councilman24

A website is the corner of the room where the spiders live. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

When you landing in a stadium you kind of make sure the spot is right. We have people that have been falling meat on record big ways that can't get a 182 on the right side of the the DZ. Those of us that spotted for student wearing rounds do pick a field, with pick a weed for the spot. One guy was spotting a Twin Bonanza load into an air show. The crowd line was a half mile long and we were going to spread ourselves out along the crowd line. This tool spotted so bad that none of the load hit the airport, that has a 10,000' military runway. Get a round, get out at 10,000' and you'll learn how to spot. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I don't have any experience with them but I know some folks have used these folks. http://www.atlatt.com/apparel/EQUIPMNT/folders/lapseam.html I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Still around I think when I started in 1978. Maybe 1980 too. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Before printed pull up cords they were just 3/4" binding tape. See paragear for colors. But, you can get custom printed pull up cords for your wedding. We got them after stealing the idea from friends of ours. google or search on here. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Dave DeWolf does military personal getting civilian rating/training. I have the impression they are SF types getting the knowledge for the civilian type rigs they use. I don't know if these are on their own or on military assignment to get the training. Maybe some of the military/ex-military type on here can help. Contact Dave at Paraloft.com and ask. But I have never heard of anyone using GI bill benefits to do rigger training. Your not the first to ask or try. Our local Western Michigan University has an aviation dept that includes pilot and non-pilot programs. I recently met one of the Designated Mechanic Examiners from there at a FAA technical examiner meeting. I half jokingly suggested putting together a rigger program with in the Aviation department. They train most every other type of airman. I haven't pursued it particularly since the overhead of trying to set one up may be unreasonable in time/effort/finding monetary support etc. But I may still have a discussion with the Dean. Only way I see it is as an add on to their more extensive programs. I don't know what it would take in terms of semesters of class time to earn a senior ticket. Pilot program types become flight instructors to log hours toward commercial and ATP ratings. Don't see enough opportunity for senior riggers to gain experience for Master. USAPR sounds official in name only. AFAIK they have no affiliation or more "accreditation" than any other training. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

All of Flight Concepts (earlier Glide Path) canopies are still available new! They may not be popular here anymore but they are not obsolete in the market place. Does that mean your going to get what you want? Probably not. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

TSO C23b and c used a 170lb load for rate of decent tests and only had vertical rate. D had the same max operating weight load and 36 fps total velocity that was retained in F, so this is almost 20 years old. PD and Precision argued hard both through PIA and independently with the FAA that the flared alternate test should be included in the TSO. They have yet to convince the FAA. They tried to collect data that 60 fps total velocity was survivable but for the one test they did they did not share the accelerometer (SP?) data. Also of course many, (most?) of the PD reserves in the field were approved with an exemption to rate of decent limit test. I understand that the current FAA personnel are unlikely to issue a similar exemption and hence the insistence of only including the brakes stowed 36 fps test in the TSO standard. It's always been a search exercise to find the regulation that makes it illegal to use the gear outside the TSO TESTING for APPROVAL standards. The TSO is not a use standard but a production/design performance standard. It does say they must be labeled with the operational limitations, but where does it say they must be used within the operational limitations? Not in 105, not in 65. Not even in AC105. Anybody able to find it? We all assume it and live (or die) by it but is it illegal for a 300lb jumper to jump a TSO C23-c Catagory A (198lbs) rig? I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Naw, she dumped me. But then I started dating my wife, another jumper at the same DZ.

Reminds me that I always encouraged people to watch me pack their reserve at least once. But I told them they'd get a better job if they didn't and I wasn't distracted. When I said this to a new girlfriend/jumper she immediately said I'll just watch you pack someone else's I became a rigger because I didn't trust anyone else. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

The size of reserve shouldn't influence the decision to have an AAD or not. You might die unconscious under a little reserve. I guarantee you'll die unconscious under no reserve. Decide on an AAD or not. Pick a reserve and either accept unconscious you'll get fucked up or pick a bigger reserve and lessen that chance. I won't get into vegetable versus dead debate. Too many variables. I know I wish my friend knocked unconscious on the door of a DC-3 in 1985 had an AAD. And I'm glad some other friends did have them. And I still have 4 rigs and one AAD. BTW the dual square report reference above was 1997. Canopy performance wasn't as drastically different as it is now. I'm not sure it matters what the relative sizes are when one is a velocity and one is a Raven. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

You ought to see the PM's. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

John, Unless it's a pilot rig with a static line. Then it is 600 lbs. PIA TS-135 4.3.2.c. "(c) If the reserve ripcord is to be static lined from an aircraft the reserve ripcord/static line, must not fail under a straight tension test load of 600 -lbf (2668.9N) applied for not less than 3 seconds." It was late but I knew it was 600lbs for something. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Or rig up a max recording 600 lb scale in the load. Make up a cable with a ball and a loop on the other end to go in the cam and hook the scale between it and the handle since we're concerned about the pin not the ball. Or let John do it if the owner is interested. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

It was clear enough for me but some of these guys have to be hit over the head. I just decided/realized the 20000 lb hydraulic home made cheapo tester I'm putting together can also do ripcords with a smaller scale and maybe an extension. Scale currently on order. DeWolf has one of the torque wrench testers but don't know if he has a scale to insert for max reading. I was going to make one of these but realized the hydraulic one may work. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Just for the record you might want to state that cracks = bad? And now that you say that I think I've seen a crack like that in other swaged hardware also. Think maybe this one was over pressed? Looks like cable coming out of pin is compressed/narrowed more than normal. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

The wings are not uncommon. The ridges aren't quite as normal. Cracks, if truly a negative space, a void, a place you could insert something else, then that's bad. I've never seen that and would NOT put it in the air. In general it doesn't look like a PL ripcord to me. It may be, and is based on the markings, a PL handle but the grind on the cable/pin is lower quality than I've ever seen come from PL or any other manufacturer. I'd take it out of service immediately. If you have a ripcord tester and can load it to 300lbs, 600lbs if there is an RSL, and it doesn't creep you MIGHT let it go but if they are truly cracks I still wouldn't put it in the air. This isn't a next repack thing it's a replace it before the next jump. Call Rigging Innovations about the markings to better identify the handle at least. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

PL is Parachute Labs. The "scratching" is probably an engraving pen and it may be an RI part number. Ask RI. I don't see cracks in the photo. I see ridges from the swaying process. But if there are cracks (true fissures where the metal has separated I'd take it immediately out of service. But I've never seen that kind of crack. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

No, that's the poisoned apple line. Waiting for the cyanide laced cider. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Hey, I know where one is. Or at least it was last week. Now in Michigan they're trying to make it easier for providers to drop land line service availability. You may have to rely on cell or the internet to try to reach 911 when the windstorm has knocked out your electricity. And yes I know lots and lots of folks don't have land lines. And for the above poster, yes traditional land line phones are powered through the phone line and don't need power cord, batteries, or chargers. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Rigger examiners in the USA have NO power to suspend or revoke a riggers license, or even investigate a rigger's practices. They can tell us to shove the hot knife and we can only smile. We might be asked to assist an FAA Inspector in such tasks and if requested by the FAA administrator through an Inspector be the one who assesses a riggers current skill levels. The problem with reserves is once the seal is broken there is no chain of evidence custody for enforcement action. The rigger can simply say I didn't do that and you cann't prove that I did. I don't know of case where a non-FAA employee documenting an intact seal and subsequent issue with video has been enough for enforcement action. I do know of one case where there was an ongoing issue and the FAA had a rig intentionally packed by a rigger and then examined it and documented the state of the rig, and took subsequent enforcement action. In reality riggers are human and do make mistakes. The ones I've made have been minor and not a danger to life. I've bought others to the attention of riggers, and usually to the attention of the owner. I haven't had to drop a dime to the FAA (for all the GenXer's and younger dropping a dime refers to what you used to do to make a phone call on a pay phone.) but if truly a life safety issue I would. Again the problem is proof. Education, when they will listen, is about all we can routinely do. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

There are many reasons that a reserve may not launch in the time we expect it to. The first is that most container sizes/reserve volume combinations have never been tested. Only the largest container and the smallest container of a model are required to be tested. And then the manuf. gets to pick the reserve to go in it. We don't know if they all work when everything is right. Now with an appropriately sized reserve I expect most containers to work but performance doesn't necessarily scale. I'm not saying anyone is doing anything wrong. And I expect that most container manufacturers have more data than required. But the fact is they still aren't anywhere near all tested. Perhaps more important than the bulk distribution, or equally as important, is the loop length. There are experimental data and videos around of the testing that shows a loop length change of less than 1" (longer) can affect the ability of the PC to launch after an AAD fire. I tried to council one rigger who didn't seem receptive to learning. He would measure the pull force of each pack job. That's good. But he would do it very slowly. As the tip of the pin started down the side of the grommet the force would increase making virtually all rigs measure over 22lbs. To fix this he would lengthen the loop, by inches! or replace the top reserve flap grommets that actually showed very little wear and were fine. Many people told him the idea of lengthening the loop was dangerous but last I knew he had ignored all such advice. Remember, it's not just extracting the bag. The pilot chute has to leave the container. The bridle has to leave the container cleanly. The PC has to inflate. The bridle has to extend. The pull direction of the bridle has to be in the intended direction (not so good if you on your back). The bag has to extract, the lines have to extract, the bag has to open, the canopy has to come out of the bag. (I had a reserve that spent the summer in a car trunk that took 35lbs of force to extract the canopy once the bag was open. It was stuck to the coating on the interior of the bag) Then the canopy has to open. PC's don't always leave the container immediately. The certainly don't inflate and leave the jumper immediately. I had a 1400' reserve total likely caused by the rigger burying the bridle in the corners. There was a video going around Safety Day of a member of a world class team talking about things he did wrong in an emergency situation. I don't remember all of the details but he made a big deal of being absolutely flat and stable so when his AAD cut the loop the PC would have the best chance to launch. Those of of old enough to have jumped spring loaded main PC's know that that's the WORST position to get a PC to leave.. When I've surveyed riggers at PIA Symposiums I was amazed to find that most I talked to took the main out BEFORE they pull the reserve to observe the launch. Leaving the main in is how I found the issue with the Quasar 'flingers' prompting Strong to issue a grounding and recall. Also of issue are main flaps covering a portion of the reserve container, especially on smaller rigs. USPA and PIA issued a notice a few years ago, available on PIA's website, pointing out some of the issues that may be causing the failures of reserves to inflate in time. We asked for riggers to open rigs in a belly to earth sort of configuration and if they noted issues in launch or extraction to document the issue and the equipment and supply the data to PIA. To date I think we've received 3 reports. Not because there aren't issues to find but because riggers aren't doing it and or reporting the information to PIA rigging committee. A long answer (non-answer) to the question. I'm not saying bulk, design and over stuffed reserves aren't an issue. I'm saying that's one issue, and most likely a major one. While there are things that riggers can do to distribute bulk with all but the fullest rigs this is done mainly for cosmetic reasons. And those actions may or may not be consistent with the best extraction distribution. Are riggers an issue? Yes. As are customers (buying incompatible gear) and rig designers. As someone said not long ago, "I want my two pin WonderHog back." rant off I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Well, since I don't have anything newer than 1997 I probably think about it. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

A main hooked up backwards does not necessarily mean a cutaway. It depends on the skill of the jumper, the performance of the canopy, the conditions, the landing area, etc. Remember we used to almost always land going backwards. Make sure you should be using your last chance to live. I had a pair of brothers as customers in the 80's. They didn't bring their mains with their rigs and hooked them up themselves. One time they both hooked them up backwards, jumpednon the same load, and both landed backwards. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

The fact that was a dolphin is NOT the reason your main deployed early. Any rig should be fine with unstable flailing. The one thing would be if this was a leg strap throw out. I very much doubt that it was, or that you even know what that is. Why do you think this rig wasn't feefly friendly? And what you were doing is not freeflying. It was either poor maintenance or User error in packing (which includes the PC) . You needed to go over this rig with a rigged or the owner (assuming it was a rental). Not throw it on the pile and go to supper. If there is an issue it may happen to you or someone else again. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE