Well, they need to get their story straight. I may try to get them to make a public statement and policy like Sunpath in my capacity as PIA Rigging committee interim chair, but probably not before the next PIA meeting. (Or Bill if you read this give me a call.)
One major difference. Vector is under TSO C23b. That standard did NOT include the RSL as part of the approved assembly. Neither did C23c. TSO C23d and the proposed PIA standard for C23e DO include the RSL and require testing with it IF so equipped. So, on a Vector the skyhook or RSL are not part of the approved assembly. It's not a main parachute either, that can only be altered by a Master Rigger. Looks to me more like an AAD, an unapproved appliance but NOT addressed in the FAR's. Seems to me like you could do what you wanted with it. Kind of like an altimeter hung on a chest strap.
I'm only mildly kidding. It's not part of the approved assembly, it's not part of a main parachute and it isn't addressed in the FAR's like an AAD or a static line assist. I'd suggest no regs apply to an RSL or MARD (main assisted reserve deployment) on a C23b or c rig.
As with most things, the RSL req'ment has evolved over time:
C23(b) makes no mention of a RSL, static line or anything else of that nature.
C23(c) at Section 4.3.1 Ripcord Test says: ". . . If the ripcord is to be static line operated, the test shall be 2670 N (600 lbf) for not less than three seconds. . . "
C23(d) at Section 2.1.1 under Definitions says: "g. Primary actuation device (ripcord or functional equivalent, including reserve static line, if used)"
A personal thought: As I have stated before on this site; whenever one talks about a particular piece of parachute equipment it is ( IMO ) very important that one understands what version of the TSO standard that the equipment was certificated to.
Now, as to what C23(e) will have: Stay tuned, film at 11:00.
I'm on the committee writing it. It was last modified about 3 weeks ago. It was resubmitted to the FAA last week. I might suggest removing that version from the thread but that's up to you. There is a much newer version on PIA.com but I'm not sure it's the latest version. Haven't had a chance to compare it the version we voted to approve a couple of weeks ago.
edit I went and checked. The version at PIA.com is old. I'll get that removed or changed today. The lastest version is dated Sept 18, 2009 and AFAIK isn't public yet. If it is public well put it on PIA.com.
(This post was edited by councilman24 on Oct 8, 2009, 6:17 AM)
But C23c doesn't specify the RSL as part of the approved assembly. Just alters the standard for the ripcord itself if one is used, recognizing that they exist. C23d, and future e does. So I call the cut off between RSL not approved and approved as c to d, not b to c.
As stated above we believe that PIA TS 135, the standard for C23e, is now finished. It's NOT on pia.com as of this posting. It should be soon.