Main inspections - rigger responsibility

[billvon 2,476]

Rigger question -

You get a customer's rig and they request a main inspection. You do it and find serious problems with the main parachute system, say significant canopy damage, massive bridle wear, damaged PC or badly worn risers. You inform them of the damage and they say "OK, thanks" and then continue to jump the system.

Does the responsibility for airworthiness (both legal and moral) for the rig always end at the harness rings? At some point, would you guys start refusing to service the rig if it is clear that they will continue to jump dangerously unsafe gear? Would the problem then go away if they disconnected the main before giving it to you?

[BlindBrick 0]

If I had a customer who jumped that gear after I warned them, I'd send them a certified letter that detailed the issues with the main and explaining that until corr5ective action was taken, I would not perform serive on the rig.

That should go a long ways towards covering any liability issues, and might serve as a wake up call for them. You can't stop people from doing dumb things, but you don't have to be an active participant in their stupidity.

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[mjosparky 3]

If someone ask for just a main inspection and, in my opinion, it was not airworthy I would inform them in writing of my findings. I would list the the various points of damage/wear to the canopy, give them a copy and tell them, again in my opinion, that it is not airworthy and they should not continue to jump it.

When I pack their reserve I am certifying that the H/C and reserve canopy are airworthy for another 120 days. I have no control or authority over what main they choose to hook to that H/C and reserve.

As you know, you can offer sound advise, but you can't make people take it.

PS: If I was to pack the main, then the same rules apply as if it were a reserve. But I would refuse to pack a main as described.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggerrob 563]

The last time this isseeu came up, a guy paid me $25 extra to inspect his main. I informed him that it was in good shape, except for tired Velcro on the main toggles.
He decided that replacing Velcro was too expensive ($10).
A couple weeks later he had to cutaway a spinning malfunction that started when a toggle released prematurely on opening.
His fault!
We should treat skydivers like adults and make them responsible for their own gear.

I generally avoid packing mains. Since they do not appear on my paycheck, I prefer to fob that job off on more junior staff packers. However, if I found a badly frayed main, I would refuse to pack it.

[mr2mk1g 10]

If you're worried you could always have them sign a little slip saying that they have been informed that their main canopy (or whatever) is unsafe to jump without remedial work and that without said work there is an increased risk of it failing to function leading to injury, death and or further damage to their equipment.

I was under the impression however that there were no requirements anywhere that we jump a "safe" canopy as our main. I thought that in the past kits had been sold to build your own main and that theoretically you could hook your bed sheet up as a main and jump it to see what would happen - all perfectly legally.

If so, so long as the jumper knows of your concerns I'd say you have no obligation nor indeed any right to ground/confiscate/require remedial works on the canopy. It would appear that the powers that be took the view on drafting the regs. that it’s the jumpers life – they can jump whatever stupid contraption/worn out rubbish they like so long as they have a reserve.

Any litigation could be met with the fact that the main does not have to meet any requirements whatsoever and that a canopy inspection can be performed for informational purposes only. The jumper was made fully aware of the deficiencies in the canopy when compared to the manufacturers specs. but that they were perfectly within their rights to jump the canopy anyway. See – here’s a bit of paper where they signed to say they knew it was clapped out.

[masterrig 1]

In finding a main parachute to not be airworthy, I include it on an invoice, listing any and all damage and have the owner sign my copy. I include that; "In my opinion, the parachute is un-safe without the proper repairs being performed." After that, it's outa my hands.

Chuck

[chutingstar 1]

If the customer wants a main inspection, they are informed that repairs will be done as needed. The customer is called if anything major is needed (major patches, relines, new risers, etc.). I call and convince them it should be done.

Every so often a customer will complain about the added cost for the repairs...but I'd much rather deal with that then an eventual gear malfunction or the chance to say "I told you so."

Mike

ChutingStar.com

[councilman24 36]

Quote

When I pack their reserve I am certifying that the H/C and reserve canopy are airworthy for another 120 days. I have no control or authority over what main they choose to hook to that H/C and reserve.

You might want to rethink how you state that. Actually your certifying that it is airworthy when you packed (sealed, signed, etc,.. pick one) it. Once it's out of your control it may very well be damaged and become unairworth. It's just nobody is required to look for another 119 days.

Example, rounds with the "acid mesh" degradation would go "bad" between pack jobs. I recently found a ram air that had weak fabric. I had packed last but it certainly went bad during some 120 cycle.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[mjosparky 3]

When I put my seal on it and sign the data card, I am saying it is airworthy for 120 days. Anything that alters the condition it is in when seal and sign voids that certification.
Everything will "go bad" at sometime. That is why we only certify them for 120 days at a time, or what ever time required in different countries.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals