riggerpaul

OP said this was a Javelin. Cutter is under the bag, invisible from the outside.

If a person wants me to inspect and repack his main when I do a reserve I&R for him, that's fine with me. He'll get a detailed report on the condition of his main, and he'll get my normal very careful $10 main packing. I have never, to my knowledge, packed a mal for anyone, not me, not anybody else. I have no packing-related reserve rides. If he has a mal and a reserve ride, that's not exactly on me. This is skydiving - there are no guarantees. There are lots of things he might have done to contribute to his own mal despite my packing. If he can prove that something I did was directly responsible, maybe we'll discuss it more. If he thinks I purposefully did something so I would get another repack from him, I'll encourage him to use another rigger, not out of spite or indignation, but to assure him that I will see no gain from it. But again, this is skydiving, there are no guarantees. If people ask me, that's what I'll tell them. That's the way I do business. That doesn't make me some kind of horrible packer who should never be trusted. If you don't have complete faith in the person who packs for you, why are you using that person? If you have faith in your packer, then why would you blame him? All in all, I think everybody should pack his own main in the first place. That's the rule I use for myself.

So, this is not extremely sloppy because others are extremely sloppier? Sure, we've probably all seen worse. But I still consider this extremely sloppy.

So, you are suggesting that this rigger was NOT lazy? I've seen cutters with a loop around them. I haven't seen one that looks like this. Doesn't mean it cannot happen. I just find it unlikely.

I never said anything about the quality of yourmonitor. I only said that Ficus' monitor was better than mine. I had to turn my brightness up to see what both of you saw. By the way, I have a Samsung SyncMaster 213T, which was a damn fine monitor when it was new, but might be less than perfect now. Then there's the question of my old eyes. Anyway, yes, I see now that it is through the cutter, and the cutter would certainly have been able to cut the loop. So let's just forget the comment about the AAD being non-functional. Any theory on how the cutter got turned over? Right now, I wonder if he threaded it from top to bottom for ease, and then failed to get it in the correct orientation after that. I'm having a hard time believing it would rotate like this during closing.

I can pretty easily see the back side of the hole in the cutter, and more hole behind the closing loop for that matter. I don't think you would see the closing loop wrap the cutter at all unless it was in fact going through the hole. I'm pretty sure tension on the loop is what rotated the cutter 180 degrees such that the loop is entering it from the top. Your monitor must be better than mine, but I see it now. Thanks. Bearing that in mind, my estimate of how much short the closing loop would seem is incorrect. This makes OP's comment that he shortened the loop 1/2" make more sense. Thanks, all, for straightening me out.

It would function. The loop would cut, the pilot chute would still launch. The suspension line would probably just slide off but it also may have pulled much of that line out of the stow before doing so. OP. can you tell us if the closing loop was through the cutter? From the second picture, it is not clear to me that the closing loop goes through the cutter. You can see the loop coming out of the grommet and over the cutter, but I can't tell if it actually goes through the cutter or not. If it does go through this cutter, this cutter would have to be rotated 180 degrees and the closing loop would have to be entering the top of the cutter, not the bottom. That's not impossible, but I cannot tell if that's what it is from the picture. Hookitt, please look at that second picture again and see if see what I am talking about.

For what it is worth, Wikipedia says that ICAO allows Special VFR in Class A airspace. Somebody mentioned gliders doing wave soaring. Though they mentioned it in the context of USA airspace control, you might try contacting the soaring people to see if they have any better information for your area. As I understand it, soaring is big in Europe.

Concerning Class A airspace controlled by USA law - 91.135 begins by saying: 91.135(d) says: Of course, they can always deny a request for a deviation. But paragraph (d) seems to say that there is at least a procedure to follow to try to get a deviation, which seems to imply that a deviation is not strictly impossible.

You pay for pack jobs, not openings... no refunds! I don't know why anyone would use a packer that said or believed that. A jumper can do a lot to mess up an opening despite the quality of a pack job. The packer is not the only factor, so why should he take all the blame. From a practical point of view, you'd never be able to equitably assess the contributions to a poor opening, so to avoid the whole matter, you simply say "no refunds". Kind of like the establishments that have a sign that says they reserve the right to not serve anyone they choose. Its just good business to make things clear up front.

Thanks, now I can see much better. Pretty sad. Glad the jumper didn't need a functional AAD. I'll also bet the rigger had to crank down pretty hard to close it, what with the closing loop being about an inch shorter than he was thinking. How long did that closing loop turn out to be? I still can't tell exactly which container it is. Please tell us.

I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing this out. And yes, those are some expensive tools!

Isn't this a SS spur grommet? My understanding is that it takes a press to set a SS grommet. If the webbing is working out of the grommet, I would also expect a problem with the spurs. (Spur grommets have little teeth inside that are supposed to grab the edges of the material in which the grommet is set.)

I wish I could see more detail in the darker areas of the picture, especially right around the cutter. There seems to be something else besides the trapped line crossing the cutter. Can you tell us what that is? To be clear, you are telling us that that mess of lines was the way it was in the container? Depending on what I cannot really see in the picture, I might tend to agree with Sid - this is sloppy in the extreme, but it would likely have slipped off. Still, there's little excuse for such a mess. We should all strive to do better, much better. Sure hope it wasn't mine.

Well as you can hopefully see in the picture, they are not "slightly compressed" they are reltively deep dents in the middle ring. The ring is according to the manufacturer to soft, and a proper one will not show this effect. The risers are replaced and are not being jumped. I asked about this because i have never seen this severe deformation in my 10+ years in the sport and neither had my rigger. //JF Okay, I looked at the picture again, and I guess the dimpling is more severe than I first appreciated. Is the ring still flat (as opposed to potato chipped) and circular? If the ring is significantly less strong than it should be, I would expect the shape to change, not just the surface. Why are you shocked at the notion of contact with the harness ring during opening? If there's any dimpling at all, it didn't come from contact with the webbing. The webbing will stretch some, and some metal to metal contact is possible. I have certainly seen rings with the dimpling that BB mentions in the quote that Ian posted. If the ring is still flat and circular, and there are no sharp edges to abrade the webbing, I don't see that this is an immanently life threatening situation. I cannot tell from the picture. Is there other deformation of the ring other than this surface problem?

This is likely the result of contact with the harness ring during opening. Even gently used rings can show this effect. Hard openings are not a prerequisite. If the plating is not broken, and there are no sharp spots to abrade the webbing, and the ring is not elongated, the ring is still fine.

I disagree with this approach to managing wind conditions 100%. I would discourage anyone from using this approach when makign decision about their personal safety. Wind speed and conditions are a huge factor in your skydive, and need to be treated as such. This is not an area to be taken lightly, and a cavalier attitude in this area can lead to serious injuries or death. As much as I hate to do it, looking at the posters profiel reveals a very high WL on both main and reserve with a short time in the sport, and jump numbers well below what Brain Germains WL chart would call for at those loadings. Please take these factors into consideration before taking advice from this person. On the other hand, if he is magically good enough to be jumping this equipment, then, for himself, his approach might be acceptable. At Bay Area Skydiving, Byron, CA we are known for our high winds, and also that many people here can jump in the winds we have. Of course, there are times when even we shut down for the wind. But, it is not unheard of for tandems to go in 30 mph. The video people on these loads are often the people with the tiniest canopies on the dz. They aren't getting broken, so it is clearly possible to do some of this if everybody is at their top form. My problem with "justme" is his failure to council that consideration of the capabilities of one's gear should also play a part. Now, in fairness, he said this was his approach. He didn't actually say others should follow. But, posting in this forum to someone who has asked a question about how he should handle wind, there is a strong suggestion that justme is suggesting his approach will work for others. Especially coming from an instructor, I have a problem with that. For some it might work. But they are probably jumping small highly loaded gear as well. But for a jumper of lower or moderate experience on gear that is not suitable to do it, this approach is likely extremely dangerous. This is not a "one size fits all" question. We should not have a "one size fits all" answer.

Most of what you initial on the cards is about witnessing assorted achievements. Yes, there are a few items about teaching stuff. But mostly, it is about witnessing. Did I see a landing that was close enough? Did I see him pack his parachute? How does attesting to witnessing something put liability on me? If I only sign things that I witness, how does that put me at risk? Who would want to sign something that they did not witness? I've got no problem with saying an "I" must sign off on teaching (except that as a rigger there are things I can teach and sign). But for simply witnessing things, why shouldn't a Coach be sufficient?

Yes, a good rigger can make this easier. Earlier in my rigging career, I was not as careful as I am now about making these things clear. But now I try to make it very clear in the main area when things like battery changes and AAD maintenance has been done. My post was to a great extent reacting to the notion that the whole issue could be avoided by doing early battery replacements. I had incorrectly presumed that GLIDEANGLE was suggesting this position. Some have said this is required by the law. But more and more we are hearing that it is not and probably never has been. Personally, I think we should have at least 2 logs. One for the reserve, and one for the AAD. It is also possible that there should be a third for the container. This won't help if people lose them, but it would at least make it possible for the log to properly follow the equipment whose history it records.. Having only 1 log is just asking for confusion.

It has always been prudent for everybody involved to be as informed as possible. I apologize that I implied you were a slacker. Please take my comments then as general comments to the world, not specific comments to you. There was that whole long thread a short while back where people were saying it has never been legal to close a rig with a battery that would not make it to the next repack. There were a number of influential personalities that said or strongly implied that jumpers could not be trusted to be sure that there gear was legal, and that the only way to be sure was to do things like early battery changes. I have problems with that whole line of thought. Riggers are not the policemen of rigs, they are the mechanics. Anyway, it sounded to me like you were just realizing that DZOs should be doing this sort of thing. I was wrong. I apologize. You said "If riggers choose to follow the more liberal guidelnes you cite..." and this made me think that you thought that riggers weren't authorized to do this already. I apparently read too much into it. I was wrong. I apologize. I know that when I check a rig in at the dz, I check for all these things on the packing data card. The information is there. It sounded to me like the dz didn't even look at your card, and that was amazing to me. Sometimes I cannot find it, and then I refer the matter to higher authorities for them to decide what to do. It is true that the manifest software doesn't track all the information. But I know that the riggers who will be servicing these rigs are conscientious, and don't expect that we have many problems in this area. At least, if they are rigs that become regular rigs at our dz, and that they are using riggers that frequent our dz. Anyway, I made some assumptions that I should not have about your post. I should not have sounded as though I was singling you out for criticism. Please don't think too horribly about me.

Terry responded with most of what I am interested in hearing about this question. But I want to add a little something for your consideration. You say you are worried about your pilot being at risk. You say "If riggers choose to follow the more liberal guidelnes you cite... DZOs will need to..." The best thing you can do to protect your pilot is to know the regulations and to be certain that you are in compliance with them. Take the responsibility on yourself. Don't put the burden on somebody else. Be sure that you don't try to use that rig when the repack is no longer sufficiently recent. Make sure that your friends don't pencil pack. Don't go to the boogie and then find our that you don't have a current rig. If you are not willing to handle the responsibility, you are free to tell your rigger to be ultra-conservative with you. Tell him to replace the battery that won't be legal all the way until the next repack. Tell him never to open the rig without doing a full I&R. If you want to spend your money to be sure that you don't have to be responsible for these things, you are free to make that choice. But if a person is aware of the requirements and handles them, why should we tell him that he must replace a battery that has nearly 25% of its life left? Maybe he's going to put the rig away for the season before that battery expires. Maybe he's going to be away from jumping and doesn't want to replace the battery now. The method you seem to support says he should not be allowed to use his rig even though he has a battery that still absolutely usable. And you seem to think this is right because there is a chance that he might use it after the battery has expired. You are free to substitute your money for your responsibility if you like. Does that mean that everyone else must do the same?

Even with just a coach rating you still cannot sign the card, except for 4 places on the 4-page card. There are two places on the 4-page card that a rigger may sign instead of an I. There are two places on the 4-page card that a pilot may sign instead of an I. All other items require an Instructor signature & license #. . (I wanted to discuss this in a PM before posting, but you no longer seem to accept them.) I've asked HQ about this and got an interesting reply. They said that the initialing requirements on most of the card called for an Instructor to be in full compliance with the ISP. Then they went on to say that compliance with the ISP isn't required; compliance with the ISP is optional. For all practical purposes, they were only interested that a rated Instructor signs the final qualifying signature. That Instructor has the responsibility to verify that the other sections were initialed by people who the dz accepts as qualified. So, if your dz lets coaches initial sections, that's okay with HQ.

You greatly overrate the power of the administrator's whim in interpreting the regulations. The administrator can no more require you to log the time of a repack than a policeman can ticket you for driving through a green traffic signal. It is true that there is some interpretation needed for some of the regulations. But "interpreting" the word "date" to include "time" is not within the power of the administrator.

I can't tell if you are serious. Are you still trying to say that the time of the repack is a consideration? Neither the time of the repack nor the time of the jump is ever mentioned anywhere in the law. How can the time of the repack be considered when it is not required to be logged?

You seem to be stuck on the notion that the "180" in the law means we have only 180 days. You are not the only one stuck on that idea by any means. But what the law says is to count the 180 days before the date of use, and if it is packed not earlier than that 180th counted day, it is legal to use. The exact words are "The reserve parachute must have been packed by a certificated parachute rigger within 180 days before the date of its use,..." Which days does that tell us to count? Count the days before the date of its use. We do count the repack day. We don't count the jump day, because it is not "before the date of the jump". That gives a total of 181 possible legal jump days. Practically, the rig is not usually returned on the day of the repack, so you actually get fewer than the full 181. Some have theorized that a "day" in this context is 24 hours, and that the whole legal interval is 180 days times 24 hours. This cannot be the case since there is no requirement to log the time of the repack. Additionally, the law (quoted above) makes no mention of the time of the jump. It only mentions the date of the jump. So the only thing to do is to count calendar days, and the days that you count are all "before the date of its use".