councilman24

Mr. Sellars can have that conversation with you again if you like. MEL In other words, you are unable to cite the regulation and unable to cite the preamble. I don't recall that Jude did either. What we agreed was that expecting a seal (during a ramp check, for example) was common practice, one that most riggers were okay with, and one that might be a good idea, but that it was unsupported by regulation. Mark Expecting a seal common is not just common practice, Inspectors are directed to ensure it is there. Chapter and verse, one example. emphasis added FAA Order 8900.1 1-1 PURPOSE. This order directs the activities of aviation safety inspectors (ASI) responsible for the certification, technical administration, and surveillance of air carriers, certain other air operators conducting operations in accordance with the appropriate part of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), certificated airmen, and other aviation activities. This order also provides direction for tasks related to aircraft accidents and incidents, investigations and compliance, the aviation safety program, administrative areas, and miscellaneous tasks not related to a specific regulation. In addition, it contains regional and district office requirements for the support of ASIs responsible for those activities. Volume 6 Surveillance Chapter 11 Other Surveillance Section 11 Monitor an Air Show/Air Race for Airworthiness Inspectors 6-2413 PROCEDURES. D. Inspect Parachutists’ Equipment. Inspect parachutists’ equipment to ensure the following: · The main parachute has been packed within the previous 180 days; · The equipment has been manufactured under a TC or Technical Standard Order (TSO), or is a personnel-carrying military parachute; · The auxiliary parachute has been packed by a certificated person within the time requirements prescribed by part 105, § 105.43; · The certificated parachute rigger’s seal has been installed properly; and · The parachute packs and harness are in good condition. Your going to say this isn't regulation but specifics of this nature will never be in the CFR. As you know this order contains how the FAA inspects us as DPRE's also. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Why are you answering a 13 year old post? I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I've got a Cirrus Cloud. You can pretend it's a DC-5 if you get 1.5x reading glasses. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Does is have to be an XL? I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

The general hardware specification is available here. http://www.pia.com/store-3/latest-versions/hardware/hardware-specifications/1368-7195c One supplier of harness rings is here. http://catalog.bourdonforge.com/category/forged-metal-safety-d-rings This is no specific PIA (or previous mil) spec for harness rings. The list of PIA spec (many were mil spec before the Feds abandoned them in 1998) is here. http://www.pia.com/store-3/latest-versions/hardware/hardware-standards?limit=20&limitstart=40 The answers to your questions are likely proprietary to each company that produces these hardware items. As Bordon Forge's listing says they 'meet or exceed PIA 7195.' I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

INTERESTING! I have the bits and pieces to test this, and it may become my weekend project. ***Edited to Add*** SAE AS9015A/B makes many reference to the test being done under normal conditions for use - I haven't measured pull force to the tip on a slow pull, but I would struggle to believe in the relevancy of that datapoint. In regards to the individual at PIA, I am even more skeptical. Can he/she provide any data showing this phenomenon and then using a good test methodology, show causation to the condition of the grommets? I don't mean to argue in the face of those with more experience than I, but in this case, I would want to see the data. This persons answer to high pull forces resulting from edging the pin out slowly was not only to routine replace grommets that had normal or little wear but to put in VERY long closing loops. As I understand it he pulled the pin as slow as he could looking for the absolute highest pull force he could get. Higher than 22lbs the rigger got new grommets and longer loops. I was asked by other riggers local to his area to try to explain to this rigger why long loops could be fatal. I don't think he listened. He was NOT a speaker at the symposium. This guy did not have the sense of a rock. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

google cannon fuse many results. http://www.cannonfuse.com/store/pc/Fuse-All-c2.htm for the truly lazy I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Your poll is incomplete. It depends on TSO certification. Language of NAS 804 (C23b) makes no mention of a seal for any test, and includes no 'human factors' testing requiring real pulls. AS 8015A (C23c) and AS 8015B (C23d) require the seal for human factors testing, i.e. live pulls in various configurations and with various people. The pull force test is another paragraph, equal in outline level to the human factors test that requires the seal, but does NOT mention the seal. I don't read the language of "applied in the direction giving the highest pull load under normal design operations" from AS 8015A and B as implying the seal in place. Nether did the PIA PCSC. Normal design operation means pulling in the direction of the ripcord coming out of the housing if used (down and not up on a sport rig). To address this the PIA PCSC, of which I'm a member, wrote PIA TS-135 (C23f) (e existed for only a couple of weeks and isn't relevant) specifically stating that the pull force test, still with a 22lb limit, is performed with the seal in place. A new TSO does not supperceed previous standards or certifications. So it depends on the TSO certification of the item. IF the manufacturer chooses to apply a more restrictive standard, UPT 22lbs with seal but sold under TSO C23b, I suppose that's their prerogative. So TSO C23b,c,d no seal; f with seal. This also includes the minimum pull force of 5 lbs. I suppose that means for f the pin could be loose and only held in by the seal. Something to fix with 23g in 15 years. BTW for chest mounts replace 22 with 15 in all the TSO performance standards. The pull force is in the TSO certfication performance standards, not in any regulation that applies to all rigs the same across the board. UPT should have said the current TSO standard in the U.S. is 22lbs with the seal in place. So ALL of the poll answers are right! I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

When most toggles were velcro I routinely made color coordinated toggles. With the various velcroless designs and not doing so many sport rigs have haven't done any in awhile. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Yes, and I was typing mine while you posted. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

People are tellong you the brake lines are too short. They should finish the sentence. The brake lines are too short to do front riser turns with the steering toggle still in your hand. They are NOT to short to have full and immediate steering control of the canopy. Since I don't do front riser turns to landing I want the toggles to react as soon as I start to pull them. That means no slack. In order to do front riser turns with the toggles in your hand they have to be set with slack. This will mean that you will have to pull the toggle down from the keepers several inches before the canopy starts to do a normal turn. And if you set them too long you won't be able to stall your canopy or get full flare out of it. Neither setting is 'right' or 'wrong' or 'too short' or 'too long'. The setting that is right FOR YOU depends on what you want to do with your canopy. PD factory settings on the canopies I've dealt with are right for my kind of flying but not for what you want to do. It's not that they're wrong, but one setting doesn't do it all. If you don't understand what I've said above have someone demonstrate with your canopy. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

In the city in the U.S. where I live it would quite likely fall under our blight ordinance. Car's that are unlicensed or inoperable, even in a drive way, are illegal. Outdoor storage of old tires is not allowed. Outdoor storage of wreck autos and auto parts, allowed in very specific areas must be shielded from view. I expect here it would have to be indoor or behind an opaque fence. If the airport is within Pitt Meadows check out bylaw 1400 Property Maintenance, available on the city website. It prohibits an unlicensed motor vehicle and lots of other stuff. Unsightly material is prohibited. A complaint with the city may very well result in enforcement action. Most of this enforcement here is complaint based. Resources don't allow inspectors to cruse the City. Politics may get involved. Specific language and zoning may get involved. But it may be your best legal course of action. If I spotted it on google maps satellite it looks like it may be setting in a row of wrecks north of the taxi way/hangers near the skydive center. May be allowed under zoning or governance of airport versus Pitt Meadows. If that's not it and its somewhere more visible to the public it might work. But best idea I have. That whole line of junk looks like an eyesore to me. If I was on the airport board I wouldn't want my airport to look like that. Another avenue if not an illegal blight. Find someone, somewhere else that want's to buy it for climb out practice and have them make an offer. Minimizes it's mental effect by taking an ax to it and teaching it a lesson. I'd tell you to use something else but might kick response to Speaker's Corner. Probably not available to you anyway. Spill some avgas in it a screw up the aim on a bottle rocket? Have someone make an offer as scrap. Might be worth more to the mechanic that way. (Probably not) I don't recall if folks died. If so appeal to the airport board. Your distress over injuries might not be enough but reminders of dead people might. All I've got for the moment. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I've packed mostly rounds for the last several years and most if not all of the pilot emergency rigs, including a couple of new ones and on in a free sleeve.. All of them still spec somewhere from 3 to 4 foot bridle. This includes the newest designs, Butler HX and Preserve V. For most of the rigs I pack the PC, including 357 magnums, hit the ceiling 4 feet away. I don't think there is a need for a longer bridle. I think there is video of a test jump of an Aerosports USA back on you tube. Anyway it leaves just as fast as anything. Of course they have to meet the same TSO deployment specs. As for a wider bridle Booth once claimed the wide bridle was bad for launch. That burble air circling around the back actually hit the wide bridle and pulled it back down. (The whole room said 'fold and sew the first 6 feet narrower. ) I've got about 300 round jumps with spring PCs but most of those were a comp PC in sleeve so I had more issues. While I had some PC hesitations a lot of the PC's I used were really crappy. It was a good day when I finally got a Hot Dog. I've got 3 round reserve deployments, only two count, and they were fine. A few years ago I jumped a Phantom 28 in a bag with a throw out PC on a 7 foot bridle. I was more nervous about the PC and bridle than anything because that was the only unknown. For pilot rigs I don't expect them to be stable so don't think the burble is an issue. Don't see the need and don't see a manufacturer doing drop testing to replace something that works. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

So can't figure out where to buy them? I'm social media incompetent. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I'm been on the City Council where I live for over 18 years. When property rights and government meet a person with too much time or money or both reason is rarely involved. I haven't dealt with anything quite this bad but have been called a Nazi by a holocaust survivor over zoning issues. Being called a Nazi by someone who knows what real ones were like is unnerving at best. Actually I am dealing with a rich woman with too much time on her hands who is doing a good job of ruining the city administration and some employee's lives. She found help. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Haven't looked at much of it yet. But during a patent lawsuit Tiny Broadwick was very inconsistent in describing the 'freefall' jump. It became the general belief of many it never happened, at least not as legend has it. The first intentional jump by Leslie Irvin was planned. He was much more involved than just there to watch and offered the jump because the military team couldn't jump (which was true). See book Sky High Irvin as a reference. Leslie combined with George Waite (sp) who owned a silk store to form Irving Parachute Company. The design was a combination of Floyd's and Leslie's. Saw something about Security but Irving had the first military contract of 30 and then 300 because they had the ability to make them and the patents on ripcords with pins and cones. That's why security had the cable wrap container closure until almost WWII. I don't have a A model Irving parachute but I have a 1928 B-1 model complete that isn't much different. In fact I'm not sure the A version was the one that went into production in 1920 and not the B model. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

"Is the last load off the ground?" in keeping with can coozy "First time married - BEER!" if the case. My wife and I met skydiving. We gave out custom printed pull up cords. Stole the idea from another jumper. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

In the eighties on of our team had a M-18 come out of the bracket, land in a field and start a grass fire. At a Historic Car Museum with 10's of milllions worth of old cars. I WASN'T part of the rigging crew. Did you ever complete the mount you were talking about last year? Couldn't find anything about it. I'm working on one with a different basis for both attachment and cutaway. It should be bootie friendly. Still in mock up stage but a question. All of the mounts I've seen in the last couple of days are putting the canister a long ways (comparatively) out and creating one hell of a big hook for things to get caught on. Why are people feeling they need them that far away? Yes I familiar with heat, staining, burning etc. Used to jump red M-18's. May goal is snag resistant, not impossible but close. Later we got to the point we would only do post deployment hanging smoke. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Yes your right. A PD reserve sitting on a shelf in the civilian world does not have a manufacturer's service life. And PD publicly stated time doesn't matter. Only wear and tear from packing/use. National has a calendar life limit. None have reached it since they changed their language. Softie has a life limit on the container. If you believe the letter above makes it not possible to be retroactive then none have reached the service life. pends if you believe it only has to be in the manual when purchased or in the data submitted when the TSO granted. This is an unknown grey area. Some believe both interpretations of the above letter. Of course everything sold to the military, even if it's sport gear, has a stated calendar service life. Much of the surplus stuff is new old stock never issued because it's reached it's limit. It's an interesting question if these should/could be applied to the surplus material in the civilian world. Usually these limits are not in documentation available easily to civilians and I don't know of a case of a rigger applying them. Frankly they are pretty short. Ones I know about range about 7-10 years. And are not based on data, only on the military wanting a date to through it away so they won't have these debates. Long enough to get the contract. All of this is up to interpretation by various FAA officials and individual riggers and manufacturers. That's why your not getting a simple answer. To the sport jumper on the DZ and what they use and are concerned about your answer is no. But riggers deal with lot more than that. And while not legally based riggers apply there own as they wish. Paragear is 20 years, I believe used to be 15. Of course we are one of the few countries with active parachute regulations that do not have a calendar based service life. That's why Eric has so much gear from Europe for sale. This discussion goes on and on. Bottom line, riggers choose what they will and won't pack. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I don't believe I ever saw a manual for the Pegasus, or from Django at all for a main. Here is a service notice I found for the Pegasus. http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk/cms/files/file/1202-si1pdf/ And here is a manual for the Firefly reserve made by Django. http://www.parachutemanuals.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=40&func=startdown&id=409 I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

The PD reserve manual from day one has required the reserve to go to PD for evaluation and possible recertification for additional use after 40 pack jobs or 25 deployments. All of which are recorded on the canopy label. At 120 days 40 packs are between 13 and 14 years if kept in date. Results have varied from grounded to another 40 pack jobs. For about $1000 any rigger can have the same instrument that Strong uses to re-certify their tandem canopies. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

As an AD, no. (stop reading here if you want) I don't believe the answer could be yes for two reasons, as I tried to explain. No one needs to. And more importantly the FAA will not issue an AD for a parachute. That was their stated position for over 10 years. And in spite of recent 'comments' to the contrary by people that may or may not be in position to make the decision and in spite of the above letter I still consider that to be their position. I don't know that the letter above would stand up to FAA legal dept. review. I don't give it as much weight as many people. BTW you can look up all the AD's yourself and answer your own question. http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/airworthiness_directives/ As an original manual requirement? Yes Butler and PD. Butler up to interpretation. Language in 1994 manual is: "When used in civil aircraft in the United States of America, under the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration this parachute has an estimated service life of 20 years." I have a butler parachute that falls under this language. And we all know non TSO'd equipment that is illegal due to age under the FAR's. Airtec Cypres', "(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device." Doesn't say requirements at time of manufacture. And that time limit has changed over the years. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Your worried about the chest reserve and you weigh 150 and wear a phantom 24? You stand up your PC EVERY TIME at 150. As Jerry said anything that will hold a 24' flat will hold a LoPo or Phantom 28. And you should be able to stand any of them up. But don't try. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

First answer is shut up and jump. You can't learn this in 5 jumps or off the internet. Advice here is like used chewing gum in the street, you don't know where it's been, who it's from and it's not much use. That being said I had a spin when I started in 1980 that no one could diagnose. Finally figured out that I needed to put my head back. Harder then with a motorcycle helmet and 40 lbs rig. IF you want some advise try putting your head back, which is part of the arch, and look at the horizon instead of the ground. It will lead your back into a better arch. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Aerosport USA I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE