Mar 23, 2012, 8:31 AM
Post #9 of 18
(1897 views)
Shortcut
Re: [leadgenx] SWS Fire container - need your opinion
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Tested by TSO standards does not mean certified. "Airtec certified" means you may safely use cypres in that rig. FAA TSO certification cost crazy amount of money for a rig manufacturer.
Mar 23, 2012, 9:19 AM
Post #10 of 18
(1885 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Maksimsf] SWS Fire container - need your opinion
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Tested by TSO standards does not mean certified. "Airtec certified" means you may safely use cypres in that rig. FAA TSO certification cost crazy amount of money for a rig manufacturer.
I was wondering the same thing, tested to those conditions as opposed to the FAA buying off on it. They can likely sell all of them they can make in Russia and other neighbor countries without needing to go after the US market. Saying it is tested to the TSO is a way of giving some confidence to buyers. There is probably some US govt listing of equipment that has been approved per the TSO.
Mar 23, 2012, 10:42 AM
Post #11 of 18
(1869 views)
Shortcut
Re: [leadgenx] SWS Fire container - need your opinion
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Hi lead,
I cannot open your linked pdf, so I cannot see what it says.
Last year Alexey and I spent a lot of time working together on two possibilities for his company to obtain a TSO, neither were successful.
At the end of the day ( so to speak ), the FAA will got grant a TSO to any company located in the Ukraine. It has to do with bilateral agreements ( between the US & Ukraine ) that do not exist.
At least that was the last info provided by a contact in the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office.
None of this means that SWS does build a good rig; I have no knowledge of their rigs.
Mar 29, 2013, 4:42 PM
Post #12 of 18
(937 views)
Shortcut
Re: [leadgenx] SWS Fire container - need your opinion
[In reply to]
Can't Post
ref TSO, this is from SWS
General answer to the question ‘Why SWS still does not have TSO’
After having completed our Fire container design we were planning to obtain the most exact certificate of those that were available at that moment, which was TSO-C23d that could provide the access to the biggest market of the USA.
Considering that fact that the program of dropping/jumping tests was exceeded almost twice we did not expect any general issues. We contacted the Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) of the Federal Aviation Administration of the USA (FAA) and initiated the process of TSO obtaining.
To obtain TSO a manufacturer of skydiving gear should provide the following documents (in English): - full description of the skydiving gear with all the designs, materials and manufacturing process description; - service instruction; - assembly instruction and limitations for assembly/compatibility; - test protocols according to the relevant test program; - service instruction/overhaul manual, specifying the limitations for damages/deteriorations to be replaced; - System of quality control, outgoing control, and the tracking system of the materials employed.
After having initiated the procedure of the certificate obtaining we provided the gear to be analyzed, test protocols and the completed list of manufacturing documents. After the materials were approved an issue of manufacturing certification was brought up.
The manufacturer can be certified only if: There is a permanent representative office of FAA located in the country of a gear manufacturer, The country is a member of EASA, There is a bilateral agreement between FAA and local aviation administration regarding the transfer of authority of manufacturing control to the local aviation authorities.
For the Ukraine: 1. We have never had a permanent representative office of FAA in the Ukraine and it seems impossible in the near future, 2. The Ukraine is not a member of EASA (and it seems impossible in the near future as it will require to recertify ALL the aviation equipment according to EASA standards), 3. There is no any bilateral agreement.
Thus, TSO obtaining for a manufacturer located in the Ukraine that managed to meet all the test requirements and provided all the necessary documents is not possible.
We may play a trick by establishing a subsidiary company in a country where manufacturing certification can be obtained and perform the final assembly there in situ. This is what was done by PD by commissioning the manufacturing in Honduras but they perform the control inspection and lines installation in the USA. But this is the American company with production located in the USA and with totally different facilities and budgets.
An attempt to do that is not so advantageous for a foreign manufacturer: after having provided all the formal documentation it may be possible to obtain TSO. However, should FAA have any doubts in validity of manufacturing on the controlled territory TSO may be withdrawn. This can cause some disturbance among the consumers of this type of equipment if suddenly their equipment is banned for employment (this is what happened to a Slovenian manufacturer of lightweight aircrafts Pipistrel).
After having considered the situation and possible results for our clients we decided not to take risks and to abandon our attempts to obtain TSO.
At the moment we are in the process of the European certificate obtaining and the procedure is almost completed.
Mar 29, 2013, 7:59 PM
Post #13 of 18
(897 views)
Shortcut
Re: [biscuit_dave] SWS Fire container - need your opinion
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Certification issues are one of those things that can act as quite a barrier to access to markets.
Even if one also understands the issue of trying to uphold a certain production standard.
It would be one thing if the US Military say had some higher standards, but it isn't vital to the national interest to prohibit Americans from jumping foreign sport skydiving gear.
The rest of the aviation world will have restrictions too depending on geography and international agreements. But it is curious to see that for example in the ASTM Light Sport Aircraft category, the popular Flight Design aircraft, which have a US distributor, are designed in Germany and built and assembled in the Ukraine.
So US citizens can fly around in a 2 place, 100hp, 140 mph aircraft built in the Ukraine.... while it seems impossible for a Ukrainian company build sport parachuting rigs that Americans could use at home.
Mar 29, 2013, 11:02 PM
Post #14 of 18
(868 views)
Shortcut
Re: [biscuit_dave] SWS Fire container - need your opinion
[In reply to]
Can't Post
At the moment we are in the process of the European certificate obtaining and the procedure is almost completed.
Beware, there is no more European certificate for sport equipements. The only European certificate you can get is from the EASA and only for EMMERGENCY type parachutes. This means your rig will not be granted to be used as sport parachute.
Mar 30, 2013, 2:39 AM
Post #16 of 18
(820 views)
Shortcut
Re: [alexey] SWS Fire container - need your opinion
[In reply to]
Can't Post
From one European country means only allows in this sole country. The problem in EEC is there is no agreement between each of the EEC countries. This is a mess, if you want to sell in France you must have a QAC-121, if you want to sell in Germany you need the German rigger association approval, same for BPA, etc.... If you need help for the French approval let me know.
May 19, 2013, 8:42 AM
Post #18 of 18
(409 views)
Shortcut
Re: [leadgenx] SWS Fire container - need your opinion
[In reply to]
Can't Post
have mine now, done 30 or so jumps on it now, very happy & the general consensus at all the dz in the uk i've taken it to is it's a good bit of kit. most have been very impressed. this includes riggers, cci's etc
