FARs. This is a common misinterpretation, arising from casual or imprecise language. In normal conversation, we use "type" to mean "kind" or "sort." In that sense, a skydiving main canopy is usually worn on the back, so it is a kind of back parachute; a base canopy is usually worn on the back, so it is a kind of back parachute; and so on. However, for the FAA, "type" has a specific meaning. It is short for "approved type," one manufactured under a type certificate, or under a TSO, or a personnel-carrying military parachute . For the FAA, a main parachute is not "typed.". A main parachute is not a back, seat, or chest "type." 14 CFR 65.125(c) specifically exempts us from having to comply with 65.129(a)(the requirement for a type rating) when we pack, maintain, or alter a main parachute. 65.125(c) allows a certificated rigger, without regard to type rating, to pack a main. A chest-only senior rigger may certainly pack a main canopy for someone else to use. Mark Damn! You are good. I was going to try to mention that "Certificate Required" is in 65.111, which is not one of the excluded paragraphs. But closer reading of 65.111 says you need a certificate, and makes no mention of a type rating. Tricky tricky tricky. By the way, I want to add that I don't mean to make a big argument. This discussion is fun, and picking apart the language is not always easy. I mostly try to figure it out because I feel that it is essential to understand what laws you are breaking, should you decide that breaking them is what you will do.

I am sure that you are right about this. But that leaves the other part of what I was discussing. Is it legal for an unsupervised rigger who holds only a chest rating to pack a back pack main for someone else?

I wouldn't argue that when you go to the FAA, they will say that they want to see that you packed 20 reserve parachutes. But, in fact, the regulation does not say "reserve parachutes", it only says "parachutes". Now, for all practical purposes, we don't log our main parachute packing. So, it would not commonly be possible to "present evidence" of main pack jobs. And also for all practical purposes, when you go to a rigging class, you are likely going to pack and log reserve parachute pack jobs, since that's what they are trying to teach you. But a back pack parachute is a back pack parachute, main or reserve. Just one more bit of silliness in our FARs. Consider this - if you are a rigger who holds ONLY a chest rating, I do not believe you can legally pack a back pack main parachute for another person, because you do not hold a back rating. And we are only supposed to pack parachute for other people when we have the correct type rating. Of course, this may be a moot point, because nobody really seems to care much about the legalities of main parachute packing in the first place. -paul

First off, there is still some controversy regarding that recent interpretation of the regulations. Funny it should be mentioned now. I just has a few messages with Terry Urban about this very question. The gist seems to be that there is substantial support for the new interpretation being tossed. I guess it doesn't really matter though, if the FAA says that's the was it is, that's the way it is - at least for now. Anyway, that being said, I don't see where the new interpretation means you can only use condemned gear. What it says to me is that another rated rigger must repack it after the candidate does. That surely sucks if you are using PD reserves where each repack is counted. BTW - I got a response from John Sherman about the classification of a Racer reserve. The current position of the FAA, which is also widely contested, is that a Racer has a back type reserve parachute. -paul

My recollection is that there have been changes in the way we can use Racer pack jobs in certification questions. I've send a PM to John Sherman to see if he has the definitive information. -paul

If it is cotton the reason would be to absorb heat. Cotton is extremely good at that. That is why on the original rings and ropes canopies they used cotton. I have seen through personal use cordura bags damaged from heat and used cotton to reinforce the area and no more problem. I imagine that this is doing the same thing on the UPT bag. Wouldn't the yellow kevlar tape that is often used at the bag end of kill line bridles do even better?

I'd vote for calling it the Hammerhead-i Eagle Thrust. That, or Geoff. Isn't Geoff the giraffe from Toys'R'Us?

Terry, I don't really mean to be argumentative here, but if you want to pick apart what I said, you at least have to look at the whole sentence. So, first off, I am interpreting the Advisory, and I think that is clear. I said it "alludes", and I said "there may be rigs". None of this is crystal clear. The distinction between "didn't deploy" and "didn't deploy fully" is of little interest to the dead guy. My main point is that I have come to the opinion that the Advisory did not make it clear how this problem could be relevant to any one of us, no matter how unlikely you think it is that you might experience a main total mal. It was easy for me to miss that this could very well apply to me and my rig. It took me 6 days to realize it. Do I overstate the case? Maybe a little. But I think it is needed to balance the understated case presented by the Advisory. People are absolutely free to totally ignore the whole matter. But I think that the jumping public should have a fair shot at seeing how serious this could be to any particular individual. I don't think that the Advisory was clear enough about that, so I will do what I can to add the clarity I feel was missing. So, let me ask these two questions. Can someone be hurt by overstating this warning? Can someone be hurt by understating it? -paul

Did you notice the part of the advisory that said there may be a problem with RSL deployments also? In that case, there is a problem with reserve deployment with the main container empty. So there may be a problem with the main packed, and with it unpacked. Which pretty well covers all the bases. Also, without knowing what other factors may contribute (and the advisory listed a number of possiblities), a successful deployment in the loft is not conclusive. Mark Of course, you are correct. But we must start somewhere. While a successful deployment in the loft is not conclusive, an unsuccessful one should be fairly conclusive in the negative sense. Personally, my own rig has demonstrated the ability to deploy the reserve when the main is gone. But I have never tested it with the main in. If it all still appears to work, I will be that much more confident. Maybe that's not conclusive, but it is all I can do. Nothing is a sure thing in this sport. The best we can do is to be sure that we are always doing the best we can do. -paul

Clearly, you've been doing this testing all along, and you don't need additional testing. But, to all the other Quasar owners out there, don't be sucked in to a dangerous presumption. Just because airtwardo's rig works does not necessarily imply that every other Quasar will work. The only information we have been given so far says that the particular combination of rig and canopies, and even rigger might come into play. And, of course, I don't mean to pick on Quasars. Any rig that hasn't already demonstrated the ability to deploy the reserve while the main is still in the rig could have a problem. Is that a risk any of us wants to take?

So is it basically being suggested that Vector is one of the "problem" containers? It is no longer necessary to identify which containers may or may not be a problem. The Advisory alludes to a situation where there may be rigs out there where the reserve will not deploy if the main is still in the container. From the Advisory, it is clear that the vast number of combinations and factors that may contribute to the problem will never yield to simple analysis and data gathering. There are just too many variables to adopt a "wait and see" attitude while the cost of each new data point will likely be someone's life. What we are left with is that any rig that has not be tested and shown capable of a reserve deployment while the main is still packed might have a problem. It really doesn't matter what brand of rig or canopy you have. The only way to know is to do the test and see how your rig performs. This is a lot like the reserve ripcord problem of a few years ago. The problem may be extremely rare, and we might never be able to predict where the problem could occur. But the person who has the problem is likely going to die if it becomes necessary for him to make such a deployment. Testing is pretty inexpensive, and it quite literally could save your life.

Thanks Terry, I appreciate your comments. One thing I'll mention. I wonder if the Advisory could have been worded a bit differently for better acceptance. Though the recommendation to examine a reserve deployment included saying that the main should be in place, mentioning simulation of a total malfunction, reminding us that this also simulates a low exit in an aircraft emergency where you would go immediately to your reserve might have helped to get a clearer idea of what were are dealing with here. Now, maybe some will say that this is obvious. And there is no doubt that it should be. But it took me some time to get there myself. Though I would never claim to be the world's smartest skydiver, I am certainly not the slowest one either. So I am sure that there must be others who failed to make this connection. I admit that I glossed over that information, and my first thought was that I have never packed myself a main total, and I really think it is unlikely that I ever will. I keep my gear in tip-top shape, and I never let anyone else pack for me. So it was pretty easy for me to say to myself that I don't really have to worry much about main total malfunctions. In addition, I thought to myself that my reserve had proven itself 5 times. (They were all CF mishaps. None were a main mal of any sort.) So I just did not see this stuff likely to be terribly relevant to me. Sure, this was wrong thinking on my part. But none of us is perfect, and having that extra bit of information would have totally changed the way I looked at things. I wonder now how many people will upon reading this post say, "Holy ****. I didn't think of that!". Maybe none, but I think that there will likely be some. This realization really hit home for me, and it made me see that a gentle recommendation to watch at the next repack is nowhere near a strong enough message. My rig is in my locker at the DZ right now, so I have to wait until I am there to test. But I will test with the main packed before my next jump. I encourage everybody else to do the same. Sure, you might have to pay a bit for a rigger to reclose the rig. But that is a small thing compared to having a reserve that fails to deploy when you need it. This is not something that should be waiting for the next repack. This is something to check before the next jump. Again, thanks for your thought! I really appreciate your taking the time to answer. -paul

Can't do better than that. Good luck. Be patient. You'll do fine.

That is all well and good. But it relies on the seller/dealer to do the start things moving. In this case, it doesn't seem like the seller/dealer wants to have anything to do with it. So the buyer is left holding garbage. To me, that makes the seller/dealer a disreputable individual whom others should avoid in business. (And still, he has not answered the simple question - did he ship what the customer ordered?)

I am describing the most thorough way to do the repair. There are simpler ways that will likely not look as good. But, if you are doing the work yourself, you can spend as much or as little time as you like, and the dollar cost doesn't change. Personally, I like to fix things to as close to original condition whenever I can. Some people don't want to pay for that, so I either do it the quick way or ask them to take the work to someone else. What I am saying is that you want to see the pieces of the original construction and make them whole again. When you put it back together, you end up at the original design. Maybe that means you replace the entire piece in some cases. Yes, that means incorporating the new material into the original seams that were opened in the process. You could just patch it from behind, if you like, and if you really can get the machine in there (or you want to do it by hand). But then you have that frayed fabric that isn't going to look nice, and will probably fray more and maybe tear in the wind. You could do a bunch of criss-cross stitching across the frayed area to stabilize it, but it still might not look too good. Or, you can just slap a patch over the whole area. But that won't look like the original. It is all a question of how much effort you are willing to put into it.

Hi Terry, It is likely that all you say about the unpredictability of a reserve systems is true. And I'll admit that when people are needing an I&R and the rig is sitting on the ground with the main open, I often will tell them to just keep the main. I'll change that habit as a result of this advisory. But then, we are still left with the question of how to make our current systems sufficiently reliable that we are not faced with such an unpredictable outcome. Right now, there are a lot of things tied to the idea that a reserve is "supposed" to open in 300 feet. Our deployment altitudes are chosen with an eye to this, and our AADs are most certainly programmed with this parameter in mind. Maybe you cannot answer this, but if you can, or even if you have a theory, please try to say something. Is it likely that this problem will be improved by giving the parachute more time/altitude to deply? Or do you think that these are situations where the parachute is going to fail even if it had unlimited time/altitude for deployment? If the situation will likely respond to additional time/altitude, then it is already time to make some serious adjustments to the systems we use. Telling people to open higher will go a long way to warding off tragedies if altitude will help. (BTW - I like your idea that we should be talking about saddled-out altitudes as opposed to pack opening altitudes.) But I don't think that gentle suggestions will get the job done. And we also need the AAD manufacturers to change the firing parameters to help with the portion of the population that will decide to rely on their AAD instead of taking matters into their own hands. Many times in the past I have said that I feel we have a training problem if this "wait for the AAD" attitude is as common as it is. I get a lot of flack for that. I'll change my tune some here. Maybe it is not a training problem. Maybe we are training as best we can, but these people still fall back to the idea that the AAD will save them. Even if it is not a training problem, we still have to do something to address the problem. If it is simply the case that the we want to keep the types of people who think like this in the sport, then we need to accommodate them as best we can. If we cannot train them out of this, we need to give them other tools that will address the issue. This is why I say that maybe it is time to raise everything up a substantial amount, and to make adjustments in the AADs as well. If we expect it to take 700 or 800 or even 1000 feet for a reserve to open, the AADs must do their thing higher if they are to be acceptably reliable for the type of person who wants to jump these days. Some may say that we can already adjust the firing altitude of our AADs, and maybe, depending on how much altitude we want to add, this is a possibility. But it leaves a whole lot on the jumper, and I think it is a stopgap measure at best. So I think that we must have the AADs changed to give a wider margin to accommodate the jumper who is, despite our best efforts, going to rely on the device to save them. And them we must adjust everything else to take this change into account. If this problem has been going on for 10 or more years already, then it is high time that we do something real about it. So, do you think that an extra 500 feet would make most of these problems go away? Would 1000 feet be better? How high do you think an AAD should fire if we want to reduce the risk of a failed deployment to where it is negligible?

It won't exactly be pretty, but if you can find good color matches, it won't be so bad. Open up all the seams in the area of the damage, and add new fabric to get the various pieces back to the original dimensions. Then put it all back together. It is often more work than you would like. But that's the reliable way to fix it so it is not just going to be trouble from now on. In the interest of making it look as good as you can, it is likely that you will replace more material than you originally expected. But at least you won't have odd looking patches to piss you off forever.

In this instance what does it matter? Sounds to me like the person tracked back under the formation. Do you think everyone on a dive knows exactly what jump run is and knows which way to track? What if someone above you has tracked in the same direction you have and you can't see them above you? I've been disoriented by clouds more than once. My point is, if you can't rely on horizontal seperation, get some vertical seperation. I'm pretty new to this sport but I know enough that I don't want to be dumping in the middle of a formation, so I'm going to do what common sense tells me, and go low. You illustrate my point very well. Going back to my original post in the thread, this jump should be a wake-up call that his basic skills need work. Giving him some hit-or-miss advice about how to deal with this is essentially saying that is okay for him to put himself and the other jumpers in this situation again. That's poor advice. This fellow dodged a bullet. When he has so little situational awareness in the first place, you cannot give him any reliable plan for action. He cannot reliably execute any of the supposed plans. He can't track well, he doesn't know where to track to, he doesn't know where anybody is. The only responsible thing to do is to tell him that he needs to back up a few steps and fix what is really broken.