Hooknswoop

Would you pack a like-new, 1930's silk main and chest mount reserve? Exactly why I am cautious with my rigging. A Vector is a long way from a Wonderhog. It's also different if you pack it and jump it, then you are the one taking all the risk. I would pack and jump a lot of stuff I wouldn't pack for anyone else. Derek

Because the if the rig is safe, then it's safe. A rigger doesn't certify that it will be used in a safe manner, they certify the rig is safe. Yes, I would, if the rig was safe. That is where the rigger's responsibility ends. If I pack a small rig and the owner loans it to a 300-lb 50-jump wonder, I am not responsible if the guy femurs trying to land the reserve. I feel that if I put a rig that isn't safe in the air, I can and should be held responsible if there is a problem. It's my ticket and if I don't want to risk it on 20-year old gear, I have every right not too. What some people consider 'a little safer' I consider 'a lot safer'. I don't think a rig with adequate riser protection, pin protection, poor bridle protection, and a poor reserve system is safe enough for me to put my seal on. It's that simple, the difference between "a little" and "a lot". I may be wrong and nothing will ever happen with a 20+ year-old rig, but I'm not willing to risk it or find out I'm right the hard way. It's not worth the risk for $35.00, or $350.00. Derek

Do you have an FAR reference that says you need manufacturer's approval to assemble TSO'd components? Derek

Reference? Derek

If the round reserve doesn't have a diaper, I won't pack it. They open out of sequence, increasing the malfunction rate. I haven't seen any sport gear older than 20 years that I'd be willing to pack and I've seen old rigs that were brand new. Same reason a brand new vacuum tube are worthless for use in aircraft radios. Derek

No, I either sign it off or not. I tell them if it isn't airworthy and I won't pack it. There are riggers out there that will pack ANYTHING. For example, I don't think it is my responsibility to ensure that the person is with the weight limits for the reserve. I note the max weight and speed on the checklist that I give the customer. Doesn't matter if I know them or they are only jumping it once, if it isn't airworthy, it isn't airworthy. Good questions. Derek

But for a round that is on #4 or #5 Rapide Links, Slinks are stronger than the links. If rounds open harder (and in my experince they do, ouch!), then Lsinks are a better choice to replace the Rapide Links since they can handle higher loads than Rapide links. Derek

No, not at all, a rigger’s opinion trumps YOUR opinion. See above. For example, vacuum tubes in aircraft radios did not suddenly become dangerous in the mid 90’s, but the FAA won’t let them be used in aircraft radios anymore. That is the problem, what you call irrelevant facts are not irrelevant. Those design updates are safety features, which your rig lacks. I mentioned my experience beyond just my rigger’s certificate to give you a little background that I’m not a 50-jump wonder (no offense to anyone w/ 50 jumps) and I‘ve been there done that, more than you. I have practical experience, not just a rigger’s certification to back up my opinion. I don’t need to see a silk reserve to say it isn’t airworthy either. And not believing what you call “irrelevant facts” actually are not irreverent, does not make your rig safe. If you are relying on the FAA to keep you safe, let me explain something to you. You are placing your faith in the wrong people. I received a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin a couple of days ago from the FAA regarding Sun Path’s SP03. The SAIB is dated November 10, 2004. SP03 is dated July 19, 2004. All the FAA did is copy SP03 and mail it out, which took 4 months and this issue concerns harness failures, which by the way, the FAA has not made mandatory by making it a Advisory Directive. So, again, you are placing your faith in the wrong people. If you old rig is so great and money so tight, why spend all that jump money on a new rig? Especially when, “Meanwhile, my wife bitches about all the time/money I spend at the DZ.” The cost of that new rig far exceeds the cost of a rigger rating. You could have skipped the new rig, apent some of that money on your rigger’s certificate, and had plenty left over to take your family out for a nice dinner. Then you could pack your own reserve, avoid dealing with the issue of some riggers not being willing to pack it, and had your family happy with you. Seems like a much better solution to me. And I don’t appreciate being called “prejudiced”, “If you're going to quibble over riser covers or round vs. square reserves” “He also says rounds are dangerous” This is an example of how you do not listen, even when it is written out for you. I never said anything about comparing round to square reserves. Not sure where you got that. I never said rounds are dangerous. Not sure where you got that either. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. “You have not backed up your claim that my old classic rig is dangerous. You have simply explained why you "think" it's dangerous” What else are you looking for? I don’t have anything besides that to explain why a WWII silk reserve isn’t safe, even in new condition. Would not you believe that? What do you have to back up that it airworthy? In rigging, you can’t have one without the other, so yes, you did question my competence. I think you are prejudiced against younger jumper with more jumps than you. That is what this is all really about. You are getting up there in years and expect younger jumper to revere your experience, but too many of them have more jumps than you and you feel you aren’t getting the respect you deserve. 36 jumps a year is barely maintaining currency much less improving your skills. Maybe your are self-conscience about your skills with 22 years of experience. Maybe that’s why you don’t care how many jumps I have, or the ratings I held, or my rigger’s rating. You feel that number of years is more important than anything else and anyone with less years in the sport isn’t s knowledgeable as you. Maybe you are prejudiced against anyone with more jumps but less years in the sport than you. I don’t know what it is, but you don’t listen and you only hear what you want to hear. Maybe should listen to some more experienced, younger jumpers. They have a lot they could teach you. Derek

I call it the "Mini-Magnum" It has a "Mini-Hemi", a 3.0 L V-6. Derek

From PD's web page: "After more than a year of development and testing, Performance Designs introduces a totally new design for a reusable soft link. (The PD Slink Pat. Pend.) The PD Slink© is the first soft link ever approved by the FAA for use with reserve parachutes! Soft links can reduce damage to the slider grommets and extend the life span of suspension lines. They allow the jumper to easily pull the slider over the risers and toggles and they do not require the use of slider "bumpers". Previously no designs met all of our criteria. Some of the problems encountered with other designs included: low breaking strength, inconsistent manufacturing techniques, installation requiring tools and/or rigging facilities, removal required destroying the links, riser modification required for use, etc. Some soft link designs even incorporate metal parts. There were many issues to be addressed in the project: * Soft link strength and reliability. * Soft link construction methods, not to include any metal parts (a true soft link). * Compatibility with various riser/suspension line combinations (without modification). * Ease of installation. * Must be reusable. In our tests, the Performance Design's Slink© survived at loadings beyond the suspension lines and/or riser! In our testing, the failure point of the system was repeatedly the suspension lines or the webbing attaching the three rings to the riser. In comparison tests, the PD reserve soft link survived tests that caused failures and/or severe damage to #4 and #5 stainless steel links! The PD Soft links not only survived these tests, but showed no signs of damage. Based upon the results of these extensive tests, Performance Designs is the first manufacturer ever to receive FAA 'TSO' approval for a soft link for use on reserve parachutes! The Performance Designs' Slink© is available in two configurations: - One for main canopies (SM-1) --Note: SRC's (Slink Riser Covers) will now be included with every order of Soft Links at no extra charge! - One for Performance Designs' reserves (PR-106 - PR-281) and/or tandem main canopies (SR-1) The PD Slink© is now available as an option on all new Performance Designs' canopies at no additional charge. They may also be purchased in sets of 4 (with installation instructions). " Derek

For the riggers that say "no", I have 3 questions: 1) Have you ever put a reserve other than a Safety Flyer into a Vector II? 2) If you believe it is against the FAR's to use PD's Slinks on any other reserve than a PD reserve, what reference are you using for that determination? 3) Do you feel you are doing you customers a favor by using weaker Rapide links instead of Slinks? Derek

Every canopy that I've seen come apart that had rip-stop tape on it, the failure started at the tape and the fabric in that area had the strength of tissue paper. If a hole is big enough to warrent a repair, patch it. If you canopy has rip-stop tape on it, have it patched. If your canopy has rip-stop tape that has been sewn, then the damage should have been patched when it was under the sewing machine the first time. Even using rip-stop tape as a temp repair means the final patch will be larger, which may also make the patch much more difficult if the rip-stop tape temporary repair means that a seam or re-inforcement tape will be included in the patch, where it wouldn't have been if the damage had been patched in the first place. Derek

The test questions were updated this year (as of 05/11/2004 w/ 305 questions). Was this study guide updated for the new test questions? The current question bank has some errors that I hope to hear back from the FAA on shortly. Before that they were updated on 06/09/2003 w/ 290 questions. And before that they were updated on 6/11/2002 w/ 290 questions. Derek

I have a request in w/ the FAA for a Legal Interpretation of FAR Part 65.111, specifically who may alter a main canopy. Another rigger was supposed to have done that, but that was a long time ago and I got tired of waiting, so I sent in the letter to get it done. I’ll post the FAA’s reply when I get it. Derek

Didn't mean to imply that you did, someone else did, among calling me other things. Are you worried about a terminal reserve ride on the diaper-less 26' LoPo? Derek

Why say, "Chance of being a terminal pretty slim"? Are you worried about a reserve deployment at terminal? I would be. Yep, and it's your seal, not mine, have fun. If it was my seal, doesn't matter whose back it was going on, I wouldn't seal it. I wouldn't be responsible for it and I believe a rigger is reponsible for the gear he/she seals. I'm guessing that is witht he pin, like Rob described, so no, I wouldn't. I would think that systems w/ "Death" in their nicknames wouldn't be used anymore, like "Death Straps" for CReW. They are still killing people. The term "Death" got into the nickname somehow, most likely because the system was killing people. You'll pack gear that I won't and that is fine. I don't call you reckless or harsh on you for it. Regardless if I understand why. I feel the same courtesy should be extended to others. When gear is replaced because "It was time", it was replaced because of the passage of time, merely because it was old. Everything wears out or becomes obsolete. Derek

Would you pack it if it didn't have a diaper? (yes/no) Derek

And you don’t listen. I said: “Exactly. And I don't think an brand new 1970's Wonderhog is airworthy. My opinion and I've told you why. If you don't want to accept that, nothing I can do.” Is it in better than new condition? I guess ‘no’ then. Clearly there is or else why are you debating? Because it isn’t in fine shape. A brand new vacuum tube is in fine shape, but it still isn’t legal to use in aircraft radios. It’s just too old. Solid state electronics are vastly superior. Exactly, it does. Part 65.129 says: No certificated parachute rigger may -- (a) Pack, maintain, or alter any parachute unless he is rated for that type; (b) Pack a parachute that is not safe for emergency use; So, yes it applies to all rigs. My policy: “Gear Life Span * This loft will not work on sport gear over 20 years old.  This loft will not work on pilot emergency gear over 25 years old.” I don’t care if you have a rig still in the plastic. At some point a rig is too old. You said it’s not like I’m jumping a silk canopy. What if that silk canopy was in brand-new condition, would you be wining most riggers wouldn’t pack that? Or would you realize that it is simply too old? What is your opinion of how old is too old for gear? There has to be a cut-off somewhere. You don’t like that mine is 20-years for sport gear. Too bad. That’s my decision as a rigger. There is a lot of responsibility that goes w/ sealing a rig that from your “I’m not asking you to jump it” statement, that you don’t seem to understand. You hear what you want to hear, even when it is written for you to read. I wrote, "Compare the stastics between diapered vs. non-diapered round reserves" You wrote, "He also says rounds are dangerous, etc" I never said that. You said "my rig to be a dangerous piece of crap" I never said that either. Maybe the reason this bothers you so much is you feel by my saying your old Wonderhog isn't airworthy because it is too old, you think I am saying you are unairworthy because you are too old. To clarify, that is not what I am saying at all. It isn't personal. Again, don’t ask questions you don’t want to hear the answers to. I’m done. I’ve answered your question. Now you can either accept it or not. Derek

In your opinion, which when it comes to rigging, means nothing. It's not your certificate on the line. When it is, you can make that call. Yes, vacum tubes. They work as designed but are now obsolete and cannot be used in aircrafgt radios anymore. Same reason the FAA won't allow vacum tubes, I won't pack a very old rig. No, you are asking why a rigger won't pack it. Even though it isn't my butt under the canopy, it is my butt on the line and my seal on the rig. I have a responsibility when I pack a reserve. I don't think you understand that. I've seen old Wonderhogs. They have gone the way of vacum tubes. And I also gave a good reason why I wouldn't pack those rigs. It is finally time to let go of that old Wonderhog too. Exactly. And I don't think an brand new 1970's Wonderhog is airworthy. My opinion and I've told you why. If you don't want to accept that, nothing I can do. I am not arguing round vs. square. AGain you are not listening. I never said anything about round vs. square. I did say, several times about diapered vs. non-diapered rounds. You hear only what you want to hear and only listen to the answers you want to hear. Anything else is quibling. I n your opinion, not mine. But as a rigger, it's my oipinion that counts. If I called you an insulting name and you took offense to it, could I then say you took offense to it because there was some truth to it? That's like saying someone is argumentative. If they try to defend themselves, you say, "See you are arguing now. Derek

OK, since you continue to twist my words, I should clarify a few things. I said the rig lacks pin protection, riser protection, bridle protection, and the reserve system is poor at best. Vacum tubes work as designed, but if your Cessna 182 has radios w/ vacum tubes, it isn't legal anymore. Aircraft radios must be solid state. If they work as designed, why did the FAA ground all aircraft w/ radios w/ vacum tubes, even if the radio was in 'brand-new' condition? I said compare round malfunction stastics for diapered and non-diapered rounds. LOL. I am offended that you called me prejudiced, even though in your first post you are obviously prejudiced against any rigger that refuses to pack your 1977 Wonderhog. You hear only what you want to hear. Wow, I didn't know I thought gear manufactured before 2000 was dangerious. Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. You hear only what you want to hear. I have the kit for testing Ph, clamps, etc and know how to use them. I know how to pack rounds and have over 50 jumps on them. I'll pack gear older than 2000 and do so all time. Packed one last night, in fact. So, once again, you are wrong. Simple solution for you: Get your Rigger's certificate. It isn't that hard and not expensive. If you have the time and money to skydive, you have the time and money to get your certificate. Then you may pack anything you wish. Until then, you are dependent on rigger's determininations of airworthiness. I'm sure you can find someone to pack your rig for you, but it is unfair to criticize someone that won't. If your rig is so great, why did you buy a modern rig? Austrailia has a max life span of 20 years for gear, so there is an entire country where you couldn't jump your rig. There are a lot of riggers that won't pack gear older than 20-years old. Rarely is it because they are lazy or don't have the knowledge. Rigging is hard work for little profit. I tried to answer your question why a rigger wouldn't be willing to pack your rig. You seem to take that answer as a personal insult and then try to insult me and my abilities impling that I cannot comprehend old gear and am biased against it for no good reason. Fatality rates have remained fairly constant, even though there are a lot more jumps being made per year than 20 years ago. The other difference is the cause of fatalities. Rarely it is gear failure, unlike 20 years ago. Can you jump and walk away using a 1977 Wonderhog? Yes. It is not guarenteed death. There is a much higher chance of a gear-related incident with the rig though. For $35.00 I'm not willing to take that risk. For what? What's the big deal about HAVING to jump an old rig? What's the big deal? What's wrong w/ your new rig? I just see it as worth the risk, and the FAA entrusts me with that decision. If you have a problem with that, I'm sorry, but it is my decision. I would think you would respect that since I have your safety in mind. Why would you attack me and ridicule me for leaning towards the side of safety? I would be more than willing to place your 2 rigs side by side and show you the safety improvements your new rig has over your old rig. I think you'll be surprised. Don't ask questions you don't want to hear the answers to. Derek

OK, I guess since I don't jump anymore, I have nothing to offer, my experience is now wortheless. I didn't realize this. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Well, OK. I won't post anymore. Derek

If you had seen what I have seen, you would understand. Ever seen an Instructor told to "Jump or you are fired"? Too late, already did stop. I have brought such issues up before, made me very popular. It used to be full-time for me too. yep, that is one of the reasons I quit. Can't change it, can't live with it, so I quit. Good, there needs to more DZ's that are squared away. Derek

Seen too many jumpships either not being maintained or being maintained by non-A & P's. Seen a 182 that had the tach disconncted so the 100-hour wouldn't have to be done, etc. I don't jump anymore. Then I don't know very many DZ's worth their salt and I already understand maint/cert requirements. No, I would believe maint records, especially if I could talk to the A & P. Yes. Probably not, since I don't jump anymore. Sounds like you aren't doing anything wrong. I tended to bring disfavor upon myself by 1)flying a small canopy, 2) speaking up when things were un-safe, 3) not just shuting up and doing what I was told by the DZO if I felt it was wrong, etc. Not saying you are a yes-man, sounds like you jump at one of the DZ's that are an exception to the rule. The last time I went to a local DZ, the S & TA was gettingon the aircraft w/ an AFF student and the sun was already completely behind the mountains. Derek

LOL! Ask? Ok, "Do you maintain your aircraft?" "Yes." "You wouldn't lie to me would you?" "No." Great, the aircraft must be well maintained. Ya, right. Becoming an Instructor was the worst mistake I made in skydiving. Want to be guaranteed to be in the middle of DZ politics? Let the DZ pay you one dollar. Derek

Saw that a while ago, very cool. Works great for making a loop for toggles. Derek