riggerpaul

From the last 3 posts I get the feeling that there is a little misunderstanding between tdog and mel about who is claiming what. mel said it is not legal to repack a rig when a component lifetime will expire during the repack interval. tdog said that is appears to be legal to repack a rig even though a component will expire within the repack interval. Somebody, not tdog, mentioned changing the repack date to "solve" the problem. mel said that he never saw a regulation that allowed him to use a date other than the date of the inspection. That is, he said he didn't see a regulation that allowed him to alter the apparent repack "expiration". So, I sort of see 2 different discussions going on. One is about messing with the repack date, and the other is about when we can legally repack a rig. I agree with mel that we cannot mess with the date. I agree with tdog that we can repack even though the AAD battery will expire within the repack interval. So, mel, can you show us how the regulations say we cannot repack when the battery will expire during the repack interval?

Since we are in times where fuel prices and efficiency are a big deal, seems like the PAC really is the way of the future. I can only imagine what kind of fuel figures the otter guzzles through. It's slow, fuel inefficient, and keeps jump prices higher. Soon the otter will be just a novelty aircraft which isn't cost efficient to operate regularly like the CASA. Again, the PAC is the way of the future. Change is like a steam roller. Get on board or be flattened in the road behind. Well, yes and no. Though fuel burn is an important consideration, it is not the only consideration. My point is that while the PAC is good at some, possibly most, things, it is not always best at all things, depending on your yardstick. If you had an aircraft that always burned 10 gallons to 14K, but took an hour to do it, it wouldn't be a everybody's best jump aircraft. It might be best for some, but not best for others. There are many ways to measure efficiency. Fuel burn is important, but not so much so that all other consideration can be ignored. Setting a new FF size record will be hard from PACs, no matter how little fuel they burn. Please don't misunderstand. I think the PAC is an excellent airplane. And even when conditions don't exactly favor it, it is still at least a very good aircraft for us. But other aircraft, the KA for example, still get some points in their columns too. Personally, I want to hear more about the Quest Kodiak. I know we've had some reports here on dz.com, but it is still very early in the life of that aircraft to make any decisions.

I fuel the airplanes at Bay Area Skydiving when I am at the dz. We have a 1965 King Air 90 and a 2005 PAC 750XL. The dz is at about 60 feet MSL. We typically take loads to 13K. Before we had the PAC we used to take the KA to 14K, but after the PAC arrived we pretty much go to 13K. The dz is at the 12 end of rwy 12/30. The runway config is that the 30 end of 12/30 and the 5 end of 5/23 are nearly the same place. We usually land on 30 and take off from 12 with very little taxi time. 12/30 is 4500' long. 5/23 is 3000' long. We get 4 loads in the KA on about 80 to 95 gallons, mostly depending on density altitude. The size of the load has some impact, but we try to run it close to full, so the fuel burn is pretty much dependent on the density altitude on any particular day. High density altitude means longer climb times and more fuel burned. So, the King Air isn't anywhere near 38 gallons a load, much more like 20 to 24. In the PAC we get about 5 loads on about 55 to 75 gallons with a lot of variability based on the load size. Since lighter loads really do take less fuel, we will run the airplane on a smaller load to keep turning the airplane hot. So, the PAC is about 11 to 15 gallons a load. The PAC appears to climb actually a bit slower than the KA, but the descent is so quick that you can often make up the time. On the other hand, if the famous Byron winds are blowing a crosswind on rwy 12/30, the pilot prefers to land the PAC on rwy 5/23, and the taxi back kills all the time gains. Same pilot is happy to bring the KA in on 12/30 in the crosswind, so we don't lose a lot of taxi time with that aircraft. When we use 5/23, the taxi back is essentially the entire 4500' of runway 12/30. The PAC is good at what it does, but it isn't quite the end all of jump aircraft either.

The stuff you quoted from the FAA manual is ambiguous at best. In the first paragraph they say that we can pack things that will expire during the cycle, and that it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that required work is done. In the second paragraph they contradict themselves about the required maintenance. I think that the contradiction in two adjacent paragraphs would confirm that the instructions are at best murky. The statement in the second paragraph that "generally most riggers will refuse..." is not stating required practice, but is reporting about general practice. I don't think this would carry the weight of law. I've been looking over my CYPRES documentation, and I haven't found anything that says we must not pack a rig if the maintenance or battery will be due within the cycle. I did find an instruction that you may not jump a rig with CYPRES that is not airworthy. In that case, the CYPRES must be removed before you can jump the rig again. To me this implies that I was allowed to pack it even though these conditions were expected during the cycle. Otherwise how would I ever have a rig with an expired CYPRES in it that might otherwise be jumped? Still, I don't claim to have found everything Airtec said about these issues. So, please, if you can point out instructions that limit our actions, tell me where to look for them. If I am doing it wrong, I absolutely want to correct my actions.

Of course, when that final rule appears it will be a "no brainer". But in the meantime, there are quite a few people who have some strange ideas about how the FARs here in the USA work. Though the discussion began with questions about the new 180 day rule, it sounds a little like you don't think we should try to educate ourselves about the other things that are flying about.

I don't understand where the concept that a rigger says how long his work is good for comes from. The rigger inspects and repacks. The FAA says that must be done again after a certain time. Just like any other aviation technician, the rigger only says that the rig is airworthy at the time he sealed it. He says nothing about what might happen tomorrow. Your rig can become un-airworthy at any time for any number of reasons. The rigger's seal and signature do not in any way affect this simple fact. The user of the equipment is ultimately responsible for not using it should it become un-airworthy or when it passes the date required for a new inspection. Again, this is exactly the same as what happens with an A&P and an aircraft or for any other aviation technician. Nowhere does the _rigger_ (USA) say anything about how long the rig is good for. It is true that some riggers will not repack a rig if a component will require maintenance before the rest of the rig, but that is strictly a personal choice. There are no regulations the require that sort of consideration. It is also true that some riggers will label a rig regarding when another inspection is required, but again, this has no bearing on how long the rig might remain airworthy. It is strictly for your convenience and has no legal weight. So if the new rule comes out and the language says ONLY that a rig must be inspected and repacked within the preceding 180 days, without spelling out which rigs must follow the old rule and which can take advantage of the new rule, the new rule will instantly be in effect for all rigs, regardless of whether they were packed before or after the effective date of the new rule.

thanks, but I was hoping to see the FAA official text on it, not one rigger's interpretation - since this aspect of phaseover would have to be very explicitly called out, not assumed or subject to interpretation. However, since it was Allen's release and Allen had high involvement in this effort I'm told, it's likely the next best thing. I suspect it would really be up to the individual rigger's discretion in discussion with the owner of the rig rather than the FAA for this changeover - or should be. Does he trust his repack for the full 180, or does he do something different for 180 vs 120 and wants a restart after the change comes into effect. If he trusts his last work, the rigger should be allowed to just sign off the extra 60 days on his work. although the hope is that some riggers won't assume the more explicit interpretation just to drum up more business Okay, I'll grant you that until we see the actual new document, we won't know for sure. I went the the FAA website and found the following document that talks a lot about what the new regulations are expected to look like. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgNPRM.nsf/0/60157598B1431A7D862572E300657C3A?OpenDocument I have got to admit that from what it says there I would have to assume that rigs will automatically be allowed to go to the 180 day cycle, even if they had already expired under the old rule. There doesn't seem to be any text that suggests a change on a particular date. All it seems to be saying is that the appropriate parachute must be packed "within the preceding 180 days..." Go have a read and see if you get anything different from it.

Would you explain that, please? It is because of an effect call "P-factor". At high angles of attack, the downswinging propeller blade is generating more of the total thrust because it has a higher angle of attack than the upswinging blade. On many twin engine aircraft, both propellers turn the same way so that they don't need to have different setups for the right and left engine. On the Twin Otter and on many other aircraft, the props turn clockwise as seen from the cockpit. The downswinging blade of the left engine is therefore closer to the aircraft centerline than the downswinging blade of the right engine. If you lose the right engine, the left engine will try to yaw the aircraft to the right. If you lose the left engine, the right engine will try to yaw the aircraft to the left. The right engine's yaw moment to the left is much greater than the left engine's yaw moment to the right, because the right engine's downswinging blade is further from the centerline. This makes flying on the right engine alone more difficult than flying on the left engine alone. Therefore, the left engine is considered the "critical engine". If you lose the left engine, things are much tougher than if you lose the right engine.

here is a link to a document on Allen Silver's website. http://www.silverparachutes.com/files/180_day_press_release_2008-05-23_2_.pdf The last time I checked his site, I believe it said that the rule would go into effect on 1 November 2008, but that has apparently been pushed back. Either way, it confirms that repacks done prior to the effective date will retain their original 120 day limit. (Edited to include the full URL to the document.)

I have a tool I got from the local craft store called a "latch hook". After a little practice, it makes Slinks much easier to install. But yes, the SR1 Slinks are longer and would be easier to install.

I've been using SM-1 Slinks on my Spectre 210 for many years. Even though the Spectre is a 7 cell canopy (1 fewer line on each riser as opposed to a common 9 cell canopy), the slinks were a little bit harder to install due to the bulk of the Dacron line. It probably doesn't help that I have Type 8 (wide) risers. Why do you specially mention reserve slinks?

Oops, I see that livendive said the same things a little earlier. Sorry.

At my home DZ we are moving in the Argus direction pretty rapidly. The DZ is replacing timed-out AADs with Argus units in tandem rigs and student gear. The staff are buying Argus AADs when they need new stuff. I have one and many of my friends now have them. Everybody is happy with them, except the people who are waiting for new units to arrive. I like the cases that are milled from a billet of aluminum. I like the robust connectors that are used to attach the cutters and control units. I like that the batteries are off-the-shelf at local stores. (Sure, the batteries need to be changed annually, but they are a lot easier to change than the original CYPRES batteries were.) The swoopers like the swoop mode. The DZ likes that everything is interchangeable. I am sure that if they start misbehaving we will adjust our opinions. But that's not happening so far. So, for us, for now, we believe we are getting everything we want in an AAD with the Argus. Disclaimer - yes, I got a good deal (though certainly not free) on my Argus. But I wouldn't use it if I didn't believe in it. I didn't get an Argus because they offered a good price. I begged them to help me get an Argus (when my CYPRES went end-of-life), and they responded to my need.

a line over can do a surprising amount of damage to a canopy. Or it can do little or no damage. Be sure to thoroughly inspect your canopy, especially the top skin. Maybe you want to have your rigger involved.

No problem. You correctly pointed out an inaccuracy and I wanted to acknowledge that. As you had knowledge which I didn't possess, I wanted to learn more from you. Again, thanks!

Thanks! I apologize that I relied on old anecdotal knowledge without going to the reference source. You are correct that a "sensitive altimeter" is defined as having a pressure scale in a window so you can set it in flight. There's nothing about how many needles it has. I've never flown an aircraft with the earlier sort of altimeter, so you trump me on that point. Are you saying that you couldn't even adjust them to the known MSL altitude when you were on the ground? I've never seen a "sensitive altimeter" that had only 1 needle. Are there any? Yes, our altimeters are sensitive in the sense of the physics involved, perhaps amazingly so. But physical sensitivity aside, you can't really read our single needle altimeters to the sort of precision needed for instrument flight, or even really well enough to meet the performance standards of a (USA) Private Pilot certificate. The needle may be in the right place on the dial, but can one tell what that position indicates to closer than about a couple of hundred feet? (I am presuming a mechanical altimeter with a single hand that indicates from 0 to 12000 feet. The new AltiTrack from LB has a hand, but it is driven electronically, so that's not what I am talking about.) Despite their sensitivity or accuracy, they are fairly easily fooled, and I tried to address the circumstances under which we must be suspicious of the readings we get, and by about how much they might be in error.

Our altimeters are not considered "sensitive altimeters" in the sense that aircraft are required to have "sensitive altimeters" in the panel. When I was a student pilot, I was told that a "sensitive altimeter" was one that had the 2 needles. In earlier days, there were aircraft altimeters that had only a single needle. These are not "sensitive altimeters" either, and are not legal for use in instrument flight, for example. The effects you mention, like attitude, certainly do affect the readings on our altimeters. The most dramatic effects will be found when you are in freefall and may have to consider the effect of a burble above a jumper. If you are falling back to earth your chest mount altimeter will read higher because of the low pressure burble that is above a jumper. Exactly how much higher depends on how fast you are falling and how big a burble you create. In the case of the altitude sensors in an AAD, for instance, the effect is sufficiently pronounced that the manuals often have detailed information regarding how the differences will affect the activation altitude of the device. My experience says the difference is in the range of a few hundreds of feet, perhaps as much as 500 feet. By the way, the AADs usually talk about a few hundred feet when talking about the difference in activation altitudes, so I think that my observations are well supported. Of course, the difference between 800 and 1200 feet for an AAD is much more important than the difference between deploying at 3000 or 3500 since you are still quite a few seconds from impact in the first place. A wrist mount will have less of a difference or no difference at all because it isn't usually in a burble. But if you are on your back and you put your wrist in front of your chest to read it, there will be an error similar to that of a chest mount. Variations under open canopies will be small, as there is not much of a burble to deal with anywhere. The effect of ram air pressure on the altimeter sensing port should be small. Most altimeters have their sensing ports in a protected location to minimize this effect. You ask about the difference inside and outside of the jump aircraft. Why not check it yourself on your next jump. It might depend somewhat on the position and type of door you have. A door that seals well might isolate the interior better than the slide up clear plastic door that is often found on ships like the King Air and Twin Otter (etc, etc). For many or most jumpers, the differences should not be terribly interesting. We should be opening high enough that the errors will not mean the difference between getting a canopy in time or not. Of course, hard decks relating to cutaways and such are more interesting since these are typically much lower than you want to be opening your main. But we are all taught that when you are low and fast we should focus on deploying, not looking at the altimeter. Swoopers, by virtue of being under open canopies, will see negligible differences. But single needle altimeters will not really let you see the differences of a few tens of feet. These differences are certainly of interest to swoopers. Many or most of the swoopers I know have digital altimeters, some with the extra digit for tens of feet.

Some of the manufacturers may be contributing to the confusion. Recently I see new canopies from the mfg that are attached to the card with zip ties, while the links are in a separate baggie. This sort of makes it look like the links were an afterthought as opposed to being part of the canopy.

Sorry, you wanted FAR references. As GP said, 61.113 says not for compensation or hire. I don't know of a specific regulation that ALLOWs clubs, but rather, the club is proof that you have a group that is sharing a common purpose. Private pilots have always been able to take friends on rides, and even share expenses, so long as you can demonstrate a common purpose and no financial gain.

Private club means members only, as opposed to taking unsuspecting non-member customers off the street. The pilot must be a member, must not benefit financially, and, in fact, must pay his share of the expenses.

"america" is a pretty big place. Where are you going?

(Not all LB products. While ProTrack stops at 119 seconds, AltiTrack will go for several minutes, but that's beside the point.) My experience with a number of different programs that export CSV files is that they often need manual tweaking before the receiving program will accept them. Usually this is tedious, but not terribly difficult, since a CSV is a text file of "comma separated values". Modifications are usually straightforward, though often not fun to do. Look at the bright side. At least with a CSV you have a chance of fixing things with tools you have around. If the Export/Import facilities used something other than a text file, you would likely have a much more difficult time of it. Good luck!

There are some order forms for Storm and CF Storm on the PD Sport Support page. There is a Flight Characteristics document as well.

Secure riser covers will help keep the risers in place until such time as the main tries to get out and takes the risers with it. If you've chopped and the riser covers are open, the wind could free either or both sides of the 3 ring release, even if the main container is staying closed. Then you have risers that are flapping in the breeze and staying attached to you because the main isn't taking them away. (The chance of this sort of thing goes up if you are unstable when you chop.) These flapping main risers are likely to be closer to the deploying reserve system than the original PCIT was, so they present a greater danger of entanglement than the PCIT did in the first place. All this points to the need to keep your rig in top condition. If you are having problems the security of things like riser covers and container flaps or pin covers, get them fixed. Maybe you won't care when things are going well, but when stuff starts hitting the fan, good maintenance might save your life.

Do you think this is from old gear or from something contemporary? If it is old, then there were several rigs in the early 80s or thereabouts that had such a design. The Altitude Shop Corsair is an example of one of these rigs. I don't recall the names of other similar rigs, probably because I didn't own one of them. But the picture doesn't seem to be of a 20+ year old freebag to me, so I might be pointing you in an entirely wrong direction.