riggerpaul

It will be interesting to see if USPA really sticks to their guns on the A license and proficiency card issues. I have asked USPA the question about what coaches can sign off a couple of times. and gotten different answers each time. The bottom line was that the individual items on the proficiency cards were not actually checked by HQ. HQ would check the final authorizing signature. They admitted that, especially in the case of the 2 side proficiency cards, they knew that many dropzones were having coaches mark the individual blocks, and that HQ didn't have the resources to check each and every spot. That information was in an email I have from HQ that was in May of 2008. As I said, it will be interesting to see if they really intend handle proficiency cards differently from that description. If they didn't have the staff to check everything then, I don't see how they would be able to do it now. Regarding the other license applications, I have no doubt that they really want all the i's dotted and t's crossed.

Recapping what has been said, the canopy comes with canopy, lines, slider, some sort of link to attach it to the risers, and a manual (which may be in digital form on a CD or other medium). There may also be some goodies, like a shirt or a can or bottle coolie, pullup cord(s), sew-on patches for your jumpsuit or kit bag, or other stuff like that. The goodies are not really part of the canopy, so they may vary for source to source, and from purchase to purchase. Regarding "how do you know how much slack to put in them", risers are all constructed with "standard" dimensions at the top ends, so the guide ring and the position of the toggle are pretty much the same from one set of risers to another. The overall length of the riser does not affect the slack in the brake line; having the toggle up at the keeper is when you are interested in the slack, and since all risers are pretty much standardized in that area, the slack should be the same from one set of risers to another. You may decide to fine tune the position of the toggle on the brake line at some point. Consult with a rigger or other knowledgeable person if/when you think that's needed.

The document you linked to has pictures of the older style RSL lanyard. I was thinking of the lanyard as it is now being produced. The new lanyard has the Collins loop on a separate "leg" of the RSL. At least one purpose of the change was to better isolate the Collins from the pin and the Skyhook attachment. The new design makes it far less likely that the Collins will be activated unless you are actually pulling from the riser end of the RSL. That said, it is hard to tell which type of RSL lanyard was involved. So, it might have been great luck, or it might have been the modified design.

Yes, I've heard that explanation. But I am hard pressed to see how you might remove the red loop from the hook by mistake while you finishing closing the rig. The red loop comes out the side of the flap such that pulling on it will keep it on the hook. You'd need to push on the red cord to get it to come off the hook if everything is positioned correctly in the first place. How easy do you think that would be? But that entire discussion is moot in light of Bill's comments. If that snag on the door handle didn't just clear, the Collins release would very likely have been activated. At that point, there's very little hope of avoiding disaster.

Yes, it is the design of the reserve container that determines the number of cutters needed. I've edited my earlier post to include "container" in the appropriate places. Sorry for the confusion.

If you have a rig with a 2-pin reserve container, you need a 2-cutter AAD. For example, the Jump Shack Racer has a 2-pin reserve container, so it uses a 2-cutter AAD.

The way that the red cord from the RSL lanyard attaches to the hook on the bridle, it is supposed to be able to let the reserve deploy without pulling the Collins Lanyard. UPT makes a big deal about how if pulling from the reserve pilot chute end of the bridle, the loop should come off the hook. That's why the only thing holding it is a single loop of seal thread, so it can break without pulling the Collins Lanyard. Not saying that this jumpers wasn't extremely lucky. Just saying that this is the way the system is supposed to work. And I'm surely glad that it did. All in all, it makes me wonder why we put the seal thread on at all.

There's no mention of that on the 25-pack I picked up recently. I can't read what's left of the label on the older markers in my collection, so maybe they used to say it.

A little general information might make things a lot clearer. Does that $30/month give you a general term life policy that will pay in the case of a skydiving death? Or does it get you coverage ONLY for a skydiving death? When you mention $30, is that dependent on age? I don't mean to have you advertising on this thread, but the answers to these general questions might help us know if we should even bother to bother you. Thanks!

Hi, I just noticed that somewhat hidden at the end of the thread about dropzone.com management is a message that Kyros (Rita Ippoliti) has passed away. The post came from an account that was apparently created solely to make the post, so I don't think a reply or a PM would get much attention. Anybody have any details? -paul PS I don't know how to make a link to that post, so I've copied it below.

Maybe Pete Swan of Lodi fame can help you. IIRC he is "PeteS" here on dropzone.com.

Just to be clear, nobody is talking about using "the cheapest wal-mart crap". The manual specifically calls out Energizer as a preferred brand. Here is the exact quote from the Argus manual. The question comes because the Energizer battery is labeled "123" instead of "CR123A". So we are asking Aviacom if this battery, the brand of which is specifically listed in the manual as a preferred, is okay to use. Maybe you think a proprietary battery would be better. That's okay to think, of course, but that's not the question here. Maybe you think that this example of a manufacturer's response says that Aviacom is a brand to avoid. That's okay too, of course, but that is also not the question at hand. We just want to know if the manufacturer approves of the use of this battery, of if they will claim we have fouled should such a battery be found in their device.

All RSLs are not equal. The RSL on a Racer attaches to both risers, not just one. The routing of this RSL is such that if you chop the main after the reserve has deployed, the RSL will choke off the reserve and you end up with nearly nothing over your head. Disconnecting this RSL before chopping in a two-out situation prevents this problem. The SIM says disconnect the RSL in case the reader is jumping a rig with this sort of RSL. After reading all the responses, I'll retract my earlier comment (last line of my post) about why the SIM suggests disconnecting the RSL. diablopilot's explanation is the correct one. (Thanks JP!) So, on most rigs, you should disconnect it if you can to avoid the possible snag hazard. On a Racer, you MUST disconnect it or your reserve will be choked off. Thanks all for the discussion.

That's pretty much what I was thinking too, until some research and some discussion with others convinced me that this is not that sort of case. But, as I said, I have now come over to the camp that says there is no difference, and that Aviacom is probably as confused as we are.

All RSLs are not equal. The RSL on a Racer attaches to both risers, not just one. The routing of this RSL is such that if you chop the main after the reserve has deployed, the RSL will choke off the reserve and you end up with nearly nothing over your head. Disconnecting this RSL before chopping in a two-out situation prevents this problem. The SIM says disconnect the RSL in case the reader is jumping a rig with this sort of RSL.

I'm thinking your customer should bite the bullet and get the CR123A version from somewhere. I like Walmart, but it seems they screwed the pooch on this particular product, and got the cheapest thing they could find. Good for paper towels, not good for AAD batteries. According to Aviacom in the Argus manual, Energizer is an acceptable brand. They (Energizer) just don't make a battery that they call "CR123A". Their battery is called "123" and they say on both the package and the website that it is a replacement for CR123A. This is an Energizer package with the Energizer version of the CR123A battery. So how did Walmart "screw the pooch" or "get the cheapest"? You know, at first I was in the camp that said you had to have something called "CR123A". But now, having learned a bit more, I am not so sure anymore. If Aviacom says Energizer is acceptable, but Energizer doesn't even make a "CR123A", it would seem that they might be just as confused as we are.

Hi Andre, Nice to talk with you again. A cannot agree that the Slink debate is that much similar to this discussion. Slinks don't generally come in contact with a whole lot of metal, and when they might, you can see the affected area with very little difficulty. And Slinks are not generally something that has to move to function or be checked. The Spectra ripcord will be in a metal housing that could have a burr in an invisible area. Such a burr would have little immediate effect on a stainless aircraft cable ripcord, but could spell disaster for a Spectra ripcord. The Spectra ripcord will get a lot more exercise as people are doing gear checks and the like, and a problem inside the housing will not be visible at all. The only person who might see the damage would be a rigger doing a repack, and that could be up to about 6 months away. Another thing that makes me wonder is the whole issue of tension on the internal bungee when the system is at rest. Does this mean I will have to use some sort of tool to pull it through the housing when I am repacking a rig equipped with this ripcord? What dangers does this present to the condition of the housing? I don't mean to say that the Spectra ripcord couldn't be a good thing. I'm mostly saying that I don't agree with comparing it to the Slink. Now, I'm the first to admit that conventional ripcords have their problems too. But those issues are pretty well known by now. With the Spectra ripcord, you are the test pilot at this point. We'll find the problems when these things get to the field. The earliest Skyhooks have had changes to make them better. I am fairly certain that the Spectra ripcord will have similar refinements over time. In the meantime, vigilance beyond that required by a conventional cable ripcord will certainly be in order. Now, you being a rigger and all, might be well suited to the task of field evaluation of this new technology. But I am not so sure that the run-of-the-mill jumper should be burdened with that task.

It's something military. The mfg id googles to Airborne Systems.

Cloverdale, California, is about 80 miles NNW of San Francisco

It's a D license from any FAI recognized NAC. No. Any foreign country with a NAC recognized by the FAI would also be considered "an organization recognized by the FAA". For USPA, your license is only valid when you are a member. I hope not. That would have severe anti-trust implications. . Thanks very much for pointing out about non-US, FAI recognized, licenses. I'd totally lost the international aspect. How would someone get such a license if he was a US citizen and US resident? Do you have to leave the country? Do you have to establish a residency outside the USA? If it is difficult or impossible to do (get a non-USPA Master license) from inside the USA, isn't there still some onerous anti-trust implications for USPA with the FAR's requiring a recognized Master license?

I've been wondering about some of these details, especially in the light of the notion of having one's membership end though expiration or revocation. I've seen some people say that non-members can be Tandem Masters at non-GM dropzones. But I also see that FAR 105.43(a)(1)(iii) states that the Parachutist in Command. "Holds a master parachute license issued by an organization recognized by the FAA...". What's a "master parachute license"? USPA documents only seem to speak of A, B, C, D, now, with no titles like Expert or Master. Is a "master parachute license" a USPA D license? What's "an organization recognized by the FAA". This is only the USPA, right? If you are not a current member, you cannot hold a D license, right? Does all this come down to meaning that a non-member may not be a Tandem Master in the USA?

Not me! I am completely convinced that 105.23 does not represent the intent. Thanks for all the research. I'll now reverse my position on getting clarification from the FAA. Armed with the background documentation that you have, we should absolutely press for a clarification. The regulation as it is currently written, if taken literally, could still cause a big mess. Without clarification, the battle could need to be fought more than once. So, getting on official position published for all to see would be a great public service.

Absolutely keep the paper if it is critical to the quality of the photos. But I would prefer tossing the Perfect Binding (actual printing term) for the old Saddle Stitch stapled binding. With the old saddle stitch binding, they could make a pull out, quad-sheet center picture when they wanted a picture of a 100-way, for instance. We don't see that sort of thing anymore. I'd much rather exchange the slick binding for one of those big photos once in a while. And yes, I did mention it to some people when it happened.

If the pattern was filled with aircraft, I would agree. What if the airport is a private one, owned and managed by the DZ, 95% of the air traffic is the DZ plane, and it were rare for any other aircraft to use the runway. Would that be a violation of this FAR to land on your own runway property, which is only rarely used by other aircraft, whose pilots are fully aware of DZ activities? In other words, does rare non-DZ traffic have the right to force skydivers to land off their own airport, when the skydiving operations constitute the large majority of the airport usage? 105.23 starts by saying that it applies to "parachute operations... over or onto ANY airport...". There is no distinction between private use and public use airports. So no, it does not seem that owning the airport would exempt you from the regulation. The FARs are not often concerned with rights or fairness. Their intent is to address safety, and most of the time, we all benefit from that. Sometimes one user group will be on the wrong end of the safety questions. You won't get anywhere trying to put a dropzone at Chicago O'Hare (ORD) no matter what your rights of equal access might be. There's still the question of if you comply with "((a) or (b)) and (c)", or possibly "(a) or (b) or (c)". That is, "does (c) apply if you have permission per (a) or (b)". Clarification on this might be helpful. But, drawing attention to the issue if it is the way I think it is would not be to our advantage. (Personally, I believe that compliance with (c) is required even if you have permissions per (a) or (b).) There are numerous issues where we get by with what we do because examination is not too very close and/or nobody is filing complaints. This might just be one of them.

Thanks for the new pictures. I don't have a problem with either using or retiring the risers at this point. On the one hand, there is metal-to-metal contact on all the rings. And that's what the original question was about. One the other hand, the small ring is not parallel to the riser in either case. And that's called for in both versions of the APF document. Would I jump them myself? Probably. Would my advice to another owner be to replace them? Probably. I certainly wouldn't want my advice to be the source of a problem for him, so I would tend to err on the side of replacing anything that's in a gray area. Replacing gear that is in the gray area is not a bad idea, just sometimes an expensive one. Kind of like insurance. Seems foolish if you never use it, but brilliant when you need it.