riggerpaul

Exactly what I was trying to get at. The perspective of the average Joe on the street that has probably done neither. "Scuba! Hell Yeah let's go!" "Skydiving!? WTF, you are out of your damn mind!!" I think that you have to look at the whole "fear of falling" issue. Scuba diving is related to swimming. And lots of people swim, and so are not wildly fearful of water. In addition, some will tell you that our prenatal immersion helps us to handle fears of water. (I don't know, but it seems plausible to me.) Not saying this is a correct attitude. Only saying that it is common. But, fear of falling is big for most people. Though you can acclimate to it to a great degree, look what happens when you take a break from skydiving. The fear of falling issues come right back. Most of us likely had fear of falling issues in our first few jumps, or even more than the first few. It just goes to show how ingrained the fear of falling is, and overcoming it is a pretty big deal.

can you tell us the data rate on this stream? I am a satellite internet user. high bandwidth data can be a problem.

(US Law, of course. DJL asks the question from the USA, so the USA answer is given.) FAR 91.307(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved type and has been packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger—... So, whether required or not, if it is available for emergency use, it must be approved. We certainly can discuss the regulation and/or question the appropriateness if you like. But for now, the regulation stands that any parachute available for emergency use must be an approved type. That's why a pilot's rig must be TSO'd.

Both are factors and nobody should be erroding the margin of safety by not fulfilling their contribution to a safe skydive. If you exit downward, you create your own margin, and do not rely on the action of any other to contribute to your safety. If you really want to ensure your own safety, don't do something that relies on somebody else doing the right thing. We call that "self preservation". It is a good thing in skydiving. If you want to insist on a conventional jump run for your solo low-pass exit, fine. I support your right to do it that way. But don't tell me that I cannot be safe without it.

Just as a data point, I'll mention that banks accepts stamped endorsements on checks, possibly preferring them over a handwritten signature. Since checks are actually legal documents, I think this lends some weight to the notion that a stamp constitutes a legal signature.

The online 65.111.b still has the words "maintain" and "alter". But, I just noticed that the page also carries the notation that it is current as of 12 March 2010. Don't quite know what to make of that. Maybe we must wait a little longer for things to percolate. I'll keep monitoring. I'll certainly post if/when anything changes.

The word "alter" was included in the paragraph so that the instructor could "alter" the parachute packing to make the openings more comfortable if needed. A lawyer put that in there. It has been addressed and on Feb 26, 2010, I was told it now has been corrected to reflect it's true meaning. That meaning is not to allow anyone other than a Master rigger to accomplish alterations on mains. First off, the online FARs have not changed yet. Maybe they will change soon, but they have not changed yet. Maybe it is too soon to expect to actually see the change yet. Were you also told that the word "maintain" will be removed? Because, if it is not, our quandary remains much the same.

The problem, as I understand it, is that 65.125.a.1 does not specifically exclude main parachutes. This leads to interesting interpretation that, according to 65.111.b, certain non-certified persons might legally do major work on a main, while a senior rigger might not. Some feel that 65.111.b trumps 65.125.a.1, while others feel that it is the other way around. This comes down to the question: in the face of conflicting regulations, do we adopt a more conservative, restrictive interpretation, or a more liberal, less restrictive interpretation? (I am no lawyer, but it has always been my understanding that when one law apparently allows something that another law apparently prohibits, the law that allows trumps the one that prohibits.)

Don't we know it. The PIA Rigging Committee should draft something in clear language that the FAA would be willing to consider. Does anyone know if it's in the works or has been tried before? I think this doesn't apply, because the reg is "if improperly done", which I take to mean the task is accomplished but is done so improperly or inadequately. What you are describing is simply a mistake, a screw-up along the way, which adds work and/or rigger cost to the repair. Agreed. Again, perhaps the PIA Rigging Committee should be looking at this. I specify the PIARC because were it to be left to the manufacturers, we would not have the desired uniformity of understanding. You don't like the velcro example, and say that mistakes are not what the regulations are trying to address. So, what are the regulations trying to address? Do you think that there are a whole lot of senior riggers out there who are just making stuff up? If that's what you think, I don't think we can address the problem with regulation. If people are willing to do something that they know full well they don't know how to do, you aren't going to stop that with regulation. Regulations will mostly keep the people who are already conscientious, and not willing to do things that they cannot do, from doing more things. They are not going to protect the jumping public from cowboy riggers who will always do whatever they please. Anyway, what sort of error is not just a mistake at some level. Please give an example. Because a conscientious rigger will research his work if he has not done it before. And if the research doesn't not result in a clear understanding of the task at hand, he will not proceed. Using the example of replacing the locking loop on a riser, do you think that with those machines and those instructions, you could not accomplish that task? Do you think that you could not tell if your work was acceptable? But, according to riggerrob's suggested limits, it should not be done because it uses a 308 zigzag and a Class 7 machine. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Rob's suggestions are off the wall or anything, but trying to write rules about this is a slippery slope. I think this repair is pretty straightforward, and the instructions are pretty clear. Just because the machines involved are outside the normal home machines, that doesn't clearly mean that it is too complicated for a senior rigger. And, after all, Sandy Reid, an accomplished expert in his own right, says it is acceptable for a senior rigger to do this work. Maybe the only practical approach is to establish a set of instructing that describe all the work that a senior rigger can do. Maybe the whole thing hinges on how good the instructions are, as opposed to drawing a line in the sand that a senior must not cross. Over time, the library of accepted instructions would grow, and existing instructions would be updated. Using this sort of library, a senior could be fairly certain that he was doing things the right way. Maybe that would be a good task for the PIA rigging committee? Establishing the library of instructions for the tasks we need to accomplish. Sure, it is different from the way things are done now, but it also has a certain elegance. It will automatically help seniors gain experience they need on the journey to being a master, and it will help keep them out of the fuzzy fringes of new work and techniques that are being developed, if only because they don't yet have appropriate reference materials from which to work.

As NovaTTT asked, was the parachute you shipped the size the buyer ordered? The buyer posted that you sent the wrong size canopy. He posted that he ordered a 128, and received a 115. Simple question - Was the parachute you shipped the size the buyer ordered?

Interesting article. Do you know if there are any FBOs on the airport? Fuel concessions? Repair shops?

Maybe you weren't really talking to me. I have not made or posted any judgment regarding night tandems. rhys posted regulations that seemed to me to prohibit night tandems in his locale, though he posted those regulations as evidence that night tandems are legal legal for him. I asked for clarification. He quoted another regulation that answered my question, and I am satisfied with his answer. timmyfitz asked about violating USPA student wind limits. I pointed out that USPA student wind limits apply specifically to solo students. If your question was posted to the world, then fine. If your question was to me, you are asking the wrong person. I am not trying to argue about night tandems one way or the other.

Are you saying the tandem passenger holds a certificate per 5.5.1? Are you saying a tandem student (in the U.S.) has an A license or greater when they jump in winds greater than 14MPH? USPA wind limits are for SOLO students.

Are you saying the tandem passenger holds a certificate per 5.5.1?

Maybe there should be a time out that triggers removal if nobody otherwise prevents it. As a courtesy, dropzone.com might send an email to the official contact once a year. Nobody answers? Drop the listing. It could probably all be automatic.

Good policy, in my opinion. People have died because they accidentally sewed their reserve to their rig, and then tried to use it. Maybe so but it's impossible to accidentally sew the harness to the reserve. That would not be the reason for removing it. Sunpath has told me that they will do NO work on any container without a complete inspection. I don't know exactly when they started that policy, but it has been in place since at least last November, when I had some emails with them about their services and policies on container repair. Of course, you can't do a complete inspection with the reserve packed.

Yeah right.. as if I know of a very few people there on the BOD who fit that description. I know of a couple DZO on there who do give a shit about skydiving... but there are plenty others there that do NOT have the best interests of the members as their primary motivation... Well, you have to give Craig a bit of slack because he was not on the BOD when officers were elected last winter. That's when you learn about the lackeys and kissups and people that have double standards. He still has stardust in his eyes. . Craig didn't say that he thought the current BOD was built that way. He said how the ideal BOD should be built. As I see it, he's looking to the future and saying "Why not?".

That's odd. I use spell checker a lot, and I don't have operational problems. Sometimes it flags things I would not expect, like "that's". Sometimes the suggested corrections are nuts. But it doesn't lock up on me the way Terry mentions in his post. FYI - I've been using Firefox for a couple of years now. But I don't recall problems from my IE days either.

If you are ask to surrender one, you are not necessarily being asked to surrender any or all of the others. If they were all on a single card, then being asked to surrender your pilot's certificate would technically mean you had to give up rigging too.

On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, if the effort was well enough organized, it could be made to happen. A less drastic, step by step approach might have a chance. Maybe we begin with getting the DZOs to agree that they support the effort in principle. Not all the DZOs would get on the list right away. That's not a problem. Don't make them actually stop taking the certificates until such time as all the dropzones in a region have signed on for the program. Then, when you finally have all the dropzones agreeing in principle, you get everybody to agree on some date in the future on which to pull the plug on Skyride in their area. Dave basically said the same thing, except that I've put more stress on getting everybody to agree before moving to the next phase. Again, doesn't have to be immediately. But once all agree in principle, there is a hope of actually accomplishing the goal. Maybe once a DZO sees the list growing, he will be more inclined to join the effort. When he sees that it could work, maybe it will have a better chance. Lou, I agree that you can't get a DZO who accepts the certificates now to stop if he expects that business will be lost. But maybe, when you show him that the entire region is ready and willing, maybe then, he would be willing too. Taking it one step at a time might make it a real possibility. And, there is really little to lose in trying to make it happen this way. Nobody needs to spend much money, or maybe any money at all. Certainly not at the beginning. Maybe not at all. Next question. Would such an effort to organize be at any risk of becoming the target of a suit alleging anti-competitive business practices?

One of the things that occurs to me is that you fault the fellow for not wearing the teacher hat. You say that you teach speed flying, and that you would never just tell someone to go away. You really didn't approach him as a student-to-instructor, but you fault him for not acting like an instructor. We can discuss all day if we should all be instructors all the time, but when it comes right down to it, not everybody wants to be an instructor, and even instructors don't always want to be instructing all the time. Also, you first say that he wasn't rude or obnoxious. In your original post you tell us he said, ""I am not going to help you, I do not think you have the experience to be jumping that advanced of a parachute". But later you say, 'It was a blatant "You are not cool enough to be in this hangar" move. ' That's pretty obnoxious. But I think you did some reading into the original answer to get there. The way I see it, you really didn't give the guy a fair chance to respond to you in the manner you thought would be appropriate. So, even if he was being a bit of a turd, you contributed something to the poor outcome too. If you want someone's help on something, it greatly improves your chances of success to appear help-able.

I hope my snips haven't taken your words out of context. Poynter has been a generally accepted source for many years, but it is neither error-free nor up-to-date. The same can be said for the Parachute Rigger Handbook. If you look in Poynter, the reference to cutting with a scissors is in preparation for fingertrapping. If you follow his instructions, you will be screwing your fingertrapping needle onto a scissor-cut line. He also writes that the bartack should be close to the formed loop. The diagram doesn't match the text. And Icarus does not bartack close to the formed loop the way PD does. Does that mean Icarus is doing it wrong? Mark Hi Mark, No problem with your snips. If we really want to be picky about what I said, then I will also point out that what I said was that I was taught that I must do what I said. I never claimed to be an expert, I said what I was taught. I never said that other ways were wrong. I only said what I was taught. And my teacher said "must", so I pass that along when I tell you about it. We can argue about whether it was correct for my teacher to teach me "must", but that gets rather far from the original point of the discussion. What I was taught has ample support from recognized experts as an acceptable way to do it. That doesn't mean it is the only way. Still, though there may be other acceptable ways to do it, if I do it the way I was taught, I don't think anyone will ever say it is an unacceptable finger-trapped loop, any more than I would say that the finger-traps on the Icarus lines are wrong or unacceptable. riggerrob said he found a finger-trap with a hard melted end left inside. I said that I was taught never to do that. Regardless of what other particulars might be taught, I still hope that whoever is doing the teaching is clear that leaving a hard, possibly sharp, melted end in the line is wrong. Just because there may be several or even many ways to do it right does not mean that leaving such an end in the line is not, in fact, wrong. Regardless of the wording, the original point in response to Jerry's post was that there is a whole lot of knowledge that is not written down, but is still passed on. Sure, I can learn to do something one way, and you can learn to do it another, and neither may be wrong. But each of us should have been taught some acceptable way to do the things we do. So having a particular method written in every manual that needs us to exercise our skills should not be necessary.

Thanks. I appreciate your saying so. Really. So what am I missing about what Jerry said?

Rob, thanks for your response, and especially for telling us the location in the manual. Incidentally, I don't think I even have a scissor that will cut Spectra at a shallow angle. Anyway, when Poynter says "scissor cut", can we all agree that he means "not hot knifed"? There is a notation on the illustration on page 350 of Poynter's Parachute Manual Volume II, that says,"In all finger-traps, it is very important that the end of the inner line be trimmed with as long a taper as possible. Trim with a scissor, not with a hot knife."(The undeline actually comes from Poynter.) Jerry, Poynter used the word "all". I take that to mean that this is the way it must be done.

Jerry, Rush, Is there an accepted technique where you leave a lumpy end, or a sharp edge inside the line? Is it acceptable to not have a smooth transition at the end of the interior line? You have objected to what BrianM and I said. But you've left us hanging, since you've said nothing about how to be better. Teach us so we don't make the same mistake again. riggerrob, What do you teach when you teach about finger-trapping?