Forums: Skydiving: Gear and Rigging:
FAA ruling on life limits

 


ActionAir  (D License)

Sep 28, 2012, 9:36 AM
Post #1 of 70 (6691 views)
Shortcut
FAA ruling on life limits Can't Post

Attached is the FAA ruling on supposed life limits.
I recommend you print this out and present to your rigger. If you rigger in unwilling to do his job - insect, repack and recertify a parachute, you might suggest that he / she change occupations. Then find yourself a new rigger!
Thanks goes to USPA for following through with this, for its members.
Attachments: FAA ltr-USPA re life limits 8-21-12.pdf (122 KB)


Premier likestojump  (D License)

Sep 28, 2012, 9:40 AM
Post #2 of 70 (6661 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ActionAir] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

A) HELL YA

B) If I am reading this right, it seems like the ParaPhernalia 20 year life recently put in their Softie manual is actually not binding as per FAA for any Softies purchased prior to the manual revision ?


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Sep 28, 2012, 11:35 AM
Post #3 of 70 (6592 views)
Shortcut
Re: [likestojump] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
B) If I am reading this right, it seems like the ParaPhernalia 20 year life recently put in their Softie manual is actually not binding as per FAA for any Softies purchased prior to the manual revision ?

The first half is correct but it doesn't matter when or what they put in the manual it is not binding. Nothing they say in the manual is binding. Only a Service Bullitin stating safety concerns and requesting an Airworthyneess Directive and the issuance of that Directive can change the life span. Mike Truffer (Skydiving Mag) did the research some years ago.
If a rig is to have a service life it must be specified in the data package which accompinies the original application. Changing the manual does nothing. The FAA points out, in the last paragraph, it must be by "Service Bullitin" stating Safety Concerns and requesting an "Airworthyness Directive. Just putting it in the manual does nothing

I applaude the work done by Mike and now Randy. It is the correct rule.

Once PIA got a letter from the French Federation stating their equipment had a 20 year life and requesting to know what the life span on American equipment was. PIA responded "120 days" which was the duration of the "Inspection Cycle" at that time.


(This post was edited by JohnSherman on Sep 28, 2012, 2:20 PM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Sep 28, 2012, 11:44 AM
Post #4 of 70 (6577 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ActionAir] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank you for posting. Very interesting!

[edited: Others beat me to these points but anyway:]

There's one important thing the letter states, but which can easily be overlooked.

Note that it says "and sold before a service life was established."

Although the grammar of the whole sentence is slightly messed up, this suggests that if you bought a parachute AFTER a service life was put in the manual, that life does apply.

So an old Softie pilot rig has a potentially unlimited life, but a new one would have whatever limit is now in their manual.

Although it isn't spelled out, the letter seems to imply something else important -- which I wish had be clarified:

Changing the manual doesn't seem to affect the original limitations on the gear. So if a new manual shows a different packing method, the packing method in the old manual is still legal, because that's how the gear was certified. If the manufacturer thinks it is dangerous, they can apply for an AD.

Whether new manuals complement or supersede old manuals, that's a huge issue that riggers have argued about in the past.


(This post was edited by pchapman on Sep 28, 2012, 11:48 AM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Sep 28, 2012, 11:47 AM
Post #5 of 70 (6574 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ActionAir] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

For better accessibility, I've OCR'd the main contents of the letter from the FAA to the USPA:

Quote:
Dear Mr. Ottinger:
This letter is in response to your request for clarification regarding parachute manufacturers establishing a service life beyond the requirements of the Technical Standard Order (TSO) which the parachute was built (TSO-C23b, dated March 29 1962). Members of USPA also maintain that since TSO-C23b, TSO-C23c, and TSO-C23d did not establish a service life, a rigger may extend the life of the system 180 days at a time.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) considers the service life recommended by the manufacturer, a non regulatory requirement for a parachute that meets the standards of TSO-C23b, TSO-C23c, TSO-C23d, and sold before a service life was established.

To hold a parachute owner to a newly established service life required by the manufacturer of a parachute, the manufacturer issues a Service Bulletin with safety concerns and recommends the FAA issue an Airworthiness Directive to establish a regulatory service life.

Thank you for your interest in aviation safety.
Sincerely,

Steven W. Douglas
Manager, Aircraft Maintenance Division

I think I caught any OCR errors but let me know if anything slipped by.


Deci  (D 1046)

Sep 28, 2012, 11:52 AM
Post #6 of 70 (6564 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Nice. Clears things up a bit.


NovaTTT  (D 17887)

Sep 28, 2012, 12:38 PM
Post #7 of 70 (6526 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ActionAir] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

This opens a closed case for me.

A GQ Security 350 that I've declined to work on is sitting in a box in my loft waiting for the pilot to come and claim it.

Based on a 02 Dec 2000 document that indicates a 15 year life limit from date of manufacture subject to a critical inspection at 10 years I've not worked on the rig, which is otherwise airworthy after a few minor correction/repairs.

But I don't have and can't locate an original manual for the 350 - only the 150 and 250.

Anyone have an actual 350 manual or know if, as I suppose, the life limit was related to the closure of the company and not part of that manual?


pchapman  (D 1014)

Sep 28, 2012, 1:08 PM
Post #8 of 70 (6491 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NovaTTT] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Aside to the thread:
I actually do seem to have a scanned manual for the 350, from GQ Security USA 1980, that I got through Beatnik.

Just skimming it, I see no life limit.
PM me your email so I can send it.
(I'll also submit it to parachutemanuals.com)


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Sep 28, 2012, 1:27 PM
Post #9 of 70 (6458 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NovaTTT] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Nova,

In the unlikely event that you do not get a manual from Peter, then contact me & I'll make you a copy of mine.

JerryBaumchen

PS) Peter, good for you for putting it on-line.


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Sep 28, 2012, 2:32 PM
Post #10 of 70 (6426 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So an old Softie pilot rig has a potentially unlimited life, but a new one would have whatever limit is now in their manual.

No, just changing the manual does not change the life limit. They must apply for a new TSO with a revised Data package requiring a specified service life or they may do it by AD. But nothing done to the manual changes anything.


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Sep 28, 2012, 2:38 PM
Post #11 of 70 (6418 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NovaTTT] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Anyone have an actual 350 manual or know if, as I suppose, the life limit was related to the closure of the company and not part of that manual?

You bet your buns. The Brits who bought the company didn't want the liability and they tried to dispose of it. It is the reason Truffer did the research.


pchapman  (D 1014)

Sep 28, 2012, 4:19 PM
Post #12 of 70 (6354 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No, just changing the manual does not change the life limit. They must apply for a new TSO with a revised Data package requiring a specified service life or they may do it by AD. But nothing done to the manual changes anything.

I'd really like to believe that, but the FAA statement tends to support the other interpretation. Still, it doesn't necessarily rule out what you are saying.

A canopy sold before a service life is established clearly can't have one added later in a manual.

But then is putting a limit in a manual a restriction on newly produced canopies? Is "establishing" a service life something that can be done in the manual, or as you suggest, it has to be done through the TSO or AD.

After all, the letter does say "To hold a parachute owner to a newly established service life ..." which doesn't clearly specify if it means it applies to owners with old manuals, or owners buying with a new manual.

Given that this issue is so contentious, I'd like to see other evidence suggesting that only a TSO or AD can change hard limits for parachute life etc.


tdog  (D 28800)

Sep 28, 2012, 8:51 PM
Post #13 of 70 (6250 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ActionAir] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If you rigger in unwilling to do his job - insect, repack and recertify a parachute, you might suggest that he / she change occupations.

Nice one, I like the tone of that - NOT. Crazy

If a rigging customer of mine can't understand why I would want to limit my own exposure and liability on higher-risk transactions with a $60 repack fee upside and a $1M lawsuit downside, they can find a new rigger and I won't mind at all. They can even swear and yell at me, but I can sleep at night knowing I don't have any liability for my actions.

It is cool that there are clarifications on this subject, but I think a rigger still has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, and still be a professional who is "doing his job" and not being forced to "change occupations."


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Sep 29, 2012, 12:58 AM
Post #14 of 70 (6210 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
But then is putting a limit in a manual a restriction on newly produced canopies? Is "establishing" a service life something that can be done in the manual, or as you suggest, it has to be done through the TSO or AD.

It must be done throught the AD procedure or by submitting a new TSO.

Another point, to expand this ruling. Someone on this thread asked about a change in packing method in the manual. I would suggest it has to do with safety and airworthyness. If the rig/canopy was tested with one pack method and the manufacturer wants to change it to another type they must have a reason. If the reason has safety implications it must be done through the AD procedure or a new TSO. Of course the manufacturer could change from, say, "Flat packing" to "Pro packing" and declair that it has no safety implications. This would probably need to be explained to the FAA ACO who may require a Safety Bullitin.
The Safetry Bullitin is the only official way for the Administrator to notify interested parties about any changes. If a manual were to change without a Safety Bullitin, how would know oficially.


mark  (D 6108)

Sep 29, 2012, 5:05 AM
Post #15 of 70 (6167 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It must be done throught the AD procedure or by submitting a new TSO.

Could it be done via "minor change?" That way it wouldn't apply to previously sold equipment, but would apply to new production.

Mark


councilman24  (D 8631)

Sep 29, 2012, 6:35 AM
Post #16 of 70 (6133 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Of course their have been manufacturers that desperately WANTED an AD issued on their parachute equipment and the FAA refused, stating that since it wasn't an aircraft or appliance they could NOT issue an AD for a parachute. We all know they used to but haven't since 1999. The last was the Relative Workshop amp fittings.

So once again one FAA type is saying one thing and another saying that it isn't possible. There have been indications they might be willing to issue a parachute AD again but I don't believe they have.


councilman24  (D 8631)

Sep 29, 2012, 8:54 AM
Post #17 of 70 (6092 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Doesn't a new manual have to be submitted as a minor change normally?


councilman24  (D 8631)

Sep 29, 2012, 9:28 AM
Post #18 of 70 (6085 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NovaTTT] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

The 350 does NOT have the life limit in it. The manual for the British version does. See below and attached.

And my Principle Managing Inspector (as an FAA designee) has given me different guidance. IF this is to be THE interpretation of the FAA then it needs to be disseminated as such by the FAA to all inspectors. Telling the USPA doesn't do me any good.

The U.S. 350, British 350 and service bulletins are available at
http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk/...ategory/178-manuals/

US 350 version here.

http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk/...file/2975-model-350/

British A350 with the maintenance notes attached is available here.
http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk/...s/file/2894-a350pdf/
Chapter 2.2, page 10 of the document.
Attachments: securityA350statement.doc.docx (11.3 KB)


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Sep 29, 2012, 10:05 AM
Post #19 of 70 (6077 views)
Shortcut
Re: [councilman24] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Telling the USPA doesn't do me any good.

Anybody else notice the date on the letter? It's now over a month later and USPA hasn't informed the membership about it. So apparently telling USPA really doesn't do us any good...


NovaTTT  (D 17887)

Sep 29, 2012, 10:23 AM
Post #20 of 70 (6070 views)
Shortcut
Re: [councilman24] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks to all for the information & help.


stratostar  (Student)

Sep 29, 2012, 11:17 AM
Post #21 of 70 (6054 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Telling the USPA doesn't do me any good.

Anybody else notice the date on the letter? It's now over a month later and USPA hasn't informed the membership about it. So apparently telling USPA really doesn't do us any good...

Well in a lot of cases I would agree with you, in the past context of USPA. However, did you see the name on the letter and who it was addressed too? Mr Randy Ottinger, Director of Government Relations.

Do you have any idea how much FAA dealings were/have been/ and are, currently on his plate? Do you have any idea just how much FAA shit has been hitting the fan in the time frame your pointing fingers at, a month ago?

While this is an issue of concern to a number of people, who spent time working on this issue, it is small potato's! There were and are much more pressing info that was needed to be put out for the membership, where HQ and the people I'm talking about were begging the membership to take part in the process to help protect the very dropzones and airports we need the use of in order to jump. Along with substantial research and compiling huge volumes in documents to reply, rebut, refute and fend off very harmful attack on our industry.

The membership turn out was little to noneCrazy, big surprise there, with only a handful of people taking part in the process and replying to USPA & the FAA. I think is it safe to say that this info, along with the pending (Oct. 1st.) release of the PLA standards, that USPA will be making a drafted public notice to all member of all the new FAA information and advisory guidance being released.

Also even tho there is this letter, as you can see not all agree with the content and what it means. That says to me, there is another side who will be bitching to the FAA about this, meaning, it's not a done deal, same as the PLA issue.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Sep 29, 2012, 6:16 PM
Post #22 of 70 (5951 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Do you have any idea how much FAA dealings were/have been/ and are, currently on his plate? Do you have any idea just how much FAA shit has been hitting the fan in the time frame your pointing fingers at, a month ago?

Sorry, didn't realize it was all that difficult to disseminate information these days.


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Sep 29, 2012, 7:12 PM
Post #23 of 70 (5925 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Could it be done via "minor change?" That way it wouldn't apply to previously sold equipment, but would apply to new production.

You can't change a service life with a minor change. You might be able to get a pack job by as a minor change but you better be ready to demonstrate that there is no safety implications if asked by the ACO.


diablopilot  (D License)

Sep 29, 2012, 8:28 PM
Post #24 of 70 (5903 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdog] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
If you rigger in unwilling to do his job - insect, repack and recertify a parachute, you might suggest that he / she change occupations.

Nice one, I like the tone of that - NOT. Crazy

If a rigging customer of mine can't understand why I would want to limit my own exposure and liability on higher-risk transactions with a $60 repack fee upside and a $1M lawsuit downside, they can find a new rigger and I won't mind at all. They can even swear and yell at me, but I can sleep at night knowing I don't have any liability for my actions.

It is cool that there are clarifications on this subject, but I think a rigger still has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, and still be a professional who is "doing his job" and not being forced to "change occupations."

Maybe it's all about the way you say no.

If you tell you client you won't touch it because it's 20+ years old irrespective of condition then you are not doing your job.

On the other hand if you inspect said item and are not willing to recertify it's airworthyness for another 180 days because of its CONDITION rather than age, then you are doing the job of a rigger.


tdog  (D 28800)

Sep 29, 2012, 9:30 PM
Post #25 of 70 (5873 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Maybe it's all about the way you say no.

If you tell you client you won't touch it because it's 20+ years old irrespective of condition then you are not doing your job.

#1 - as a freelance rigger, (not a factory, DZ, or manufacture rigger) - I don't have a "job" where I have any moral, emotional, financial, or other implied obligation to provide services to anyone. If I was a subcontractor or employee of an organization I may have responsibility to follow their company policy and standards as long as they were not illegal, or quit that employment.

#2 - When I earned my rigger's ticket, no one made me agree to an oath, like Doctors might with the Hippocratic oath, that makes it part of my "job" to certify something I am uncomfortable accepting the risk to certify. I can say no to anything I want (and the customer can find someone who wants to say yes).

#3 - If someone got hurt, there are two possible liability exposures a rigger might face. The FAA enforcement, which this letter may protect against. And the civil wrongful death lawsuit, which this letter does not address. The plaintiff's attorney will argue while the rigger's actions were against the recommendations of the manufacture, and a professional should have followed the manufacturer's instructions... A good lawyer could easily convince a jury that this FAA letter simply covers government enforcement (and it may not even be admissible if the attorney can convince the judge their claims for relief were not related to regulations)... That their client would not be dead but for the actions of the rigger ignoring the time limit recommended by the manufacture, so the rigger's actions are the proximate cause for their client's death...

So, I as a rigger, reserve the right, to simply say, "Dear customer, the manufacture (or PIA/Industry Publications, etc) published a concern with components of this age, so I would rather not pack that parachute. It may be perfectly airworthy, the FAA does not prohibit me from packing it, but I am unwilling to risk it because no one will stand behind my decision if I am wrong. Sorry."


mark  (D 6108)

Sep 30, 2012, 7:30 AM
Post #26 of 70 (2964 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
On the other hand if you inspect said item and are not willing to recertify it's airworthyness for another 180 days because of its CONDITION rather than age, then you are doing the job of a rigger.

Riggers do not certify future airworthiness. All we do is certify airworthiness at the time of packing.

Mark


riggermick  (D 17071)

Sep 30, 2012, 3:47 PM
Post #27 of 70 (2908 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
On the other hand if you inspect said item and are not willing to recertify it's airworthyness for another 180 days because of its CONDITION rather than age, then you are doing the job of a rigger.

Riggers do not certify future airworthiness. All we do is certify airworthiness at the time of packing.

Mark

that means for the next 180 days. Aka the (short term) future. Like it or not, that's how it is. @ 181 days your'e in the clear. But you already know thatSly


ActionAir  (D License)

Sep 30, 2012, 4:23 PM
Post #28 of 70 (2893 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggermick] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
On the other hand if you inspect said item and are not willing to recertify it's airworthyness for another 180 days because of its CONDITION rather than age, then you are doing the job of a rigger.

Riggers do not certify future airworthiness. All we do is certify airworthiness at the time of packing.

Mark

that means for the next 180 days. Aka the (short term) future. Like it or not, that's how it is. @ 181 days your'e in the clear. But you already know thatSly

Actually when you sign and seal the rig you are certifying that it is airworthy at that moment. Once you return it to the owner, you have no control over it. So if someone cuts the harness or pokes a hole in the container / canopy, its on the user not the rigger.


mark  (D 6108)

Sep 30, 2012, 4:24 PM
Post #29 of 70 (2890 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggermick] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
On the other hand if you inspect said item and are not willing to recertify it's airworthyness for another 180 days because of its CONDITION rather than age, then you are doing the job of a rigger.

Riggers do not certify future airworthiness. All we do is certify airworthiness at the time of packing.

Mark

that means for the next 180 days. Aka the (short term) future. Like it or not, that's how it is. @ 181 days your'e in the clear. But you already know thatSly

No, it does not mean for the next 180 days. It means exactly what I wrote: airworthy at the time of packing only. I cannot know if the rig will be airworthy even tomorrow. Who can certify the future? Further, the regulations permit me to pack something I know will not be airworthy for a full 180 days.

Mark


riggermick  (D 17071)

Sep 30, 2012, 4:39 PM
Post #30 of 70 (2880 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ActionAir] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Ray pm me with your cell ill do the same. Long time no talk. Lets catch up .
Mick.


skypuppy  (D 347)

Sep 30, 2012, 8:06 PM
Post #31 of 70 (2839 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

seems to me Peter the next paragraph states pretty specifically that adding a service life in the manual is NOT binding -- it would have to be in a service bulletin and airworthiness directive through the FAA


(This post was edited by skypuppy on Sep 30, 2012, 8:08 PM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Sep 30, 2012, 8:45 PM
Post #32 of 70 (2826 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skypuppy] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

The problem is that it mentions a "newly established" service life. Does that mean newly established since the TSO, or newly established since your rig's manual was published? The company could say that it isn't a newly established service life but the original one appropriate to the serial number of the gear being sold, just like any other change they put in the manual.

And, it isn't clear whether that "next paragraph" is supposed to stand independent of the previous paragraph, or refer to the situation in that previous paragraph, which talked about cases where a service life was changed after a particular item was sold.

Most damningly, why would they even include "and sold before a service life was established", if the following paragraph means that it doesn't matter? That "sold before" quote seems to imply (but does not state) that something might be different for rigs sold after the manual was changed.

It's like saying "Persons over 18 may vote". That says nothing about persons under 18, but is taken to imply that something might be different for them.

Or do they mean "a parachute" as a TSO'd type, rather than an individual physical item? In that case the stuff about "a parachute [type] ... sold before a service life was established" would mean that as soon as that type of parachute was on the market, any changes to service life in the manual have no regulatory force.


The trend of the opinions in this thread certainly is towards "you can't change the original TSO limits with the manual", which is fine by me.

But I personally still think the FAA statement can quite reasonably be interpreted different ways, which makes it so maddening...


fcajump  (D 15598)

Oct 1, 2012, 8:27 AM
Post #33 of 70 (2757 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdog] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Maybe it's all about the way you say no.

If you tell you client you won't touch it because it's 20+ years old irrespective of condition then you are not doing your job.

#1 - as a freelance rigger, (not a factory, DZ, or manufacture rigger) - I don't have a "job" where I have any moral, emotional, financial, or other implied obligation to provide services to anyone. If I was a subcontractor or employee of an organization I may have responsibility to follow their company policy and standards as long as they were not illegal, or quit that employment.

#2 - When I earned my rigger's ticket, no one made me agree to an oath, like Doctors might with the Hippocratic oath, that makes it part of my "job" to certify something I am uncomfortable accepting the risk to certify. I can say no to anything I want (and the customer can find someone who wants to say yes).

#3 - If someone got hurt, there are two possible liability exposures a rigger might face. The FAA enforcement, which this letter may protect against. And the civil wrongful death lawsuit, which this letter does not address. The plaintiff's attorney will argue while the rigger's actions were against the recommendations of the manufacture, and a professional should have followed the manufacturer's instructions... A good lawyer could easily convince a jury that this FAA letter simply covers government enforcement (and it may not even be admissible if the attorney can convince the judge their claims for relief were not related to regulations)... That their client would not be dead but for the actions of the rigger ignoring the time limit recommended by the manufacture, so the rigger's actions are the proximate cause for their client's death...

So, I as a rigger, reserve the right, to simply say, "Dear customer, the manufacture (or PIA/Industry Publications, etc) published a concern with components of this age, so I would rather not pack that parachute. It may be perfectly airworthy, the FAA does not prohibit me from packing it, but I am unwilling to risk it because no one will stand behind my decision if I am wrong. Sorry."

+1

To the earlier poster -
My JOB is (as a rigger) is to certify that at the time I saw it it was airworthy and serviced in accordance with the FAA regulations, manufacturer's requirements and recommendations, and my company's policy concerning any further limits on condition and/or age. We warrent no future condition, though we note that you are required by the FAA to have it inspected again at 180 days (for use in the USA). At my discression, I may refuse to service any rig, of any age, for any reason I see fit (including applicability for stated/intended use and/or customer attitude).

That sir, is my job as described by my employer (an LLC, of which I am the principle owner)

There is no requirement for me to do anything more.

Freelance Rigger,
JW

PS - I do appreciate getting a copy of the FAA letter. May (or may not) change what I choose to do with regard to my own/old gear, but not what I choose to service for others.


(This post was edited by fcajump on Oct 1, 2012, 8:30 AM)


fcajump  (D 15598)

Oct 1, 2012, 8:36 AM
Post #34 of 70 (2748 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No, it does not mean for the next 180 days. It means exactly what I wrote: airworthy at the time of packing only. I cannot know if the rig will be airworthy even tomorrow.

Agree 100%.
I understand that this is based on how FAA mechanics' work is seen. Airworthy at the time of inspection. Brakes or tires (for example) that meet the minimum inspection standard are not warrenteed to last the full inspection cycle regardless of how much they are used and how they are treated... only that they meet minimums today.
Parachute owners/users are still required to ensure it is kept in good condition and perform pre-flight inspections to verify that it is still airworthy at the time of use.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 1, 2012, 9:24 AM
Post #35 of 70 (2725 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>No, it does not mean for the next 180 days. It means exactly what I
>wrote: airworthy at the time of packing only.

If a rigger knowingly and intentionally signed off on an I/R where he knew the harness would last another few jumps, but fail shortly after that, then he would (rightly) be subject to action if anyone was injured or killed as a result. A harness/container/reserve that is only airworthy for a short time (assuming normal usage) is not airworthy. And to quantify "short time" the rigger has to know how long it will be in use for.

Riggers pack knowing what length of time wear items will last. That's why you hear "this is the last I+R I'm going to do on that unless you get your legstraps fixed; the wear on the legstrap junction is getting to be an issue." And that's why many rigger's standards changed when the 180 day repack cycle came into effect.


mark  (D 6108)

Oct 1, 2012, 10:01 AM
Post #36 of 70 (2713 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If a rigger knowingly and intentionally signed off on an I/R where he knew the harness would last another few jumps, but fail shortly after that, then he would (rightly) be subject to action if anyone was injured or killed as a result. A harness/container/reserve that is only airworthy for a short time (assuming normal usage) is not airworthy. And to quantify "short time" the rigger has to know how long it will be in use for.

Riggers pack knowing what length of time wear items will last. That's why you hear "this is the last I+R I'm going to do on that unless you get your legstraps fixed; the wear on the legstrap junction is getting to be an issue." And that's why many rigger's standards changed when the 180 day repack cycle came into effect.

Your hypothetical rigger might say instead, "Your leg strap junction is airworthy right now. Here's what to look for that would make it unairworthy. If that happens, stop jumping it and bring it back for repair."

As to whether a rig that will be airworthy for only a short period of time is defacto unairworthy, I think we will agree that it's okay to pack a rig for water jumps, and it's okay to pack a student or tandem rig when the AAD will need service after the end of the jump season but before the passage of 180 days.

As to your particular example of a harness that could be expected to last only some number of jumps, I'm at a loss as to how one would even start estimating the number of jumps, or how one might keep track of jumps to be made in the future, or what one's responsibility might be if the equipment is loaned or sold. Jeepers. If there's a problem with airworthiness, the solution is to fix the problem or refuse to return the equipment to service.

Mark


Mark


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 1, 2012, 4:40 PM
Post #37 of 70 (2649 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Your hypothetical rigger might say instead, "Your leg strap junction is
>airworthy right now. Here's what to look for that would make it unairworthy.
>If that happens, stop jumping it and bring it back for repair."

Yes, he might say that. And if the customer did not, and the harness failed after 10 jumps due to that same wear worsening . . . they would be, in my opinion, a shitty rigger.

> If there's a problem with airworthiness, the solution is to fix the problem
>or refuse to return the equipment to service.

In the real world you see extremes between perfect and unairworthy. The legstrap example is an easy one; a pattern of worsening wear might indeed require grounding. Or it might be OK for another 1000 jumps. Or it might be marginal - but very close to unairworthy. Most riggers know the difference.


mark  (D 6108)

Oct 1, 2012, 5:45 PM
Post #38 of 70 (2628 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Your hypothetical rigger might say instead, "Your leg strap junction is
>airworthy right now. Here's what to look for that would make it unairworthy.
>If that happens, stop jumping it and bring it back for repair."

Yes, he might say that. And if the customer did not, and the harness failed after 10 jumps due to that same wear worsening . . . they would be, in my opinion, a shitty rigger.

Whose responsibility was it to inspect the gear to deem it airworthy on that 10th jump?

Mark.


jumpwally  (D License)

Oct 2, 2012, 10:49 AM
Post #39 of 70 (2541 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdog] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

+1 i just don't get people's facination with old gear,,,dump it,,save up and buy new or newer. It's your life on the line.....Crazy


Premier likestojump  (D License)

Oct 2, 2012, 11:10 AM
Post #40 of 70 (2533 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpwally] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
+1 i just don't get people's facination with old gear,,,dump it,,save up and buy new or newer. It's your life on the line.....Crazy

old gear has completely acceptable purposes :

vintage jumps
CRW work
water jumps
etc.

I wouldn't call it fascination.

For example, how would you feel if doctors refused you service because they thought you were too old and required much more work than a younger person ?


SStewart  (D 10405)

Oct 2, 2012, 10:21 PM
Post #41 of 70 (2475 views)
Shortcut
Re: [likestojump] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Yep!

The gear I jump now has some components dating back to the 90's but most of it is fairly new.

That said, I jumped out of a 1958 Cessna 182 last weekend and it appeared to be in very nice condition and flew like a champ. Obviously well maintained.

If you know what I mean. Wink


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Oct 3, 2012, 6:14 AM
Post #42 of 70 (2442 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpwally] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
+1 i just don't get people's facination with old gear,,,dump it,,save up and buy new or newer. It's your life on the line.....Crazy

I don't think it's a fascination. I'm not a rigger!! I try to find the best rigger I can. Someone I can totally trust. And then, take his advice and listen when he tells me something.

I know a very well respected rigger (name withheld to protect Mark Wink ) who told me he would not repack my old Javelin because it was old enough to drink leagally. He explaned, it was in good shape and probly be ok. However, "this is his policy".

I have that rig packed by another rigger. It's now used as my back up rig because Rigger #1 convinced me I should start looking for new gear. Advice I took.

As I see it, from a non-riggers perspective, any rigger can refuse to pack any gear for any reason. Cool


Premier 554

Oct 3, 2012, 10:45 AM
Post #43 of 70 (2402 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Let me see if I understand what you said. You find the best rigger you can. Somone you totally trust. When they refuse to pack your rig, you take it to someone else who will pack it. Is that right? Do you still take your primary rig to rigger #1?


Premier likestojump  (D License)

Oct 3, 2012, 11:22 AM
Post #44 of 70 (2388 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
+1 i just don't get people's facination with old gear,,,dump it,,save up and buy new or newer. It's your life on the line.....Crazy

I don't think it's a fascination. I'm not a rigger!! I try to find the best rigger I can. Someone I can totally trust. And then, take his advice and listen when he tells me something.

I know a very well respected rigger (name withheld to protect Mark Wink ) who told me he would not repack my old Javelin because it was old enough to drink leagally. He explaned, it was in good shape and probly be ok. However, "this is his policy".

I have that rig packed by another rigger. It's now used as my back up rig because Rigger #1 convinced me I should start looking for new gear. Advice I took.

As I see it, from a non-riggers perspective, any rigger can refuse to pack any gear for any reason. Cool

Their excuse is equivalent of one dismissing their rigger because "they are old enough to collect Social Security".

Plain god damn stupid.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 3, 2012, 11:32 AM
Post #45 of 70 (2385 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

>Whose responsibility was it to inspect the gear to deem it airworthy on that 10th jump?

Legally? No one.

Whose responsibility is it to inspect the gear and deem it airworthy for the purpose it will be used for during the I+R? The rigger who inspected and repacked it. "I didn't expect him to jump it 11 times!" will probably not save your ticket, nor will "but I told him it might fail after 10 jumps!" Making 11 jumps on the rig is a reasonable usage of the gear that (the FAA will claim) a competent rigger will foresee.


mark  (D 6108)

Oct 3, 2012, 12:27 PM
Post #46 of 70 (2367 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Whose responsibility was it to inspect the gear to deem it airworthy on that 10th jump?

Legally? No one.

Whose responsibility is it to inspect the gear and deem it airworthy for the purpose it will be used for during the I+R? The rigger who inspected and repacked it.

I can't believe you intend to imply that a jumper is not responsible for inspecting his own gear.

As to whose responsibility it is to deem something airworthy "for the purpose it will be used for during the I&R," all the rigger who inspected and repacked it is legally required to do is to certify it is airworthy at the time of packing. That really is the FAA position. No rigger is required to certify that anything will be airworthy in the future.

Mark


(This post was edited by mark on Oct 3, 2012, 12:41 PM)


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Oct 3, 2012, 12:54 PM
Post #47 of 70 (2356 views)
Shortcut
Re: [554] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Let me see if I understand what you said. You find the best rigger you can. Somone you totally trust. When they refuse to pack your rig, you take it to someone else who will pack it. Is that right? Do you still take your primary rig to rigger #1?

You did misunderstand. I probably did not make my point clear??
Rigger #1 told me that my old Javelin was old enough to drink legally. And, it's his policy not to do any work or I&R on rigs of this age. He went on to say that I could continue to use this rig because it was in good shape (airworthy). However, I'd have to find a new rigger to pack it.

I respect his RIGHT to enforce this policy. I'm sad that he wont pack this rig because I trust him and know he is extremely thorough. But, its his policy and I respect that. My point. Riggers, as I understand this, can choose not to pack or work on any rig at any time for any reason.

And yes, I do still use Rigger #1 whenever possible. I also go to others as needed. Cool


riggermick  (D 17071)

Oct 4, 2012, 5:09 PM
Post #48 of 70 (2262 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fcajump] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Maybe it's all about the way you say no.

If you tell you client you won't touch it because it's 20+ years old irrespective of condition then you are not doing your job.

#1 - as a freelance rigger, (not a factory, DZ, or manufacture rigger) - I don't have a "job" where I have any moral, emotional, financial, or other implied obligation to provide services to anyone. If I was a subcontractor or employee of an organization I may have responsibility to follow their company policy and standards as long as they were not illegal, or quit that employment.

#2 - When I earned my rigger's ticket, no one made me agree to an oath, like Doctors might with the Hippocratic oath, that makes it part of my "job" to certify something I am uncomfortable accepting the risk to certify. I can say no to anything I want (and the customer can find someone who wants to say yes).

#3 - If someone got hurt, there are two possible liability exposures a rigger might face. The FAA enforcement, which this letter may protect against. And the civil wrongful death lawsuit, which this letter does not address. The plaintiff's attorney will argue while the rigger's actions were against the recommendations of the manufacture, and a professional should have followed the manufacturer's instructions... A good lawyer could easily convince a jury that this FAA letter simply covers government enforcement (and it may not even be admissible if the attorney can convince the judge their claims for relief were not related to regulations)... That their client would not be dead but for the actions of the rigger ignoring the time limit recommended by the manufacture, so the rigger's actions are the proximate cause for their client's death...

So, I as a rigger, reserve the right, to simply say, "Dear customer, the manufacture (or PIA/Industry Publications, etc) published a concern with components of this age, so I would rather not pack that parachute. It may be perfectly airworthy, the FAA does not prohibit me from packing it, but I am unwilling to risk it because no one will stand behind my decision if I am wrong. Sorry."

+1

To the earlier poster -
My JOB is (as a rigger) is to certify that at the time I saw it it was airworthy and serviced in accordance with the FAA regulations, manufacturer's requirements and recommendations, and my company's policy concerning any further limits on condition and/or age. We warrent no future condition, though we note that you are required by the FAA to have it inspected again at 180 days (for use in the USA). At my discression, I may refuse to service any rig, of any age, for any reason I see fit (including applicability for stated/intended use and/or customer attitude).

That sir, is my job as described by my employer (an LLC, of which I am the principle owner)

There is no requirement for me to do anything more.

Freelance Rigger,
JW

PS - I do appreciate getting a copy of the FAA .letter. May (or may not) change what I choose to do with regard to my own/old aygear, but not what' I choose to service for others.


Ahhh, at least one of you got it. It's about your liability. With the exception of Ray, how many of the posting pundits have been draged through a superior court room? I have, so has Ray, it aint no fun. i can tell you that. The letter of the law and the "sprit of the law" are both given equal weight in a writ before the courts. Just because you followed the letter of the law doesn't make you immune from prosicuction/ liability, it's your actions that count more than anything else, if you made a bad choice then you have to live with the consequences of your actions. So basicly, you sign off on it you're responsable for it, barring any outside interference. That is how the justice system sees it. Not my rules, theirs ( the voters/ populace). Sorry to knock a hole in your logic/ world view, that's just the way it is. I don't like it either.

Mick.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Oct 5, 2012, 10:40 AM
Post #49 of 70 (2189 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

The primary reason National put a 15 year life on their parachutes was to ground all those old Phantoms and 26 Lopos that were mentioned in the - late 1980s - acid mesh recall.

Adventure Sports Loft (Perris Valley, California)refused to repack any parachute more than 25 years old because that is how fast they wear out in the Southern California desert.

Butler refused to repack any parachute more than 20 years old, because that is how fast parachutes wear out in the Southern California desert.

GQ Security established life limits in an effort to grouand all of their SACs and 26 Lopos that were mentioned in teh acid mesh recall.

Pioneer orphaned all their round reserves mentioned int eh acid mesh recall.

Personally I would like to see all the round reserves - mentioned in the acid mesh recall - grounded. Even if they were never acidic, 25 years of tensile testing has weakened the fabric.
I also advise new riggers not to waste their money buying bromocreasal green, etc. to test round canopies suspected of acid mesh.

Furthermore, I believe that all reserves certified under TSO C23B, Low Speed category should be retired.


sundevil777  (D License)

Oct 5, 2012, 3:56 PM
Post #50 of 70 (2141 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
25 years of tensile testing has weakened the fabric.

The tensile testing is not repeated on the same area, correct? Does the area tested get marked, and how?

Your statement would imply that the PD requirement to repeatedly tensile test reserves (it is every year?) is not wise.


pchapman  (D 1014)

Oct 5, 2012, 4:54 PM
Post #51 of 70 (2183 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

 
The corners of the rectangle where a tensile test is done are marked in indelible ink. (And some other info is written in, if doing the round canopy tests exactly according to the National or PIA bulletins.)

The tests aren't done on top of each other. Well, that's the assumption and what seems normal to do, but I don't recall offhand whether it is technically prohibited.

Still, there are certain sections of panels on the rounds, next to the mesh, which are to be tested. If one actually has an old round in service that got packed a couple times a year and you did all the prescribed tests all the time ... by now you'd have a whole pile* of test points all over a 2 ft by 2 ft section. And those round canopy tests are 40lbs, not 30 like for PD's, so it is really starting to stress the fabric.

* eg, not being quite exact with dates: (2012-1989)*2 = 46 pull tests per panel by now

I don't pull test my Phantom 24's quite that much....


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Oct 6, 2012, 11:02 AM
Post #52 of 70 (2140 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
25 years of tensile testing has weakened the fabric.

The tensile testing is not repeated on the same area, correct? Does the area tested get marked, and how?

Your statement would imply that the PD requirement to repeatedly tensile test reserves (it is every year?) is not wise.

........................................................................

In theory yes!
However, the practice is often lazier.

For example, I have only one patch on one PD reserve. The newly-minted FAA Senior Rigger was embarrassed that he had tensile-tested a hole in a PD reserve, so he asked me to sew a patch on it.
As far as I could tell, he had tensile-tested exactly in accordance with PD guidelines.
HOWEVER I suspected that he had pull-tested on top of an area that had been weakened by an earlier pull-test. My old eyes could not spot the characteristic weave separation - and none of the earlier riggers had marked thier test patches ....
GRRRRR!!!!!

Rob Warner
FAA Master Rigger


sundevil777  (D License)

Oct 6, 2012, 11:44 AM
Post #53 of 70 (2134 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
an area that had been weakened by an earlier pull-test

Tests should be designed to do no harm at all. I realize that the test is not a "destructive" test in that it doesn't test until failure, but you admitting that repeated tests must be done in different areas means that the test is doing harm. That seems like a poorly designed test.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Oct 7, 2012, 9:22 AM
Post #54 of 70 (2087 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
an area that had been weakened by an earlier pull-test

Tests should be designed to do no harm at all. I realize that the test is not a "destructive" test in that it doesn't test until failure, but you admitting that repeated tests must be done in different areas means that the test is doing harm. That seems like a poorly designed test.

.........................................................................

That testing method works if everyone plays by the rules ... unfortunately, not every rigger plays by the rules.

The test only causes minor weave separation if done perfectly. Unfortunately, "perfect" requires expensive tools, younger eyes than mine (to align tools with the weave) and patience. As long as you test BESIDE the last test, the risk of tearing is minimal. If the last rigger forgot to mark where he tested, then the risk of tearing fabric rapidly increases.

Apparently some customers whined about "marking all over their shiny reserves."

OTOH some (prissy) riggers refuse to repack PD reserves if the number of pack jobs does not exactly match the number of marks on the data panel.

Reality is somewhere between those two extremes.
Life ... business ... politics ... religion ... sports ... etc. would be a lot simpler if everyone agreed to play by the same rules.


riggermick  (D 17071)

Oct 7, 2012, 2:37 PM
Post #55 of 70 (2055 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
an area that had been weakened by an earlier pull-test

Tests should be designed to do no harm at all. I realize that the test is not a "destructive" test in that it doesn't test until failure, but you admitting that repeated tests must be done in different areas means that the test is doing harm. That seems like a poorly designed test.

well said Mr Warner. How have you been? PM me with contact details and well catch up.

Mick.

.........................................................................

That testing method works if everyone plays by the rules ... unfortunately, not every rigger plays by the rules.

The test only causes minor weave separation if done perfectly. Unfortunately, "perfect" requires expensive tools, younger eyes than mine (to align tools with the weave) and patience. As long as you test BESIDE the last test, the risk of tearing is minimal. If the last rigger forgot to mark where he tested, then the risk of tearing fabric rapidly increases.

Apparently some customers whined about "marking all over their shiny reserves."

OTOH some (prissy) riggers refuse to repack PD reserves if the number of pack jobs does not exactly match the number of marks on the data panel.

Reality is somewhere between those two extremes.
Life ... business ... politics ... religion ... sports ... etc. would be a lot simpler if everyone agreed to play by the same rules.


tikipaul1

Oct 9, 2012, 5:13 PM
Post #56 of 70 (1976 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ActionAir] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

So what about cypress 12yr limit?

There wasn't a life limit when I bought it but now they say 12 yr.


stratostar  (Student)

Oct 9, 2012, 5:48 PM
Post #57 of 70 (1964 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tikipaul1] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm pretty sure from the get go cypres has had a 12 yr life span,
Quote:
due to the charge that fires the cutter can break down over time, there for due to the use of those "agents" they had that time life based on studies of those "agents" and their useful lifespan.

Got that "quote" from right out of Cliff Schmucker's mouth, president of PIA and owner of SSK.


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Oct 9, 2012, 6:21 PM
Post #58 of 70 (1953 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi strat,

Quote:
I'm pretty sure from the get go cypres has had a 12 yr life span,

And you would be wrong.

I do not remember when they announced the 12-year life-span but it was not initially.

JerryBaumchen

PS) Cliff could probably tell you exactly when the life-span went into effect.


stratostar  (Student)

Oct 9, 2012, 6:49 PM
Post #59 of 70 (1947 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Regardless, this letter will not change that, it is too easy to prove the safety side of this because of the "agents" break down over time. They don't like to use the words "explosive charge"..... think TSA.Wink


NovaTTT  (D 17887)

Oct 9, 2012, 8:16 PM
Post #60 of 70 (1932 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tikipaul1] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So what about cypress 12yr limit?

There wasn't a life limit when I bought it but now they say 12 yr.

FWIW, AADs are not TSOd


diablopilot  (D License)

Oct 10, 2012, 5:44 AM
Post #61 of 70 (1909 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tikipaul1] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

"AAD's must be maintained in accordance to manufacturer's instructions"


tikipaul1

Oct 10, 2012, 7:30 AM
Post #62 of 70 (1888 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

"Regardless, this letter will not change that, it is too easy to prove the safety side of this because of the "agents" break down over time. They don't like to use the words "explosive charge"..... think TSA. "


So change the cutter not the whole unit.


Also, I agree since they are not TSOD the letter isn't applicable.

I just wanted to point out the some riggers are ready to repack old parachutes that the manufacturer says have a life limit but not old AAD that the manufacture decided to give a life limit so he could sell more AADs.


(This post was edited by tikipaul1 on Oct 10, 2012, 7:36 AM)


piisfish

Oct 10, 2012, 7:34 AM
Post #63 of 70 (1883 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tikipaul1] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So change the cutter not the whole unit.
if you don't like the life limit of the AAD, either change to another AAD with a more extended projected lifespan, or jump without one.


NovaTTT  (D 17887)

Oct 10, 2012, 8:18 AM
Post #64 of 70 (1871 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tikipaul1] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I just wanted to point out the some riggers are ready to repack old parachutes that the manufacturer says have a life limit but not old AAD that the manufacture decided to give a life limit so he could sell more AADs.

AADs are not TSOd so they are outside the purview of the FAA. It is up to the manufacturer to indicate which AAD is compatible with their system.

What is binding is that the FAA say AADs are compatible only if maintained in accordance with the AAD manufacturer's instructions and guidelines.

So Airtec, for example, can put a 12 year life on their AAD and once it has lifed out it cannot legally be used in a skydiving rig.


(This post was edited by NovaTTT on Oct 10, 2012, 9:48 AM)


GLIDEANGLE  (D 30292)

Oct 10, 2012, 8:52 AM
Post #65 of 70 (1857 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NovaTTT] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

While AADs are not TSOed, the FAA stipulates that users maintain them according to the manufacturer's directions.

FAR 105.43
(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device.



NovaTTT  (D 17887)

Oct 10, 2012, 9:45 AM
Post #66 of 70 (1837 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GLIDEANGLE] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Right you are - I intended to say FAA. Thanks for catching and clarifying!


theonlyski  (D License)

Oct 10, 2012, 11:16 AM
Post #67 of 70 (1812 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GLIDEANGLE] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
While AADs are not TSOed, the FAA stipulates that users maintain them according to the manufacturer's directions.

FAR 105.43
(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device.

Interesting word 'maintained'. If you've done the required 4 and 8 year services, you have 'maintained in accordance to the manufacturer's instructions'

No where in the manual does it state a 12 year maintenance that requires several blows with a 5lb sledge, then an operational check that it must pass.

ETA: I know I'm going to catch shit for that. Tongue


(This post was edited by theonlyski on Oct 10, 2012, 11:18 AM)


Southern_Man  (C License)

Oct 10, 2012, 12:01 PM
Post #68 of 70 (1792 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GLIDEANGLE] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
While AADs are not TSOed, the FAA stipulates that users maintain them according to the manufacturer's directions.

FAR 105.43
(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device.

Right you are. Just to play devil's advocate, though, the current ruling indicates that the ruling manufacturer's instructions, including life limits, are those in place at the time the unit is sold. So if you bought a unit and have a manual that does not have a life limit stated, you should be good to go as far as the FAA is concerned.

Good luck finding a rigger to pack that.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Oct 10, 2012, 5:28 PM
Post #69 of 70 (1758 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tikipaul1] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So what about cypress 12yr limit?

There wasn't a life limit when I bought it but now they say 12 yr.

........................................................................

At the last PIA Symposium, Airtec gave a seminar about Cypres 1 component "life.:
After decades of experience, they concluded that cutters tend to deteriorate after 12 years, while soldered joints tend to "fatigue" after 15 years.

Keep in mind that those numbers where related to worst-case scenarios: with lots of vibration, dozens of jumps per day, large temperature variations every day and occasionally getting dropped on concrete.


koppel  (F License)

Oct 12, 2012, 4:49 AM
Post #70 of 70 (1661 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
After decades of experience, they concluded that cutters tend to deteriorate after 12 years, while soldered joints tend to "fatigue" after 15 years.

and for a bonus of three points who knows the designated life set by Airtec of a Cypres Cutter? ;)



Forums : Skydiving : Gear and Rigging

 


Search for (options)