Hooknswoop

You'll love it

You are now talking about 2 different things and trying to combine them; what is legal and what is right. Would you want a first time jumper jumping a Velocity 79 with zero training? I know I wouldn't. But just because it isn't smart and we (hopefully we) do not want it to happen, does not make it illegal, because it is not illegal. Arguing that because it is not a smart thing to do makes it illegal is not a valid argument. Exactly, it is not mandatory and you do not legally have to do it. This has nothing to do with what is the right thing to do. Whether or not it is right that some that is not qualified can replace a line set on a main has nothing to do with if it is legal. The FAR's say what they say. Trying to add what you feel is right and wrong to twist the FAR's is fallacy. Is someone jumping a Velocity 79 on their first jump with zero training and no Instructor legal? Yes. Is it smart? No. Should it be legal? Probably not. That does not change the fact that it is legal. The manufacturer does not have the authority to define an alteration, that is an FAA function. AC-105-2C says a rigger can remove the PC form the reserve. How out-dated is that? It says you can do it, but would you? Part 65.111 says pack, maintain or alter. It does not say, pack, light maintenance, or change how packed. Some may say, “There is no way the FAA meant for someone with one jump to make huge alterations to their main with no experience and then go jump it”. But that is exactly what the FAR says. You have to remember that the FAA’s function is not protect skydivers from their selves, but to protect the general public from skydivers. Again, if the FAA was attempting to protect skydivers, they would have requirements for training, minimum standards for Instructors, etc. They have those for Parachutists in Command (Tandem Instructors) because they take the general public on a skydive. There are no FAA requirements for minimum performance standards, currency, or qualifications for AAFI's. If you wear your own rig, you are considered a skydiver and the FAA makes no regulations to protect you from yourself. You may jump a Velocity 79 with no training or Instructor on your first jump without breaking any FAR’s. Derek

Agreed. It says "maintain", not "light maintenance". The FAR says what it says, not what you want it to say. It says "alter", not "change [snip] the way a parachute is packed." Again, the FAR says what it says, not what you want it to say. Changing the way a parachute is packed is considered an alteration, so if you are saying that the FAR says the jumper jumping the main next may change the way it is packed, then you are saying they may alter it. Limiting the alterations allowed to changing how it is packed is not spelled out in the FAR, only in your interpretation of it. If you read into an FAR, you can make any FAR say anything you want. But, as written, it says: "(b) No person may pack, maintain, or alter any main parachute of a dual-parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping in connection with civil aircraft of the United States unless that person -- (1) Has an appropriate current certificate issued under this subpart; (2) Is under the supervision of a current certificated parachute rigger; (3) Is the person making the next parachute jump with that parachute in accordance with §105.43(a) of this chapter; or (4) Is the parachutist in command making the next parachute jump with that parachute in a tandem parachute operation conducted under §105.45(b)(1) of this chapter" If the FAA didn't mean to write it the way they did, they should change or clarify it. I will follow the letter of the law, as written. In the mean time the FAR says what it says and the next person jumping it may alter it all they want and those alterations are not limited to changing how it is packed. WE could discuss how much the FAR's make sense, but, in relation to skydiving, they don't make a whole lot of sense since some one with zero training or instruction can legally jump with no helmet, AAD, altimeter using a Velocity 79 as a main and a PD-99R as a reserve on their first skydive without violating an FAR. Just because it is legal does make it a good idea. As for a manufacturer saying what is and what isn't legal, that is not their function, nor do they have the authority, only the FAA does. When tandems went mainstream and the gear become regulated by the FAR's as sport gear, compatability became an assembling rigger function. One manufacturer attempted to declare that only their main was legal to be packed into their container. They don't have the authority to do that. Derek

Here is the FAR, you decide for yourself: §65.111 Certificate required. (a) No person may pack, maintain, or alter any personnel-carrying parachute intended for emergency use in connection with civil aircraft of the United States (including the reserve parachute of a dual parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping) unless that person holds an appropriate current certificate and type rating issued under this subpart and complies with §§65.127 through 65.133. (b) No person may pack, maintain, or alter any main parachute of a dual-parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping in connection with civil aircraft of the United States unless that person -- (1) Has an appropriate current certificate issued under this subpart; (2) Is under the supervision of a current certificated parachute rigger; (3) Is the person making the next parachute jump with that parachute in accordance with §105.43(a) of this chapter; or (4) Is the parachutist in command making the next parachute jump with that parachute in a tandem parachute operation conducted under §105.45(b)(1) of this chapter. (c) Each person who holds a parachute rigger certificate shall present it for inspection upon the request of the Administrator or an authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board, or of any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer. (d) The following parachute rigger certificates are issued under this part: (1) Senior parachute rigger. (2) Master parachute rigger. (e) Sections 65.127 through 65.133 do not apply to parachutes packed, maintained, or altered for the use of the armed forces. [Doc. No. 1179, 27 FR 7973, Aug. 10, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 65-9, 31 FR 13524, Oct. 20, 1966; 32 FR 5769, Apr. 11, 1967; Amdt. 65-42, 66 FR 23553, May 9, 2001] Derek

There is a case of the FAA taking action against a non-commercial pilot flying for free at a commercial DZ. So if the aircraft owner/DZO/whatever is getting paid for the flight, even if the pilot is flying for free, the pilot must have a commercial rating. If no one is making $$$, then a commercial rating isn't required. Derek

No, it isn't. Derek

The FAA Inspector is not a "very non-caring inspector" by any stretch of the imagination. The FAR says what it says, regardless of your efforts to read it differently. He follows the letter of the law and agrees that if it changes, he will enforce it as written. I would think he would take offense at being call "non-caring". According to the FAA, the matter is no longer pending, it is settled. No 're-training' necessary Derek

I bought my Singer 20U for $200. Derek

Ya, but I have it and no one else can see it Especially after I read it and realize it is devastating to my case Derek

Legally, 120 days per part 105. "(a) The main parachute must have been packed within 120 days before the date of its use of a certificated parachute rigger, the person making the next jump with that parachute, or a non-certificated person under the direct supervision of a certification parachute rigger. " Derek

I quoted your post before you deleted it where you said Sun Path only recommended the RSL. I am not going to contact Sun Path because I'm not worries about it. Clearly, you are worried about it. So far, from your poll, you are the only one. If you will not remove the RSL or pack a Javelin with it removed, that is your call. You really should realize that your thoughts on rigging are exactly that, your thoughts. You don't sound like an un-safe rigger, but that doesn't mean that another rigger that does things differently is un-safe either. Derek

I can approve your approval of the approval if you have any problems obtaining any of the aformentioned approvals Derek

That does not mean you cannot remove it. In fact, it means you can. Derek

Grey area. You could argue that if Sun Path does not explicitly state that it can be removed, then it can't be removed. IF you agree with that argument, then you should also agree that you cannot pack any other reserve into a Vector II than a Safety Flyer. This is where common sense should step in and the rigger should realize that a) It is up to the jumper to decide if they want an RSL or not, and 2) a jumper is safer with a PD-R reserve in their Vector II than they are with a Safety Flyer. You could argue that since Sun Path gives instructions how to disconnect the RSL and it is the industry standard to remove it if the jumper does not want it, then you can legally remove it. It doesn’t hurt anything to remove it and cover the hook Velcro on the reserve riser with loop Velcro. All riggers should realize that the FAA does not really care unless you are doing something outside the ‘norm’ anyway. They will probably step in and take action if you are doing something clearly un-safe or outside the ‘norm’ regardless of what the FAR’s say. I had a conversation with the FAA about 6 months ago concerning altering mains. The Inspector’s viewpoint was 1) it is perfectly legal for a Senior Rigger to alter a main canopy (along with the person jumping it next, etc) and 2) He would take action if anyone was altering a main in an un-safe manner. His example was cutting a canopy in half, sewing it back together and giving it to someone with 20 jumps to go make a jump with. In short, a rigger can not install/remove an RSL from a Javelin without fear of the FAA. Derek

Have you ever packed any other reserve besides a Safety Flyer into a Vector II? Derek

We had 2 motors running at 100% this evening. It was very quiet and smooth. I could have a conversation standing right next to the motors. We are going to crank the other 2 tomorrow, then all 4. Hopefully we'll have the first flights tomorrow also. The entire crew is doing one hell of a job, getting everything done and dealing with problems as they arise. They even lit up the indoorskydiving.org sign up tonight. It looks great. I forgot to take a pic, for which I'll probably be fired.. Derek

for dealing with me: 1) If you are going to report me to the USPA, go ahead, I’m not a member. 2) If you are going to report me to the FAA, make sure I violated an FAR first or you are just wasting everyone’s time. 3) If you want to take a swing at me, take a swing, don’t wait until after I leave and tell everyone you want to take a swing at me. Derek

Thanks everyone-Flip you packed yet? Derek

I circled them. Do you know if those are pitot tubes? Derek

Are those the pitot tubes in the last pic? Derek

Just one manual for all of them. Same for containers. They tend to be vague and lacking in information. PD's are among the best though. I think it is for liability reasons. For example, even though Sun Path recently updated their manual, the text still says the bridle should go one way, while the picture shows it going another. Derek

LOL!- ya right. Derek

There is a thread on this int he wind tunnel forum with a pic. Derek

That does not say that the rigger must have the manual or use it when packing the reserve. It does say that the manufacturer must supply the following information to the user: (ii) Operating instructions and limitations, to include donning, retention, adjustment, and deployment. (v) Detailed maintenance instructions, including specific guidance on the limits of wear and damage permissible to webbing material that would warrant replacement. That doesn't even include reserve packing instructions. You are reading more into that than what is there. You still have not quoted an FAR that says the rigger must have the manual to pack the reserve. Derek

The MicroRaven is not a nice reserve. Derek