Hooknswoop

That is all that is needed to legally install them on any compatable container/reserve. Derek

Blindly defending a DZ when they are wrong is silly. Then it must not have happened. Ahh, it's OK that ASC does it because everyone breaks laws. Which has what to do with Skyride's business practices? What they do is illegal, imorral and unethical. If you can't see that, then you are blind. If you think it's OK because no one follows 100% of the laws, then you are wrong. Wake up and smell the coffee, really. Derek

Of course

It is truely amazing that some jumpers will defend their home DZ no matter what. I see it, but I don't understand it. Derek

Pessimist, of course there won't be disagreement. Now, if you and I were to bet, there would be disagreement. Quade and I can utilize common sense to avoid disagreement on whether or not they successfully land a WS. Derek

I have a nice checklist too and I'll take that as a compliment Derek

Here is a real example of rigging decisions. I got in a rig that the customer had used the reserve on the first jump after having it re-packed from using the reserve. The main was re-hooked up incorrectly. The only “X” on the reserve label (it’s a PD) is from 6/02, then several “/”’s after that. There isn’t an “X” for the second deployment from when it was last packed. So the rigger didn’t put an “X” on the label. He did put, “A R AFTER USE” on the packing data card. The jumper had lost the ripcord on the previous deployment and the rigger replaced the ripcord with one from another container manufacturer. The card shows that CW 03-01 was complied with at the beginning of the year, but the ‘new’ (used ripcord is not marked as having been inspected I/A/W CW03-01. It also has a bent pin, bent enough to see the bend when holding the pin at arm’s length. There is nothing on the packing data card about replacing the ripcord. OK, the short list: Didn’t put an “X” on the reserve label. Hooked main up incorrectly and re-closed container, causing a malfunction. Used a ripcord with a bent pin and that hadn’t been inspected. Didn’t annotate replacing the ripcord on the packing data card. So, I could straighten the pin and throw it back in and save the customer the down time, hassle and money of replacing it. This would be nice since he just had it repacked, had a malfunction on his first jump w/ the fresh re-pack Saturday morning, ending his jumping for the weekend. But I can’t do that. So I had to call the jumper and add to the bad news. Derek

This question demonstrates issues that riggers must face on a daily basis. There is much more to rigging than a clean pack job and thorough inspection. Derek

I think Quade and I will agree what is landing a WS and what isn't for the purposes of our bet. No tricks, but nothing unreasonable either. As for injuries, scrapes, bruises, whatever, but nothing serious. If he hasinternal nbleeding, then it wasn't sucessful. If they have to use Kelvar in a WS to make it work, that's OK, it doesn't have to be a "stock" WS. Etc. I have a feeling Quade and I will agree on the results and not argue over who wins. I thin it will be obvious, one way or the other. Derek

Jumping off a roof into a swimming pool isn't landing a WS. exit an aircraft at least 1,000 feet AGL and land it. Landing in water is OK, landing in snow is OK. I don't think either of those will be used though. Derek

LOL! The problem is if no one goes after it, it won't happen. Now that someone is seriously pursuing it, I'm confident they'll pull it off. Derek

Ya, no tricks, he breaks an arm, it doesn't count. If he has a 'boo-boo' on his elbow, it counts. Landing a WS only to spend the next 6 months recovering doesn't meet my definition of landing a WS. Either way, the foundation wins, I like it. Deal Derek

Say $100 then? Land and walk away by 23 APR 2008? Derek

Right, that is a definate concern and being able to say "I chose "B", so I'm legal and covered", means you are legally without fault. The flip side is what if choice "A" prevented whatever incident landed you on the stand in the first place? How would you answer the question, "Yes, Mr. X, choice, you made choice "B", which is legal, but couldn't choice "A" have prevented this incident?". It is a tough question, especially when it ooesn't include a specific example. I suppose the question is designed to provoke thought more than answers. That's why I didn't make it a poll. Derek

Yes, it does. We agree that Slinks are much better and there is no reason to use Rapide links. We disagree about the legality of using them on other than PD's reserves. Derek

Another rigging discussion got me thinking about rigging ethics, the FAR’s and the decisions riggers are sometimes faced with. Hence this hypothetical question for riggers: Given a clear cut choice, no room for debate, maneuvering or ambiguity, where choice “A” is ‘much’ safer than choice “B”. Also, choice “A” is clearly against the U.S. FAR’s pertaining to rigging. Would you go with choice “A” for a customer’s rig (the safer, but illegal, of the choices) or choice “B” (the not-as-safe but legal choice)? Why? Derek

You haven't answered my question. We had agreed to forget the FAR's for the purpose of this discussion, at least temporarily, and talk about what is safe and what isn't safe. Since we’ll have to agree to disagree about the legality of using PD’s Slinks on other reserves than PD’s. Again, my question is: “Why should we use #4 or #5 Rapide links when Slinks are stronger?” Again, disregard the FAR’s and just discuss safety and compatibility. I believe that since they are stronger and any reserve that is compatible with #4 or #5 Rapide links is compatible with Slinks, it is safer and better to use Slinks for those reserves. Derek

Hooknswoop: "I think someone will land a wingsuit and walk away uninjured in less than 6 years." Quade" "Wanna put any money on that?" Derek

Why? Why should we use #4 or #5 Rapide links when Slinks are stronger? Derek

OK, if we aren't looking at the FAR's, then explain to me how using #4 or #5 Rapide Links on a reserve is safer than PD's Slinks? Derek

I am very aware that for Part 91, TBO's do not have to be followed. But an engine is going to fail eventually and I don't think flying it until it fails is a good idea for jump planes. If their mechanic used some criteria to determine if the engine was OK, he needs to re-think that criteria. 5,600+ hours w/o an overhaul is crazy for a PT-6 that is being used for passenger revenue flights. Even though the passengers are jumpers, they still deserve a well maintained aircraft. That is much different from flying it until it breaks. Then this engine must not have had the proper maintenance. You have to be very careful running an engine past TBO, which you sound like you are. I have seen too many PT-6's (and jump ships) run into the ground. I have seen DZO's put profit ahead of safety all too often. Derek

I guess I should have said, "Willing to pack and seal for a customer". So you agree that there is a line that at some point gear, regardless of the condition, is simply too old? Derek

I don't agree, but in the interest of putting it to rest, I posted a request for manufacturer's to post their approval/dis-approval of using Slinks. Of course this begs the question, what if the container or reserve manufacturer isn't in business anymore? You are saying that a rigger then would need FAA approval? Man, what a can of worms. I still contend that as long as they are TSO'd, you can use them with any other TSO'd gear that the assembling rigger deems compatable. Derek

In the interest of making an argument a moot point, will manufacturers of reserves and containers please post approval/disapproval of using PD’s reserve Slinks with your container and/or reserve? If approvals are all in one place, this will eliminate rigger's calling and asking for it. Derek

It's no big secret that safety gets pushed aside for profit by DZO's all the time. When an engine is 2,000 hrs past a 3,600 TBO, what do you think takes prioity? Derek