riggerpaul

Not recognize the difference between E thread and 5 cord? Compared to E, 5 is like rope. I know that the incident is real; I have heard of it before. But I wonder if the active parties were, in fact, certified riggers. If they were not, then it is an entirely different matter than what we've been talking about on this thread. There's no doubt that some mistakes can have dramatically disproportionate consequences. But I was never talking about doing things for which you have no training. If you don't know how to set up a BOC pocket, don't do the work. Part of rigging is knowing when you are in over your head. This is true even for "minor" repairs, not just "major" repairs. I have always found the distinction between major and minor curious, because even the most routine work, don't improperly enough, can compromise the function of a system. Please don't think that I am trying to say that anyone can or should be allowed to do anything. But trying to write clear rules about it is a tricky business. What would we say to a system where master riggers signed endorsements in logbooks stating that holders of lesser certificates had demonstrated the skill necessary to perform specific additional tasks? Masters not good enough? Okay, how about demonstrating to a DPRE?

When the line slides across a hard point, like a slider grommet or a steering line guide ring, the abrasive materials that are stuck on the line will be driven into the line. The wax will melt some from the friction and be wicked into the line as well, carrying some of that abrasive material with it. If a line is worn to where you want to hide the condition with wax, maybe it is time to replace the line.

Well, maybe not an expert, but I know you have a longer historical perspective on rigging things than I do. Though I've been around since the early 80s, I only started rigging officially in 2002. From your posts I reckon that you have a clearer recollection of what was around when. Anyway, I remember flat braided Dacron from the early 80s. As you say, I don't think it was coated, but I am not certain. I used to use some wax to keep the ends of my CYPRES-cord pull ups from fraying, but now I usually use Dritz Fray-Check for that. That's about the only use I have ever really had for wax in my kit. (Oh yes, SuperTack is waxed, but I don't make it myself.) Using wax to un-fuzz lines would seem to be hiding a problem to me, not solving it.

I don't know, so I'll ask you, Terry - when did lines appear with factory coatings? (the following is not directed at Terry, but to the thread in general) It seems to me that modern lines already have all the coating they need. If they are showing wear, well, it is because they are wearing, that's all. Hiding that fact doesn't seem to me to be the best idea. Observe the wear, and when they are worn enough, replace them.

Which is precisely why I began the discussion by saying that maybe it is time to fix the regulations. Here's exactly what I said: Things don't just magically change by themselves. Change is driven by demand. If we are not looking to change things in the fist place, nothing will change. So, do you think it is sensible that I can replace a BOC but I cannot convert a rig from ROL to BOC? Do you think it is wrong that I can replace the BOC in the first place? At the heart of all this is the notion that "major" work is different from other work. "Major" work has associated with it the possibility that, done incorrectly, it will render the rig unsafe for use. Almost anything done wrong enough could make a rig unairworthy. So why make the distinction at all? Well, because there are lots of things that are simple enough to expect that a reasonably trained person, like a senior rigger, can do them properly. If it was up to you, personally, would you want to say that a senior can only inspect and repack, and that all other work would require a Master? That's certainly one possible approach, and if enough people could be convinced, it could be made the law of the land. But if that's not where we should be going, then we should be trying to make reasoned evaluations of what is major and what is not. If the performance standards say that something is major when it is not, then that standard is wrong and should be changed. So, please tell me your opinion, should converting from ROL to BOC really be classified as a major operation? If so, please explain why.

Paul, It pretty much is spelled out in plain english here: From The FAA Inspector's Handbook.... E. Review Parachute Rigger Certificates and Seals (1) Determine if the ratings are appropriate to the parachutes packed. Ensure that alterations are only performed by master parachute riggers on parachutes for which they are rated. (2) Ensure that the rigger meets the performance standards and currency requirements of FAR § 65.129. (3) Review the rigger’s log book to ensure that records are being kept as required by FAR § 65.131. (4) Determine if the rigger has the necessary tools and facilities to accomplish the work. (5) Ensure that the rigger is placing the seal on each parachute It also is a listed by the FAA, as a task for Master Rigger testing.... BS, MEL PS - can't spell today! Well, you certainly love your regulations, don't you. I understand that the regulations as they are written call for a Master cert. That's not the question. I specifically said that that's not the question. I said, "Aside from the fact that the current regulations exist the way they do...". So I'll ask again. If I am capable of replacing an existing BOC pouch, why do you think I am not capable of converting an ROL system to BOC? This question isn't about the regulations. Please don't just quote regulations as an answer. The question is about capabilities, not about regulations.

One the one hand, 65.111(b) is clear that working on a main is still under the control of the regulation. On the other hand, this regulation does not say anything about the container. It is clear that it includes the main parachute, but one might be able to argue that the container is not covered. The regulations covering skydiving and rigging are a mess, plain and simple. Even with the rewrite of 105 a few years ago, the regulations remain arcane and difficult to interpret. Some like to interpret them to be more restrictive than they may truly be, while others want to take the less restrictive interpretations. We are forced to try to glean the intent of the law, and it is not always clear what those intents may have been.

Gary. If you change the deployment method, it is considered a modification. Simply put, if it came with a ROL and you replace the ROL it is a repair. If it came with a ROL and you make it a BOC, it is a modification. One that requires no paperwork because, 1. You are a Master rigger 2. It is an approved configuration by the manufacturer. (In most Cases) Cheers, MEL Maybe it is time we take some steps to put some sense into the rigging regulations. Converting ROL to BOC is no more difficult than replacing an existing BOC. Maybe it is even simpler, since removing the old BOC can be a real pain on some rigs. (Some rigs have the original BOC sewn into the seam of the back panel and the bottom flap.) Converting ROL to BOC doesn't necessarily mean removing anything since you can cover the old velcro hook with some pile tape. Aside from the fact that the current regulations exist the way they do, is there any compelling reason why this conversion should require a Master? (For the purpose of this question, let's say it is an approved configuration offered by the manufacturer. I'll grant that if it is not offered by the manufacturer, it is a different story.)

It is not trivial to determine what is the "right" way to measure a canopy. As has been pointed out, there are methods in use that result in different numbers for different designs. None of these methods is "the right" one. All are approximation. Further complicating the matter is the question of *when* to measure. Do you measure on the cutting table or in flight? Canopies are not rigid - they change their shape and size when you inflate them. Rigid wings on aircraft are generally measured using the "planform area" technique. This is approximately using the shadow of the wing on a flat surface below it. Another way to think of it is to imagine a the cross section of a vertical column containing the wing. If the wing is sharply tilted nose-up or nose-down in that column, the area can change signigicantly. The planform area technique works well on rigid wings, but is not so easy to do on an inflated wing like a ram air parachute. Then there's the question of how to factor in other aspects of the design, like the effect of the stabilizer design. Part of the effect of the stabilizers is to alter the "leaking" of high pressure below the canopy around to the top of the canopy. This is similar to winglets that are now often found at the wingtips on airplanes. Limiting the flow of high pressure from below the canopy means that you get better efficiency from the available lifting area, effectively increasing the span of the wing. If you don't factor this in, the performance of one canopy in relation to another may not be accurately represented. Two canopies, one with stabilizers that are more effective at this than the other, could result in the same number for measured area. But that number would not necessarily give you an accurate representation of the performance you should expect to experience from either canopy. The stabilizer question is just one factor, I am sure there are lots of other things that come into play as well. Simply measuring the canopy, by whatever method you prefer, is not necessarily going to give you the information you really want to know. - that being, how this canopy will perform when it is being flown. That's why the best advice is to fly all the canopies you are considering and seeing which one your prefer. The number just won't tell you what you really want to know.

I've read all the replies, and I didn't really see any that quite echo my sentiment, so I'll add my own view here. It depends on if it really got into your blood yet. If it is just something you did a few times, and you got injured, so you stopped doing it, well then, it doesn't seem to me that you can claim the name. But, if you hang at the dz because you love it there, and you do stuff that skydivers do (besides jump), or stuff that keeps you in the community like become a rigger, etc, etc. Well then, maybe you are still a skydiver. Still, if you don't yearn for it some no matter what you are doing to get your fix, then maybe not. We can't really answer the question accurately with the information that you've supplied. Answer the question for your self, but be honest.

September??? (That's what the subject line says.)

Paul=correct. Diablopilot=not so much. (BTW - different Paul) On the other hand, I get mostly on heading openings on my Spectre 210 loaded at about 1.4. They're not usually more than 30 degrees off either way, and are often dead on. To me, that's pretty good opening performance. I'm certainly still going to a place that I have been looking, as opposed to somewhere behind me. How far off do you allow before you call it "off heading"? If you want to talk about only the dead-on, then it is probably about half. I pack the nose wide open, and I take care not to roll the tail up much at all. Also, I am anal about keeping the pack job symmetrical, and getting it into the bag straight, which is a whole lot different from what I most often see on the packing floor at the dz. For instance, I see many people almost toss the cocooned canopy to the ground. I don't do that. I have one hand holding the lines and slider in position, while the other arm is stretched out supporting the rest of the pack job, and I gently lower it to the ground with a minimum of disturbance to the package. Essentially, I am using the same sorts of goals I use when packing a reserve, though for a main, I am a bit more lax. I am a little slower than some of the fastest packers, but I think it is worth it. So, I think on heading openings are a real possibility, but it takes more careful packing than most of what I commonly see.

I don't even really remember how I found it. I think a page below the "official-statements" page may have come up in a Google search. I bookmarked "official-statements" at that point so I won't forget. Glad I could help!

Terry mentions ParaGear S7025 and says don't bother for a number of good reasons. One the other hand, I use it, slightly modified to be more useful to me. When I first got it, I found that there were so many rigs with slider bumpers over the links that made it less than helpful, since iy wasn't easy to put the links over those vertical wings depending on how the slider bumpers were secured. I almost stopped using it altogether, but I hate wasting the money so I thought of a way to modify it to be more useful. Through each of those vertical wings, I drilled two holes. The holes are vertically stacked, and sized so that my T-bodkins will go through the holes. The holes match on either of the wings, so that a pair of T-bodkins can slide through them, perpendicular to the way the lines and risers will go past the tool. The way I use the T-bodkins is to put them through the flat portions of the loops at the tops of the reserve risers, just above where the stitching is. At that location, the risers are still flat, not bunched up for the links. One T-bodkin goes through the left and right front risers, and the second T-bodkin goes through the rears. The result is the risers are positively held nice and even. The webbing strap attaches to a cup hook hidden under the face of the cabinet that sits at one end of my rigging area. It may sound like overkill, and for many, it would be. But my rigging area has a hardwood floor that is so slippery that even weights don't keep the rig secure when I put tension on it. Then again, some say I am a tool geek, and that might go a long way to explain why I have done what I have done. If you choose to do something like this, I'll give one caution. Be sure that the vertical spacing on the pair of holes in each vertical wings allows enough room that you can put the risers on the T-bodkins. The distance between the holes needs to accommodate one layer of the front riser webbing, and one layer of the rear riser webbing. If you size it for a rig that has thick webbing on the front reserve risers, but thinner webbing on the rears, it might be too tight for rigs that have heavier webbing on both front and rear reserve risers.

I never said that the page I mentioned had the PSB-5 information. In fact, I specifically said that it did not. The fellow wanted to know where I found ANY information about the PSBs on Vigils. I found them at www.vigil.aero/official-statements.

I searched a bit and found something called "official-statements" that has some of the SBs listed. Try www.vigil.aero/official-statements and see if you see them too.

Thanks very much for posting this. Mike, the next few questions aren't really directed to you, but if you or anybody else can answer them, I would love to hear. I checked on the Vigil.aero website, and I didn't find any mention of this SB. Did I miss something? How is the average rigger supposed to learn of these things? If it wasn't posted here, I still wouldn't know about it. Another post mentions a rigger knowing about the problem and changing the cutter at the time of a repack. How did that rigger know? Was the information available somewhere? Is Advanced Aerospace Designs sending information to a select group of riggers, ignoring the rest of us? If there is such a list, how does one get on it?

Maybe you should have. I just searched, and the only thread that came up was this one. So, it seems entirely possible that he did search and found the same thing I did.

so have your rigger do the sewing.

Player-Coach is the best way to get better, fast. I think it's an excellent thing to have. True, that is a great way to train. But I personally don't think you should compete in that formation. Maybe its just me, but I don't really want to be in a plane with me and 3 other weekend warriors and look over and see another team that I'm competing against have Thomas Hughes as one of their members. You are going to tell me that that is fair? It's like entering a (non-professional) doubles tennis competition and you look across the net to your opponents and see somebody and Serena Williams... Though I see your point, I don't entirely agree. The other three on the 4-way team will still operate at their own level. Just because the pro is always ready to take the grip he is responsible for doesn't mean that the other fellows will complete there parts as well or as fast. When you are receiving a the ball hit by Serena, it is all about her shot on you, and it doesn't, at that particular moment, depend on Serena's partner at all. That's quite a bit different from what happens in 4-way. But I do understand that the psych of seeing the pro in the plane might shake you up some, and that's something to consider.

Maybe you are correct, I don't know. I used to own a Javelin and jumped it for many years, I really liked it. It was a container that I bought that had just a few jumps on it. I have owned a Talon, Vector, and Mirage also. I am now in the market for a new container. I am not leaning towards Javelin simply because of the delivery time. I am sure that I am not the only one that is completely satisfied with the product but not sure I am willing to wait 6 months or more when there are several other really good containers with much quicker delivery times. Okay, I see now that you are in the selection process, as opposed to already having an order in. That's certainly a different matter, and it is absolutely the right time to ask the question. I apologize for misunderstanding your post. Ignoring the religious issues associated with container selection, there are many containers available that are of an excellent level of quality and workmanship. If you find that one of them suits you, maybe Sunpath will lose your business. I don't see that a a particularly good or bad thing. It is just the way things go. Either way, I am certain that Sunpath is making their business decisions according to their perceptions of what is most important for their business. Sometimes their needs will suit our desires, and sometimes they will not. Sure it would be nice to get a rig a week after you order it, but I also wouldn't want that convenience to result in rigs costing even more than they already do, or possibly even forcing them to go out of business. It has been a long long time since I bought my Javelin, and I will admit, that I got mine super quick compared to the delivery times of today. But I did that by doing my best to fit my needs to theirs. I called my gear dealer and asked what he had in stock. He didn't have anything on the shelf, but he had a suitable rig coming in soon as long as I didn't mind that it was all black. That suited me fine, and I had a rig in about 2 weeks. Then again, that was in 1994. Today maybe you cannot do what I did then.

I think that with how long the delivery times have been, they could probably have been training people for quite a while and he would not be the new guy on the machine now. Then, by all means, buy them out and implement your plans. They already have a significant influx of new people as a result of the move in the first place. When I ask questions, it sometimes takes responses from several people before I get the correct answer. This tells me they are still working out the bugs that resulted from moving and having to leave some of the experienced staff behind. A few months on these jobs does not make you experienced. I expect that the people who can teach new people have their hands quite full already. Would you rather have good gear that took longer to get, or gear that you received quickly, but has problems when you get it? Ramping up production now could be the worst possible thing for the long term viability of the company, because the damage to their reputation could be irreversible. That's their decision, your disappointment notwithstanding. Why did you buy a Javelin in the first place? Certainly not because of their quick delivery times.

I suspect that they are not losing the business you think they are, or they would change things. To SkyJunkieSean, the whole notion of brand loyalty hinges on the idea that you continue with your preferred brand in spite of other options. If someone really wants a Javelin, he has to wait. That's all there is to it. Brand loyalty isn't really about making sense. It is about wanting what you want in spite of the sometimes less than sensible aspects of it. Just like some people love their Mirages or Infinities, or whatever, some love their Javelins. It sometimes looks a bit like religion. To someone on the outside, lots of religions look pretty similar. But don't tell that to the congregation. This is not totally different from what we see with brand loyalty in the skydiving industry. Sometime, to some people, it doesn't make much sense. But to the people in each of the respective camps, it makes complete sense. If the OP is complaining about the delivery time, it seems to me that he ordered a Javelin despite the delivery time. It isn't like they are hiding it. I don't know how he came to his selection, but he did come to it. Sure, it would be nice for him if they delivered more quickly, but he was free to order something else. But, in fact, he ordered a Javelin. To FallRate6, who mentioned Sunpath's move that puts them in the "textile part" of the country, do you think a lot of those people have a bunch of experience with a harness machine? When you consider, for example, the problems caused by 1 needle strike on the hardware when you build a harness, I think I'd prefer not to get mine from the new guy on the machine. To all, let's face the facts. This sport is a tiny market, which leads to a captive market. We're lucky to have as many players as we do. We certainly didn't always.

No argument regarding the legality. In practice, do you think that every Smart reserve that has gone through a swoop pond has had a porosity test? The manual calls for porosity testing whenever the Smart reserve has gotten wet. How wet? Do we get to decide? How do we do a porosity test? I didn't find any documentation on the PIA website. Okay, I didn't read all the docs, but the titles don't seem to say that a porosity test is covered anywhere. I looked in the FAA's Parachute Rigger Handbook 2005 and found information on a both porosity and permeability. Porosity is a measure of the open space in the weave of a fabric, while permeability is a measure of the rate of airflow through a fabric. There is no guidance on doing a porosity test. There is a definition for a permeability test that says you measure the airflow through 1 square foot of fabric at a pressure differential is 1/2" of water. Does Aerodyne really want a porosity test, or do they really mean a permeability test? How are we supposed to comply when we cannot even determine what the requirements really are? PS - I am sending an email to Aerodyne to see what guidance they can give.

I just reread the Smart manual I have. I didn't see anything about "factory recertification". The only mention of 20 repacks was in regard to checking the porosity. But the issue of porosity testing is pretty vague. There are actually several conditions mentioned that would trigger a porosity check. They are: - After 10 uses - After immersion in water - when the canopy is dry - After 20 repacks (Based on 6 month repack cycle) - After any use in abnormal conditions. Regarding "Based on a 6 month repack cycle", does that mean after 10 years as well as the other conditions? How does one do a porosity test? I don't see anything on the PIA website regarding porosity testing, at lease, not in the document titles. Is this a test that only the factory can do? Is that why you mention "factory recertification"? If a porosity test requires the factory, are we really supposed to send a Smart to the factory after it has been wet? How wet? Actually complying with this vaguely worded requirement seems like it would be a hassle. Is anybody actually doing it? If so, what are they really doing?