Hooknswoop

I suppose the same way you can tell if a motorcycle helmet visor will stay closed, look at the design and just see how hard it is for the flap to come open. Some designs will stay closed, some won't. Some will begind to open in freefall as they get older. Start with a good design and keep an eye on it. Derek

If that test was accurate then larger (heavier) rigs should have tighter main and reserve pin cover flaps than lighter rigs. Derek

"Eric 'you’re' an idiot in my book". Not "your". Sorry, couldn't resist. Derek

Not having a 120-day reserve inspection and re-pack cycle would make owning a rig cheaper, but would it be a better deal? There is something to be said for maintaining and inspecting life saving equipment. Derek

D Derek

Nope, discovered after opening. (Wasn't me.) Derek

Jump run was 1/2 mile west of the DZ and into the wind (South), I opened 2 miles to the East of the DZ. I drove the road from where I opened to the edge of the DZ and added 1/2 mile. The pilot used GPS to fly jumprun 1/2 mile to the West and maintain a straight jumprun to keep the competion fair (it was a whole otter load). Pro-Track for exit, opening altitudes and free-fall speeds. I looked it up on Jump-Track Exit:13,500 Deploy:2,100 Free-fall time: 102 sec By my math that equals 76 mph avg speed and a 1.158:1 Glide ratio. I've seen lower than that for slowest speeds in a track. Derek

I checked the lavel of a MR-109-M for the Average Peak forces from TSO testing and it isn't on the label. It is required to be marked on the canopy per AS8015B. I e-mailed PA about it and I'll post their reply. Amazing how many "T"'s don't get crossed and "I"'s dotted. Derek

Sure. They are supposed to go through the slider, but I have seen lines accidently not routed throught a slider grommet. Derek

Are you sure all of you lines go through the slider? If yes, it could be a tension knot, the line goes up to the canopy, knots, then back down to the slider, then back up to the canopy. Interesting opening. Derek

I don't see any reason not to have an audible altimeter. Set it to beep below where you should be breaking off, deploying, etc. If you plan on breaking off at 4,500 ft, set it for 4,000 feet. That way you are not relying on it and you'll only need it if you screw up. What you don't want is to be like Pavlov's dogs, breaking off, pulling, EP's based on an audible. Use it as a wake up call if it beeps and you haven't broken off yet, etc. Derek

For the right money, they will be called the "Mathew Cline Skydiving Team". From their web page, "Customized show narration referring to the team in your company's name (i.e. "the Nextel Parachute Team", or "the Timex Skydiving Team")." Derek

According the FAR's, yes. Technically you don't even have to test jump it as long as you intended to. You may also make you first jump by yourself without any instruction, AAD, helmet, RSL, googles, etc using a Velocity 79 for a main and a PD-106 reserve. the FAA also removed the FAR against skydiving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It is a major repair. An alteration is a change to the FAA approved configuration. Since mains do not have an FAA approved configuration because they are not approved, anything you do to a main isn't considered an alteration. Obviously the FAA does not either have a clearunderstanding of modern skydiving or more likely, they don't care. Probably both. Derek

Right, it may not have been what the FAA intended and it may not be right, but that is what the FAR says. I don't understand how anyone can read it any other way. It says what it says. You can's say that pack applies to #3 and alter applies to #1 and mainatian applies to #4, etc. That is not how the FAR is written. Should it be changed? I think it should be changed. Derek

Which does us no good since an Inspector cannot issue a Legal Interpretation. Hopefully the FAA will respond soon to my 2nd, recent request. With a Legal Intepretation from the FAA, there will be no question as to who can re-line or alter a main canopy. Without it, we are getting no where. The FAR's have changed since I took the written. I have looked up all the answers to the current test, they are on my web site. Besides, test questions do not trump the FAR's. 65.111 could have been written like this: 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; 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(2) Is under the supervision of a current certificated parachute rigger; 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(3) Is the person making the next parachute jump with that parachute in accordance with §105.43(a) of this chapter; or 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(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. It wasn't because it is repetative. I don't see how it can be read any other way. 1 through 4 apply to pack, maintain, and alter. Right or wrong, that is how the FAR is written. Another way of looking at it is what if the FAA wanted to write that these 4 groups of people could pack, maintain, and alter main parachutes; (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. How would the FAA have written the FAR? Exactly like they wrote it. How would they have written the FAR if their intent was as you interpret it? Probably something very close to: (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 has a Master Rigger's Certificate issued under this subpart or is under the supervision of a Master Parachute Rigger. (c) No person may pack or maintain 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 is under the supervision of a current certificated parachute rigger (d) No person may pack 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 making the next parachute jump with that parachute. (e)No person may pack any main parachute of a tandem dual-parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping in connection with civil aircraft of the United States unless that person 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. But that is not how they wrote it. Derek

No, FAR's and FAR's. How it is written is the same way, 1 through 4 apply. You cannot apply pack, maintain and alter arbitrarily as you see fit. The way the FAR is written, pack, maintain, and alter apply to 1 through 4, same as the other FAR. Changing how the canopy is packed is considered an alteration and I think someone can change how the canopy is packed if they are jumping it next. Also, what is right may not be how the FAR is written, but that doesn't change what the FAR says. Just because someone with zero jumps can jump with someone else without any jumps without any altimeters, AAD's, goggles, RSL's, helmets, etc with Velocitys for mains and PD-99's for reserves legally doesn;t make it right. I'm not arguing right and wrong, I'm arguing what the FAR's say. Derek

That is not how the FAR is written. Pack, maintain, or alter apply to 1 through 4. This is the same as: § 91.17 Alcohol or drugs. (a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft— (1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage; (2) While under the influence of alcohol; (3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or (4) While having .04 percent by weight or more alcohol in the blood. Act or attempt to act apply to 1 through 4. You can't say act applies to 1 and 2 and attempt to act applies to 2 through 4. Act or attempt to act apply to 1 through for just like pack, maintain, or alter applies to 1 through 4. Derek

That is the old FAR, it has been updated and now states: "(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." Derek

Don is a Master Rigger. From an Inspector, same as the one I have. The fact that we have 2 opposite interpretations from 2 Inspectors tells me that the FAR's are not very clear and can be interpreted differently. Me too. I am mailing another request, this time directly to Washington, for a formal, FAA legal interpretation. Either way, that will put an end to an interesting debate. As for AC-105-2C, it defines alterations as changes to the FAA approved configuration. It also lists examples of approved parachutes as parachutes manufactured under a type certificate, under TSO C23, and military parachutes. That excludes mains, by definition. Derek

The DZ could just as easily require the membership without being a GM DZ. Derek

No, they don't. The Master Rigger/Inspector at the Denver FSDO says that is not the case. I requested a Legal Intrepitation from the FAA. By someone, you mean the Inspector/Master Rigger at the Denver FSDO? Here is the e-mail I recieved from the FSDO: "14 CFR Part 65.111(b) states, "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; 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." In plain language this regulation states: 1. If you have a parachute rigger certificate or 2. You are under the supervision of a parachute rigger or 3. You are the person jumping with the main parachute or 4. You are the parachutist in command making the next tandem jump with that main parachute So, if you are any one of the above, you can pack, maintain, or alter any main parachute of a dual parachute system. However, keep in mind that any main parachute alteration that affects the strength or operation of the auxiliary (reserve) parachute, including the harness, must be regarded as an alteration of the auxiliary (reserve) parachute and must be performed by a Master Parachute Rigger using FAA approved data. This also answers your question that you can change how the main parachute is packed if you are one of the items above. Hope this clearly answers your questions." Derek

It is not a matter of de-rating, it is a matter of compatability. AC-105-2C states that the reserve won't have a higher peak force thant he harness is rated to. The PD-113R has a higher peak force than the Mirage is rated to. De-rating doesn't fix it. Derek

I keep e-mailing the FSDO for a status of my request without reply. It has been 6 months since I mailed the request in with no word. I'll try calling today. Derek

I e-mailed Mirage and I am still waiting for a reply. Hopefully they have something that eliminates this. Derek

http://www.relativeworkshop.com/pdf_files/05321.pdf http://www.relativeworkshop.com/pdt_skyhook.html You don't have a medical though????? Derek