diablopilot 2 #26 October 18, 2004 K, forget it. Since no one really want's to anser the question at hand, I guess my attempt at a "discusion" kinda fell apart. Never mind the pro's of a TSO process, or the education to jumpers about what the TSO process actually involves.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cornishe 0 #27 October 19, 2004 Competition goes up and prices go down. BASE gear is not TSO'd, and endures much more stress. Even so, we dont see MLW's snapping in half after 300 slider off jumps. The people building gear definately do not want to see anyone die. I don't think quality and reliability would degrate. my $0.02. -abbieAbbie Mashaal Skydive Idaho Snake River Skydiving TandemBASE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlindBrick 0 #28 October 19, 2004 QuoteThe people building gear definately do not want to see anyone die. I don't think quality and reliability would degrate. They may not be directly out to kill you, but never underestimate the corners people will cut while under the influence of greed. Then there's a ton of ideas that "looked good on paper". As a rigger, I've seen examples from both categories. Some kind of regulation is needed. -Blind"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #29 October 19, 2004 QuoteWhile we're at it, let's get rid of the FDA, and all federal drug testing, and the EPA, and all those stupid pollution rules. That will put lobbyists out of work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #30 October 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe people building gear definately do not want to see anyone die. I don't think quality and reliability would degrate. They may not be directly out to kill you, but never underestimate the corners people will cut while under the influence of greed. Then there's a ton of ideas that "looked good on paper". As a rigger, I've seen examples from both categories. Some kind of regulation is needed. -Blind You seem to have a very low opinion of gear manufactures. I have found over the years that most do far more then is required to assure that the gear they produce is safe. The tough part is making it skydiver proof. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jrcrackers 0 #31 October 19, 2004 we would be able to out source. not as fun a running a local sweat shop, but I think I could find way to keep busy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #32 October 19, 2004 There are quite a few thoughtful replies. The pros and cons are in them, just not laid out nice and neat in a tabular form. Get real. The TSO process imparts a measure of regulation in the design and manufacture of equipment that is intentionally dropped from aircraft. One obvious "con" is that without that measure of control, there is some increased likelyhood of injury or death to either the user or someone on the ground. That is not to say that current manufacturers would suddenly adopt a devil may care attitude. But, unless you can remove that single "con" from the premise, you are beating a dead horse. Also, one might ask, "What is the point of your question, do you really expect the FAA would somehow let TSO's be eliminated?" We can't even get the industry and FAA to extend the repack cycle, and you are asking about eliminating TSOs?! Maybe your question wasn't really about eliminating them, but having an agency other than the FAA regualte it. If so, then phrase the question more appropriately. If you really want a discussion that is intended to educate jumpers about the TSO process, then just write a post in the manner of "So you want to become a rigger." Lay out some information and let people dicuss it. Although I'm sure they weren't intended as such, your posts in this thread have imparted the flavor of trolls. You might get the result you seek if you post your list of pros and cons, that would provide the format you apparently were seeking and give people something to build on and debate instead of an open question that has motivated people to respond with essays and comments that don't have the structure of a simple pro and con table. Ummm, just one last thought, with our mainstream jumpers, most don't really give a damn about the TSO process and those that do, have taken it upon themselves to understand it, or will. More of the posters here now seem more concerned about color options, that's important too ya know.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
poppenhager 1 #33 October 19, 2004 Hey,in the begining if TSO's were paid attention to,we would still be jumping 28' flats and B12 harnes/contianer!!! The FAA is the wort on aviations ass and if they were here when the Wright's flew we would still be on the ground....there are risks in life and if you don't take them progression STOPS !!! POP D47Quote Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #34 October 19, 2004 Quotedo you really expect the FAA would somehow let TSO's be eliminated?" There are TSO's that apply to things other then parachutes/HC system. I believe he was referring to TOS-C23 and its variants. It is the only one that does not apply to part of an aircraft. These are just a few, it goes to TSO-C153: TSO-C1A Cargo Baggage Compartment Smoke Detection Instruments TSO-C1B Cargo Baggage Compartment Smoke Detection Instruments TSO-C1C CARGO COMPARTMENT FIRE DETECTION INSTRUMENTS TSO-C2 Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2A Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2B Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2C Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2D Airspeed Instruments TSO-C3 Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3A Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3B Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3C Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3D Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C4 Bank And Pitch Instruments TSO-C4B Bank And Pitch Instruments TSO-C4C AIRSPEED INSTRUMENTS TSO-C5 Direction Instrument, Nonmagnetic, Gyro-Stabilized Type (Directional Gyro) TSO-C5B Direction Instrument, Nonmagnetic, Gyro-Stabilized Type (Directional Gyro) TSO-C5C Direction Instrument, Nonmagnetic, Gyro-Stabilized Type (Directional Gyro) TSO-C5D Direction Instrument, Non-Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C5E Direction Instrument, Non-Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C6 Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyro-Stabilized Type) TSO-C6A Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyro-Stabilized Type) TSO-C6B Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyro-Stabilized Type) TSO-C6C Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C6D Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C7 Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C7B Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C7C Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C7D DIRECTION INSTRUMENT, MAGNETIC NON-STABILIZED TYPE (MAGNETIC COMPASS) TSO-C7D Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C8 Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8A Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8B Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8C Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8D Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C9 Automatic Pilots TSO-C9A Automatic Pilots TSO-C9B Automatic Pilots TSO-C9C Automatic Pilots TSO-C10 Aircraft Altimeter, Pressure Actuated, Sensitive Type TSO-C10A Altimeter, Pressure Actuated, Sensitive Type TSO-C10B Altimeter, Pressure Actuated, Sensitive Type TSO-C11 Fire Detectors (Thermal Sensing And Flame Contact) TSO-C11A Fire Detectors (Thermal Sensing And Flame Contact) TSO-C11B Fire Detectors (Thermal Sensing And Flame Contact) TSO-C11D Powerplant Fire Detection Instruments (Thermal And Flame Contact Types) TSO-C11E Powerplant Fire Detection Instruments (Thermal And Flame Contact Types) TSO-C12 Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C12A Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C12B Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C12C Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C13 Life Preservers TSO-C13C Life Preservers TSO-C13D Life Preservers TSO-C13E Life Preservers TSO-C13F Life Preservers TSO-C14A Aircraft Fabric, Intermediate Grade TSO-C15 Aircraft Fabric, Grade A External Covering Material TSO-C15A Aircraft Fabric, Grade A External Covering Material TSO-C15C Aircraft Fabric, Grade A External Covering Material TSO-C16 Air-Speed Tubes (Electrically Heated) TSO-C16 AIRSPEED TUBES (ELECTRICALLY HEATED) TSO-C19 Portable Water-Solution Type Fire Extinguishers TSO-C19B Portable Water-Solution Type Fire Extinguishers TSO-C20 Combustion Heaters TSO-C21 Special Aircraft Turnbuckle Assemblies And/Or Turnbuckle Safetying Devices TSO-C21A Special Aircraft Turnbuckle Assemblies And/Or Turnbuckle Safetying Devices TSO-C21B Special Aircraft Turnbuckle Assemblies And/Or Turnbuckle Safetying Devices TSO-C22 Safety Belts TSO-C22A Safety Belts TSO-C22B Safety Belts TSO-C22C Safety Belts TSO-C22D Safety Belts TSO-C22E Safety Belts TSO-C22F Safety Belts TSO-C22G Safety Belts TSO-C23 Personnel Parachutes Assemblies TSO-C23B Personnel Parachutes Assemblies TSO-C23c Personnel Parachutes Assemblies TSO-C23D PERSONNEL PARACHUTE ASSEMBLIES TSO-C25 Aircraft Seats And Berths (Type I Transport, 6G Forward Load) TSO-C25A Aircraft Seats And Berths (Type I Transport, 6G Forward Load) TSO-C26 Aircraft Wheels And Brakes TSO-C26A Aircraft Wheels And Brakes TSO-C26B Aircraft Wheels And Wheel-Brake Assemblies With Addendum I TSO-C26C Aircraft Wheels And Wheel-Brake Assemblies With Addendum I TSO-C26C AIRCRAFT WHEELS AND WHEEL-BRAKE ASSEMBLIES, WITH ADDENDUM IMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #35 October 19, 2004 Quote"What is the point of your question, do you really expect the FAA would somehow let TSO's be eliminated?" I think (being pretty aware of the TSO process from having worked with a company re-qualifying their TSO after a move) that the FAA would be happy to get out from under the liability, and hassle of managing the TSO system. There is not enough business to keep employess involved full time in the TSO program so it usually falls on someone who is over burdened with other things anyway. Most FAA personel understand parachutes like a cat understands quantum physics. For example in the re-qualifying inspection one FAA inspector (her usual job was pushing paper in the FSDO) couldn't understand how we could have tolerances of 1/4 inch or so. "Doesn't everything have to be in millimeters or so?" C'mon, it's fabric already. QuoteWe can't even get the industry and FAA to extend the repack cycle, and you are asking about eliminating TSOs?! If you think the FAA has anything to do with the lack of a change in repack cycles, I sugest you call up the PIA commitee on the subject and ask them why it is still on the table. QuoteYou might get the result you seek if you post your list of pros and cons, that would provide the format you apparently were seeking and give people something to build on and debate instead of an open question that has motivated people to respond with essays and comments that don't have the structure of a simple pro and con table. I didn't want a structured pro and con list as it would restrict free thinking. QuoteUmmm, just one last thought, with our mainstream jumpers, most don't really give a damn about the TSO process and those that do, have taken it upon themselves to understand it, or will. More of the posters here now seem more concerned about color options, that's important too ya know. You're preaching to the choir. Any idea what I do for a living? As often as not the TSO process for sport parachute manufacturers is a hinderance to producing gear with the latest saftey features. It complicates the process of manufacturing endlessly. There are examples where a TSO is not used, that operate well, and produce equipment to as high or higher standards than the TSO'd equipment on our backs. BASE gear, and Military Systems as two examples. What if a QC program like ISO9000 were required, but the antiquated TSO system scraped. Or is there a better solution. Is the TSO the best out there, or should it be revamped. Does the FAA even understand the requirements of how it applies to Sport Parachute gear, or are they playing the "interperative guessing game" just as much as the industry is?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #36 October 19, 2004 Heh....thanks for clearing that up. Yep, as pertains to sport parachute gear. Oh, and Fire detection equipment. I hate the way the FAA keep sticking their nose into that. I'll built a fire whereever I dam well please, damn the MAN! ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites alan 1 #37 October 19, 2004 QuoteI believe he was referring to TOS-C23 and its variants. I believe he was as well. So was I in my response. what is your point? QuoteThese are just a few, it goes to TSO-C153: TSO-C1A Cargo Baggage Compartment Smoke Detection Instruments TSO-C1B Cargo Baggage Compartment Smoke Detection Instruments TSO-C1C CARGO COMPARTMENT FIRE DETECTION INSTRUMENTS TSO-C2 Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2A Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2B Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2C Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2D Airspeed Instruments TSO-C3 Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3A Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3B Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3C Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3D Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C4 Bank And Pitch Instruments TSO-C4B Bank And Pitch Instruments TSO-C4C AIRSPEED INSTRUMENTS TSO-C5 Direction Instrument, Nonmagnetic, Gyro-Stabilized Type (Directional Gyro) TSO-C5B Direction Instrument, Nonmagnetic, Gyro-Stabilized Type (Directional Gyro) TSO-C5C Direction Instrument, Nonmagnetic, Gyro-Stabilized Type (Directional Gyro) TSO-C5D Direction Instrument, Non-Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C5E Direction Instrument, Non-Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C6 Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyro-Stabilized Type) TSO-C6A Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyro-Stabilized Type) TSO-C6B Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyro-Stabilized Type) TSO-C6C Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C6D Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C7 Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C7B Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C7C Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C7D DIRECTION INSTRUMENT, MAGNETIC NON-STABILIZED TYPE (MAGNETIC COMPASS) TSO-C7D Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C8 Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8A Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8B Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8C Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8D Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C9 Automatic Pilots TSO-C9A Automatic Pilots TSO-C9B Automatic Pilots TSO-C9C Automatic Pilots TSO-C10 Aircraft Altimeter, Pressure Actuated, Sensitive Type TSO-C10A Altimeter, Pressure Actuated, Sensitive Type TSO-C10B Altimeter, Pressure Actuated, Sensitive Type TSO-C11 Fire Detectors (Thermal Sensing And Flame Contact) TSO-C11A Fire Detectors (Thermal Sensing And Flame Contact) TSO-C11B Fire Detectors (Thermal Sensing And Flame Contact) TSO-C11D Powerplant Fire Detection Instruments (Thermal And Flame Contact Types) TSO-C11E Powerplant Fire Detection Instruments (Thermal And Flame Contact Types) TSO-C12 Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C12A Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C12B Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C12C Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C13 Life Preservers TSO-C13C Life Preservers TSO-C13D Life Preservers TSO-C13E Life Preservers TSO-C13F Life Preservers TSO-C14A Aircraft Fabric, Intermediate Grade TSO-C15 Aircraft Fabric, Grade A External Covering Material TSO-C15A Aircraft Fabric, Grade A External Covering Material TSO-C15C Aircraft Fabric, Grade A External Covering Material TSO-C16 Air-Speed Tubes (Electrically Heated) TSO-C16 AIRSPEED TUBES (ELECTRICALLY HEATED) TSO-C19 Portable Water-Solution Type Fire Extinguishers TSO-C19B Portable Water-Solution Type Fire Extinguishers TSO-C20 Combustion Heaters TSO-C21 Special Aircraft Turnbuckle Assemblies And/Or Turnbuckle Safetying Devices TSO-C21A Special Aircraft Turnbuckle Assemblies And/Or Turnbuckle Safetying Devices TSO-C21B Special Aircraft Turnbuckle Assemblies And/Or Turnbuckle Safetying Devices TSO-C22 Safety Belts TSO-C22A Safety Belts TSO-C22B Safety Belts TSO-C22C Safety Belts TSO-C22D Safety Belts TSO-C22E Safety Belts TSO-C22F Safety Belts TSO-C22G Safety Belts TSO-C23 Personnel Parachutes Assemblies TSO-C23B Personnel Parachutes Assemblies TSO-C23c Personnel Parachutes Assemblies TSO-C23D PERSONNEL PARACHUTE ASSEMBLIES TSO-C25 Aircraft Seats And Berths (Type I Transport, 6G Forward Load) TSO-C25A Aircraft Seats And Berths (Type I Transport, 6G Forward Load) TSO-C26 Aircraft Wheels And Brakes TSO-C26A Aircraft Wheels And Brakes TSO-C26B Aircraft Wheels And Wheel-Brake Assemblies With Addendum I TSO-C26C Aircraft Wheels And Wheel-Brake Assemblies With Addendum I TSO-C26C AIRCRAFT WHEELS AND WHEEL-BRAKE ASSEMBLIES, WITH ADDENDUM I alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BlindBrick 0 #38 October 20, 2004 Quote You seem to have a very low opinion of gear manufactures. I'm not talking about established companies with proven reputations. I am talking about the stuff that some unscrupulous riggers put out the door, or sub-stnadard stuff that might be created by inexperienced start-ups if the regs were loosened. -Blind"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites alan 1 #39 October 20, 2004 QuoteI think (being pretty aware of the TSO process from having worked with a company re-qualifying their TSO after a move) that the FAA would be happy to get out from under the liability, and hassle of managing the TSO system. There is not enough business to keep employess involved full time in the TSO program so it usually falls on someone who is over burdened with other things anyway. Most FAA personel understand parachutes like a cat understands quantum physics. So the question was not really about doing away with the TSO's but rather about getting the FAA out of it. BTW, most any people in any job would like to do away with the aspects of it they don't like. That does not mean the powers that be will just do away with them because they are inconvenient or burdensome. Most higher level beaurocrats like to keep work under them. It keeps the budget healthy. QuoteIf you think the FAA has anything to do with the lack of a change in repack cycles, I sugest you call up the PIA commitee on the subject and ask them why it is still on the table. I suggest you reread what I posted. I'm well aware of how it works and who is doing what. The FAA process takes time and has protocals. You will note I did say the industry and the FAA, putting the industry first. QuoteI didn't want a structured pro and con list as it would restrict free thinking. Well, you received several free thinking responses and then were ready to throw in the towel after Bill Booths post. QuoteYou're preaching to the choir. Any idea what I do for a living? Ummmmm.....Im trying to remember. Can you give me a hint? QuoteAs often as not the TSO process for sport parachute manufacturers is a hinderance to producing gear with the latest saftey features. It complicates the process of manufacturing endlessly. There are examples where a TSO is not used, that operate well, and produce equipment to as high or higher standards than the TSO'd equipment on our backs. BASE gear, and Military Systems as two examples. What if a QC program like ISO9000 were required, but the antiquated TSO system scraped. Or is there a better solution. Is the TSO the best out there, or should it be revamped. Does the FAA even understand the requirements of how it applies to Sport Parachute gear, or are they playing the "interperative guessing game" just as much as the industry is? Much better. Did you know that the FAA has a new CSI (Customer Service Initiative) as part of its'new "Flight Plan" under director Blakey? It may go along way towards addressing many of the issues you have raised. Cut and paste that last paragraph to a new thread, it may generate a good discussion.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billbooth 10 #40 October 20, 2004 Twenty-some-odd years ago, when I applied for the first TSO on tandem gear, I did run into a major "Catch-22". One part of the FAA said that I couldn't get a TSO on equipment that wasn't legal to use...and another part of the FAA said that they wouldn't issue a waiver making tandem "legal" until I had a TSO. They even tried to fine me $1,000 for each of the 100 tandem jumps I had made trying to prove that tandem jumping was feasible, and to determine what standards were necessary for tandem equipment in the first place. When I got through laughing, I started to cry. A big part of the problem was getting them to issue a tandem equipment TSO, when there were no existing tests for tandem equipment. Obviously, (after a lot of legal fees) they did issue the TSO, but it was years before an offical standard for tandem equipment was actually written. I agreed to the "Tandem Waiver Program" for a period of ONE year. Nearly TWENTY years (and three FAA administrators) later, the waiver was lifted, and Tandem became fully "legal". You gotta' love the bureaucrats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #41 October 20, 2004 QuoteI believe he was as well. So was I in my response. what is your point? Your statement sounded like you were not aware that TSO standards apply to much more then parachutes. Quotedo you really expect the FAA would somehow let TSO's be eliminated? Since you were aware of his intent, what was your point in running down his method of presenting it. After all it is his thread. Outlining you views on the subject would have been more educational to those who do not fully understand the process. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggermick 6 #42 October 20, 2004 QuoteQuote"What is the point of your question, do you really expect the FAA would somehow let TSO's be eliminated?" I think (being pretty aware of the TSO process from having worked with a company re-qualifying their TSO after a move) that the FAA would be happy to get out from under the liability, and hassle of managing the TSO system. There is not enough business to keep employess involved full time in the TSO program so it usually falls on someone who is over burdened with other things anyway. Most FAA personel understand parachutes like a cat understands quantum physics. For example in the re-qualifying inspection one FAA inspector (her usual job was pushing paper in the FSDO) couldn't understand how we could have tolerances of 1/4 inch or so. "Doesn't everything have to be in millimeters or so?" C'mon, it's fabric already. QuoteWe can't even get the industry and FAA to extend the repack cycle, and you are asking about eliminating TSOs?! If you think the FAA has anything to do with the lack of a change in repack cycles, I sugest you call up the PIA commitee on the subject and ask them why it is still on the table. QuoteYou might get the result you seek if you post your list of pros and cons, that would provide the format you apparently were seeking and give people something to build on and debate instead of an open question that has motivated people to respond with essays and comments that don't have the structure of a simple pro and con table. I didn't want a structured pro and con list as it would restrict free thinking. QuoteUmmm, just one last thought, with our mainstream jumpers, most don't really give a damn about the TSO process and those that do, have taken it upon themselves to understand it, or will. More of the posters here now seem more concerned about color options, that's important too ya know. You're preaching to the choir. Any idea what I do for a living? As often as not the TSO process for sport parachute manufacturers is a hinderance to producing gear with the latest saftey features. It complicates the process of manufacturing endlessly. There are examples where a TSO is not used, that operate well, and produce equipment to as high or higher standards than the TSO'd equipment on our backs. BASE gear, and Military Systems as two examples. What if a QC program like ISO9000 were required, but the antiquated TSO system scraped. Or is there a better solution. Is the TSO the best out there, or should it be revamped. Does the FAA even understand the requirements of how it applies to Sport Parachute gear, or are they playing the "interperative guessing game" just as much as the industry is? JP, I was gonna come to your defence but now I don't need to. You've stated your case well. Alan seems to looking for a fight to prove you wrong or stupid or somthing who knows why. Both of you have valid points of view and both are correct, taken in the context of this discussion. Lets keep the discorse on topic it's great to hear all sides articulated so well. Of course I could be wrong...............Naaahhh. Mick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites darkwing 4 #43 October 20, 2004 Anyone who jumped a lot in the 1970's was effectively jumping under the situation you describe -- no TSO'd gear. It was an interesting time for gear. While in principle the TSO system was essentially the same as it is now, it was essentially never enforced, and there were many manufacturers who produced and sold gear that wasn't TSO'd. I didn't have a TSO'd rig until the 5th rig I bought, and that was late 1970's. While it isn't perfect, I'm not seriously down on the current system. -- Jeff My Skydiving History Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #44 October 20, 2004 Most FAA personel understand parachutes like a cat understands quantum physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reminds me of a test program I helped Manley Butler with in 1993. After observing a test deployment and video of earlier tests, the FAA rep said: "I feel like a pig reading a newspaper, but you boys seem to have done your homework, so I'll sign that ..." Hah! Hah! As for eliminating TSOs allowing manufacturers to sell high-speed reserves ... The underlying problem is that no-one knows how to build a reserve that will open well at both the high-speed and low-speed edges of the (freeflying) envelope. The FAA still holds to the 3 second rule for slow-speed deployments, but if you deploy the same canopy at more than 150-180 knots, you will injure jumpers. A few years back George Galloway said that if the FAA would cut him some slack on the 3-second requirement, he could build a high-speed reserve tomorrow. The FAA have already cut tandem manufacturers some slack on opening time, and the last I heard, the PIA TSO C23E committee was trying to incorporate similar provisions into standards for solo high-speed reserves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pms07 3 #45 October 21, 2004 It's interesting to get some historical perspective I suppose. If you go back 25-30 years you would find much non-TSO's gear was being used. Of course there is no equivelant gear on the market today. Much of the home made gear was innovative and led to some of the standard stuff in use today; ask Bill Booth, John Sherman, or Sandy Reid about how they got started and you'll find it interesting I'm sure... I had a home made harness and container at one point I don't even know who made, used with a Pop Top reserve. We jumped a lot gear we either modified at home or that was made without any TSO process. The PPD and Sod Shit rigs were popular in the area where I was jumping. Some of the home made stuff was great gear and led to innovation...some if it had problems as well. TSO'd gear had more than it's share of problems as well however. You could get too far out in front of what was tested and worked well without much effort though. I remember one time I short lined a PC 72 inches, removed the stabilzers, and made a Piglet style diaper for it, all so I could get it to fit into a GS Express I had. I assumed it would land better than the 24 flat 4 line I was jumping as a main and pack small. Anyway, it either opened so hard you thought you had hit the ground or, simply, didn't open at all. Fortunately the Starlight, Paradactyl, Strato Star, and other canopies were avaiable to replace my lame-ass rigging and canopy design efforts... Of course main canopies don't need to be TSO'd but it's an example typical of what I saw. The TSO system is not perfect but it, and various FARs, preclude some of the early to mid 70s style "innovation". Some of that "innovation" led to fatalities. Without some QC and testing process we would probably have similar problems today... pms Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #46 October 21, 2004 QuoteAnyway, it either opened so hard you thought you had hit the ground or, simply, didn't open at all. Ain't test pilot work fun? What I want to know is where is innovation going to come from next? Since the dawn of the ram air reserve and containers designed for it, the single biggest leap foward in technology for sport jumpers in the terms of emergency systems is the SkyHook. And that's just a redesigned version of an existing device. Have we stopped evolving because we've reache the pinical of design? Or are the current TSO processes and requrements holding us back too much now. I thank the pioneers of the dark ages of gear for testing through trial and error, although is history repeating itself should indicate that there is a percentage of those jumpers who didn't realize quite what test pilots they were! We have enough hurdles imposed industry wide through egos, competition, and general fatigue (work in the buisiness long enough and you'll get tired of coming up with new ideas for people to slap down). My point wasn't to do away with the TSO process (it may be helpful or it might be a bad idea) but rather to generate some interest in looking at the linitations it imposes and how it can be operated more efficiently. In all reality the I believe the FAA has much too much on it's plate to be that concerned with sport parachute gear. Why not have a regulatory body within our industry? The problem is how to give it teeth, but also prevent bias. Here's another question: Why must we (in the US) jump TSO'd gear? The DZ requires it. Why? The FAA says they will violate the pilot, jumper(s), owners if they do not enforce that policy. Why? Liability.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #47 October 21, 2004 QuoteHere's another question: Why must we (in the US) jump TSO'd gear? The DZ requires it. Why? The FAA says they will violate the pilot, jumper(s), owners if they do not enforce that policy. Why? Liability. The FAA's prime mission is to protect people and property on the surface from those fools that would fly in the sky. The method they developed to do this was to insure that the airplane was built and maintained in such a way so as to reduce the chance that it would fall from the sky and injure said people and property on the surface. At some point they were charged with the same responsibility for those that would jump from a plane. Being a bureaucracy, they followed the same path they were already using for aircraft. And it seems that way did not fit all that well. As has been said before, we are sort of the step child and they lack the time, interest and training to deal with us in a timely and efficient manner. We jump TSO'd gear because it is the law and we lack a better method of assuring safe equipment. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites alan 1 #48 October 21, 2004 QuoteYour statement sounded like you were not aware that TSO standards apply to much more then parachutes. Exactly what in my statement would lead you to believe that? QuoteSince you were aware of his intent, what was your point in running down his method of presenting it. After all it is his thread. Running down? That is a little harsh to describe what i was attempting to do, but then this is the internet. I was being critical because he started a thread, had some good responses, and then chimed in with: "K, forget it. Since no one really want's to anser the question at hand, I guess my attempt at a "discusion" kinda fell apart. Never mind the pro's of a TSO process, or the education to jumpers about what the TSO process actually involves." I found the tone of that a little offensive, especially in view of the information and thoughts that had already been exchanged. So, "running down" was not my intent, I offerred a critique based on JPs obvious frustration at the responses, although the tone of my post was influenced by his tone. That is just human nature. Look at your own responses to me. Quote Outlining you views on the subject would have been more educational to those who do not fully understand the process. Re-read my posts, including the first one. I did essay my views. That was my point. They are in my post , just not laid out nice and neat with a list of items called "pros" and another called "cons". There are quite a number other posts that do the same. JPs comments quoted above were rather flippant. So, before you hop on your big white horse and ride to JPs rescue, go back and read the meat of what I have posted. I explained my thoughts on why there is a TSO process and why I felt they wouldn't be eliminated, I even addressed the pro and con issue. I may be wrong, I may be right, you may agree, you may disagree, but what I posted was thought out and relevant to the topic, well at least until I had to start defending myself.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites f1shlips 2 #49 October 21, 2004 Quoteand we lack a better method of assuring safe equipment. I would say the illusion of safe equipment, or potentially safer equipment.-- drop zone (drop'zone) n. An incestuous sesspool of broken people. -- Attributed to a whuffo girlfriend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites alan 1 #50 October 21, 2004 Yes, I think the "problem" lies more with the bureaucracy than with the concept of the TSO process. That is not to say that the TSO process should not be periodically reviewed and revamped when necessary, as with almost anything, it can usually be improved upon with time. But, I think that bureaucracy is resistant to change in the absence of some strong catalyst for change. I believe that is truly what JP has been trying to get at.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mjosparky 3 #34 October 19, 2004 Quotedo you really expect the FAA would somehow let TSO's be eliminated?" There are TSO's that apply to things other then parachutes/HC system. I believe he was referring to TOS-C23 and its variants. It is the only one that does not apply to part of an aircraft. These are just a few, it goes to TSO-C153: TSO-C1A Cargo Baggage Compartment Smoke Detection Instruments TSO-C1B Cargo Baggage Compartment Smoke Detection Instruments TSO-C1C CARGO COMPARTMENT FIRE DETECTION INSTRUMENTS TSO-C2 Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2A Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2B Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2C Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2D Airspeed Instruments TSO-C3 Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3A Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3B Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3C Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3D Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C4 Bank And Pitch Instruments TSO-C4B Bank And Pitch Instruments TSO-C4C AIRSPEED INSTRUMENTS TSO-C5 Direction Instrument, Nonmagnetic, Gyro-Stabilized Type (Directional Gyro) TSO-C5B Direction Instrument, Nonmagnetic, Gyro-Stabilized Type (Directional Gyro) TSO-C5C Direction Instrument, Nonmagnetic, Gyro-Stabilized Type (Directional Gyro) TSO-C5D Direction Instrument, Non-Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C5E Direction Instrument, Non-Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C6 Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyro-Stabilized Type) TSO-C6A Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyro-Stabilized Type) TSO-C6B Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyro-Stabilized Type) TSO-C6C Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C6D Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C7 Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C7B Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C7C Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C7D DIRECTION INSTRUMENT, MAGNETIC NON-STABILIZED TYPE (MAGNETIC COMPASS) TSO-C7D Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C8 Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8A Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8B Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8C Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8D Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C9 Automatic Pilots TSO-C9A Automatic Pilots TSO-C9B Automatic Pilots TSO-C9C Automatic Pilots TSO-C10 Aircraft Altimeter, Pressure Actuated, Sensitive Type TSO-C10A Altimeter, Pressure Actuated, Sensitive Type TSO-C10B Altimeter, Pressure Actuated, Sensitive Type TSO-C11 Fire Detectors (Thermal Sensing And Flame Contact) TSO-C11A Fire Detectors (Thermal Sensing And Flame Contact) TSO-C11B Fire Detectors (Thermal Sensing And Flame Contact) TSO-C11D Powerplant Fire Detection Instruments (Thermal And Flame Contact Types) TSO-C11E Powerplant Fire Detection Instruments (Thermal And Flame Contact Types) TSO-C12 Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C12A Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C12B Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C12C Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C13 Life Preservers TSO-C13C Life Preservers TSO-C13D Life Preservers TSO-C13E Life Preservers TSO-C13F Life Preservers TSO-C14A Aircraft Fabric, Intermediate Grade TSO-C15 Aircraft Fabric, Grade A External Covering Material TSO-C15A Aircraft Fabric, Grade A External Covering Material TSO-C15C Aircraft Fabric, Grade A External Covering Material TSO-C16 Air-Speed Tubes (Electrically Heated) TSO-C16 AIRSPEED TUBES (ELECTRICALLY HEATED) TSO-C19 Portable Water-Solution Type Fire Extinguishers TSO-C19B Portable Water-Solution Type Fire Extinguishers TSO-C20 Combustion Heaters TSO-C21 Special Aircraft Turnbuckle Assemblies And/Or Turnbuckle Safetying Devices TSO-C21A Special Aircraft Turnbuckle Assemblies And/Or Turnbuckle Safetying Devices TSO-C21B Special Aircraft Turnbuckle Assemblies And/Or Turnbuckle Safetying Devices TSO-C22 Safety Belts TSO-C22A Safety Belts TSO-C22B Safety Belts TSO-C22C Safety Belts TSO-C22D Safety Belts TSO-C22E Safety Belts TSO-C22F Safety Belts TSO-C22G Safety Belts TSO-C23 Personnel Parachutes Assemblies TSO-C23B Personnel Parachutes Assemblies TSO-C23c Personnel Parachutes Assemblies TSO-C23D PERSONNEL PARACHUTE ASSEMBLIES TSO-C25 Aircraft Seats And Berths (Type I Transport, 6G Forward Load) TSO-C25A Aircraft Seats And Berths (Type I Transport, 6G Forward Load) TSO-C26 Aircraft Wheels And Brakes TSO-C26A Aircraft Wheels And Brakes TSO-C26B Aircraft Wheels And Wheel-Brake Assemblies With Addendum I TSO-C26C Aircraft Wheels And Wheel-Brake Assemblies With Addendum I TSO-C26C AIRCRAFT WHEELS AND WHEEL-BRAKE ASSEMBLIES, WITH ADDENDUM IMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #35 October 19, 2004 Quote"What is the point of your question, do you really expect the FAA would somehow let TSO's be eliminated?" I think (being pretty aware of the TSO process from having worked with a company re-qualifying their TSO after a move) that the FAA would be happy to get out from under the liability, and hassle of managing the TSO system. There is not enough business to keep employess involved full time in the TSO program so it usually falls on someone who is over burdened with other things anyway. Most FAA personel understand parachutes like a cat understands quantum physics. For example in the re-qualifying inspection one FAA inspector (her usual job was pushing paper in the FSDO) couldn't understand how we could have tolerances of 1/4 inch or so. "Doesn't everything have to be in millimeters or so?" C'mon, it's fabric already. QuoteWe can't even get the industry and FAA to extend the repack cycle, and you are asking about eliminating TSOs?! If you think the FAA has anything to do with the lack of a change in repack cycles, I sugest you call up the PIA commitee on the subject and ask them why it is still on the table. QuoteYou might get the result you seek if you post your list of pros and cons, that would provide the format you apparently were seeking and give people something to build on and debate instead of an open question that has motivated people to respond with essays and comments that don't have the structure of a simple pro and con table. I didn't want a structured pro and con list as it would restrict free thinking. QuoteUmmm, just one last thought, with our mainstream jumpers, most don't really give a damn about the TSO process and those that do, have taken it upon themselves to understand it, or will. More of the posters here now seem more concerned about color options, that's important too ya know. You're preaching to the choir. Any idea what I do for a living? As often as not the TSO process for sport parachute manufacturers is a hinderance to producing gear with the latest saftey features. It complicates the process of manufacturing endlessly. There are examples where a TSO is not used, that operate well, and produce equipment to as high or higher standards than the TSO'd equipment on our backs. BASE gear, and Military Systems as two examples. What if a QC program like ISO9000 were required, but the antiquated TSO system scraped. Or is there a better solution. Is the TSO the best out there, or should it be revamped. Does the FAA even understand the requirements of how it applies to Sport Parachute gear, or are they playing the "interperative guessing game" just as much as the industry is?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #36 October 19, 2004 Heh....thanks for clearing that up. Yep, as pertains to sport parachute gear. Oh, and Fire detection equipment. I hate the way the FAA keep sticking their nose into that. I'll built a fire whereever I dam well please, damn the MAN! ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #37 October 19, 2004 QuoteI believe he was referring to TOS-C23 and its variants. I believe he was as well. So was I in my response. what is your point? QuoteThese are just a few, it goes to TSO-C153: TSO-C1A Cargo Baggage Compartment Smoke Detection Instruments TSO-C1B Cargo Baggage Compartment Smoke Detection Instruments TSO-C1C CARGO COMPARTMENT FIRE DETECTION INSTRUMENTS TSO-C2 Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2A Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2B Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2C Airspeed Instruments TSO-C2D Airspeed Instruments TSO-C3 Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3A Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3B Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3C Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C3D Turn And Slip Instrument TSO-C4 Bank And Pitch Instruments TSO-C4B Bank And Pitch Instruments TSO-C4C AIRSPEED INSTRUMENTS TSO-C5 Direction Instrument, Nonmagnetic, Gyro-Stabilized Type (Directional Gyro) TSO-C5B Direction Instrument, Nonmagnetic, Gyro-Stabilized Type (Directional Gyro) TSO-C5C Direction Instrument, Nonmagnetic, Gyro-Stabilized Type (Directional Gyro) TSO-C5D Direction Instrument, Non-Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C5E Direction Instrument, Non-Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C6 Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyro-Stabilized Type) TSO-C6A Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyro-Stabilized Type) TSO-C6B Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyro-Stabilized Type) TSO-C6C Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C6D Direction Instrument, Magnetic (Gyroscopically Stabilized) TSO-C7 Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C7B Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C7C Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C7D DIRECTION INSTRUMENT, MAGNETIC NON-STABILIZED TYPE (MAGNETIC COMPASS) TSO-C7D Direction Instrument, Magnetic Non-Stabilized Type (Magnetic Compass) TSO-C8 Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8A Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8B Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8C Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C8D Vertical Velocity Instruments (Rate-Of-Climb) TSO-C9 Automatic Pilots TSO-C9A Automatic Pilots TSO-C9B Automatic Pilots TSO-C9C Automatic Pilots TSO-C10 Aircraft Altimeter, Pressure Actuated, Sensitive Type TSO-C10A Altimeter, Pressure Actuated, Sensitive Type TSO-C10B Altimeter, Pressure Actuated, Sensitive Type TSO-C11 Fire Detectors (Thermal Sensing And Flame Contact) TSO-C11A Fire Detectors (Thermal Sensing And Flame Contact) TSO-C11B Fire Detectors (Thermal Sensing And Flame Contact) TSO-C11D Powerplant Fire Detection Instruments (Thermal And Flame Contact Types) TSO-C11E Powerplant Fire Detection Instruments (Thermal And Flame Contact Types) TSO-C12 Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C12A Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C12B Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C12C Life Rafts (Twin Tube) TSO-C13 Life Preservers TSO-C13C Life Preservers TSO-C13D Life Preservers TSO-C13E Life Preservers TSO-C13F Life Preservers TSO-C14A Aircraft Fabric, Intermediate Grade TSO-C15 Aircraft Fabric, Grade A External Covering Material TSO-C15A Aircraft Fabric, Grade A External Covering Material TSO-C15C Aircraft Fabric, Grade A External Covering Material TSO-C16 Air-Speed Tubes (Electrically Heated) TSO-C16 AIRSPEED TUBES (ELECTRICALLY HEATED) TSO-C19 Portable Water-Solution Type Fire Extinguishers TSO-C19B Portable Water-Solution Type Fire Extinguishers TSO-C20 Combustion Heaters TSO-C21 Special Aircraft Turnbuckle Assemblies And/Or Turnbuckle Safetying Devices TSO-C21A Special Aircraft Turnbuckle Assemblies And/Or Turnbuckle Safetying Devices TSO-C21B Special Aircraft Turnbuckle Assemblies And/Or Turnbuckle Safetying Devices TSO-C22 Safety Belts TSO-C22A Safety Belts TSO-C22B Safety Belts TSO-C22C Safety Belts TSO-C22D Safety Belts TSO-C22E Safety Belts TSO-C22F Safety Belts TSO-C22G Safety Belts TSO-C23 Personnel Parachutes Assemblies TSO-C23B Personnel Parachutes Assemblies TSO-C23c Personnel Parachutes Assemblies TSO-C23D PERSONNEL PARACHUTE ASSEMBLIES TSO-C25 Aircraft Seats And Berths (Type I Transport, 6G Forward Load) TSO-C25A Aircraft Seats And Berths (Type I Transport, 6G Forward Load) TSO-C26 Aircraft Wheels And Brakes TSO-C26A Aircraft Wheels And Brakes TSO-C26B Aircraft Wheels And Wheel-Brake Assemblies With Addendum I TSO-C26C Aircraft Wheels And Wheel-Brake Assemblies With Addendum I TSO-C26C AIRCRAFT WHEELS AND WHEEL-BRAKE ASSEMBLIES, WITH ADDENDUM I alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlindBrick 0 #38 October 20, 2004 Quote You seem to have a very low opinion of gear manufactures. I'm not talking about established companies with proven reputations. I am talking about the stuff that some unscrupulous riggers put out the door, or sub-stnadard stuff that might be created by inexperienced start-ups if the regs were loosened. -Blind"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #39 October 20, 2004 QuoteI think (being pretty aware of the TSO process from having worked with a company re-qualifying their TSO after a move) that the FAA would be happy to get out from under the liability, and hassle of managing the TSO system. There is not enough business to keep employess involved full time in the TSO program so it usually falls on someone who is over burdened with other things anyway. Most FAA personel understand parachutes like a cat understands quantum physics. So the question was not really about doing away with the TSO's but rather about getting the FAA out of it. BTW, most any people in any job would like to do away with the aspects of it they don't like. That does not mean the powers that be will just do away with them because they are inconvenient or burdensome. Most higher level beaurocrats like to keep work under them. It keeps the budget healthy. QuoteIf you think the FAA has anything to do with the lack of a change in repack cycles, I sugest you call up the PIA commitee on the subject and ask them why it is still on the table. I suggest you reread what I posted. I'm well aware of how it works and who is doing what. The FAA process takes time and has protocals. You will note I did say the industry and the FAA, putting the industry first. QuoteI didn't want a structured pro and con list as it would restrict free thinking. Well, you received several free thinking responses and then were ready to throw in the towel after Bill Booths post. QuoteYou're preaching to the choir. Any idea what I do for a living? Ummmmm.....Im trying to remember. Can you give me a hint? QuoteAs often as not the TSO process for sport parachute manufacturers is a hinderance to producing gear with the latest saftey features. It complicates the process of manufacturing endlessly. There are examples where a TSO is not used, that operate well, and produce equipment to as high or higher standards than the TSO'd equipment on our backs. BASE gear, and Military Systems as two examples. What if a QC program like ISO9000 were required, but the antiquated TSO system scraped. Or is there a better solution. Is the TSO the best out there, or should it be revamped. Does the FAA even understand the requirements of how it applies to Sport Parachute gear, or are they playing the "interperative guessing game" just as much as the industry is? Much better. Did you know that the FAA has a new CSI (Customer Service Initiative) as part of its'new "Flight Plan" under director Blakey? It may go along way towards addressing many of the issues you have raised. Cut and paste that last paragraph to a new thread, it may generate a good discussion.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billbooth 10 #40 October 20, 2004 Twenty-some-odd years ago, when I applied for the first TSO on tandem gear, I did run into a major "Catch-22". One part of the FAA said that I couldn't get a TSO on equipment that wasn't legal to use...and another part of the FAA said that they wouldn't issue a waiver making tandem "legal" until I had a TSO. They even tried to fine me $1,000 for each of the 100 tandem jumps I had made trying to prove that tandem jumping was feasible, and to determine what standards were necessary for tandem equipment in the first place. When I got through laughing, I started to cry. A big part of the problem was getting them to issue a tandem equipment TSO, when there were no existing tests for tandem equipment. Obviously, (after a lot of legal fees) they did issue the TSO, but it was years before an offical standard for tandem equipment was actually written. I agreed to the "Tandem Waiver Program" for a period of ONE year. Nearly TWENTY years (and three FAA administrators) later, the waiver was lifted, and Tandem became fully "legal". You gotta' love the bureaucrats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #41 October 20, 2004 QuoteI believe he was as well. So was I in my response. what is your point? Your statement sounded like you were not aware that TSO standards apply to much more then parachutes. Quotedo you really expect the FAA would somehow let TSO's be eliminated? Since you were aware of his intent, what was your point in running down his method of presenting it. After all it is his thread. Outlining you views on the subject would have been more educational to those who do not fully understand the process. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggermick 6 #42 October 20, 2004 QuoteQuote"What is the point of your question, do you really expect the FAA would somehow let TSO's be eliminated?" I think (being pretty aware of the TSO process from having worked with a company re-qualifying their TSO after a move) that the FAA would be happy to get out from under the liability, and hassle of managing the TSO system. There is not enough business to keep employess involved full time in the TSO program so it usually falls on someone who is over burdened with other things anyway. Most FAA personel understand parachutes like a cat understands quantum physics. For example in the re-qualifying inspection one FAA inspector (her usual job was pushing paper in the FSDO) couldn't understand how we could have tolerances of 1/4 inch or so. "Doesn't everything have to be in millimeters or so?" C'mon, it's fabric already. QuoteWe can't even get the industry and FAA to extend the repack cycle, and you are asking about eliminating TSOs?! If you think the FAA has anything to do with the lack of a change in repack cycles, I sugest you call up the PIA commitee on the subject and ask them why it is still on the table. QuoteYou might get the result you seek if you post your list of pros and cons, that would provide the format you apparently were seeking and give people something to build on and debate instead of an open question that has motivated people to respond with essays and comments that don't have the structure of a simple pro and con table. I didn't want a structured pro and con list as it would restrict free thinking. QuoteUmmm, just one last thought, with our mainstream jumpers, most don't really give a damn about the TSO process and those that do, have taken it upon themselves to understand it, or will. More of the posters here now seem more concerned about color options, that's important too ya know. You're preaching to the choir. Any idea what I do for a living? As often as not the TSO process for sport parachute manufacturers is a hinderance to producing gear with the latest saftey features. It complicates the process of manufacturing endlessly. There are examples where a TSO is not used, that operate well, and produce equipment to as high or higher standards than the TSO'd equipment on our backs. BASE gear, and Military Systems as two examples. What if a QC program like ISO9000 were required, but the antiquated TSO system scraped. Or is there a better solution. Is the TSO the best out there, or should it be revamped. Does the FAA even understand the requirements of how it applies to Sport Parachute gear, or are they playing the "interperative guessing game" just as much as the industry is? JP, I was gonna come to your defence but now I don't need to. You've stated your case well. Alan seems to looking for a fight to prove you wrong or stupid or somthing who knows why. Both of you have valid points of view and both are correct, taken in the context of this discussion. Lets keep the discorse on topic it's great to hear all sides articulated so well. Of course I could be wrong...............Naaahhh. Mick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkwing 4 #43 October 20, 2004 Anyone who jumped a lot in the 1970's was effectively jumping under the situation you describe -- no TSO'd gear. It was an interesting time for gear. While in principle the TSO system was essentially the same as it is now, it was essentially never enforced, and there were many manufacturers who produced and sold gear that wasn't TSO'd. I didn't have a TSO'd rig until the 5th rig I bought, and that was late 1970's. While it isn't perfect, I'm not seriously down on the current system. -- Jeff My Skydiving History Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #44 October 20, 2004 Most FAA personel understand parachutes like a cat understands quantum physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reminds me of a test program I helped Manley Butler with in 1993. After observing a test deployment and video of earlier tests, the FAA rep said: "I feel like a pig reading a newspaper, but you boys seem to have done your homework, so I'll sign that ..." Hah! Hah! As for eliminating TSOs allowing manufacturers to sell high-speed reserves ... The underlying problem is that no-one knows how to build a reserve that will open well at both the high-speed and low-speed edges of the (freeflying) envelope. The FAA still holds to the 3 second rule for slow-speed deployments, but if you deploy the same canopy at more than 150-180 knots, you will injure jumpers. A few years back George Galloway said that if the FAA would cut him some slack on the 3-second requirement, he could build a high-speed reserve tomorrow. The FAA have already cut tandem manufacturers some slack on opening time, and the last I heard, the PIA TSO C23E committee was trying to incorporate similar provisions into standards for solo high-speed reserves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pms07 3 #45 October 21, 2004 It's interesting to get some historical perspective I suppose. If you go back 25-30 years you would find much non-TSO's gear was being used. Of course there is no equivelant gear on the market today. Much of the home made gear was innovative and led to some of the standard stuff in use today; ask Bill Booth, John Sherman, or Sandy Reid about how they got started and you'll find it interesting I'm sure... I had a home made harness and container at one point I don't even know who made, used with a Pop Top reserve. We jumped a lot gear we either modified at home or that was made without any TSO process. The PPD and Sod Shit rigs were popular in the area where I was jumping. Some of the home made stuff was great gear and led to innovation...some if it had problems as well. TSO'd gear had more than it's share of problems as well however. You could get too far out in front of what was tested and worked well without much effort though. I remember one time I short lined a PC 72 inches, removed the stabilzers, and made a Piglet style diaper for it, all so I could get it to fit into a GS Express I had. I assumed it would land better than the 24 flat 4 line I was jumping as a main and pack small. Anyway, it either opened so hard you thought you had hit the ground or, simply, didn't open at all. Fortunately the Starlight, Paradactyl, Strato Star, and other canopies were avaiable to replace my lame-ass rigging and canopy design efforts... Of course main canopies don't need to be TSO'd but it's an example typical of what I saw. The TSO system is not perfect but it, and various FARs, preclude some of the early to mid 70s style "innovation". Some of that "innovation" led to fatalities. Without some QC and testing process we would probably have similar problems today... pms Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #46 October 21, 2004 QuoteAnyway, it either opened so hard you thought you had hit the ground or, simply, didn't open at all. Ain't test pilot work fun? What I want to know is where is innovation going to come from next? Since the dawn of the ram air reserve and containers designed for it, the single biggest leap foward in technology for sport jumpers in the terms of emergency systems is the SkyHook. And that's just a redesigned version of an existing device. Have we stopped evolving because we've reache the pinical of design? Or are the current TSO processes and requrements holding us back too much now. I thank the pioneers of the dark ages of gear for testing through trial and error, although is history repeating itself should indicate that there is a percentage of those jumpers who didn't realize quite what test pilots they were! We have enough hurdles imposed industry wide through egos, competition, and general fatigue (work in the buisiness long enough and you'll get tired of coming up with new ideas for people to slap down). My point wasn't to do away with the TSO process (it may be helpful or it might be a bad idea) but rather to generate some interest in looking at the linitations it imposes and how it can be operated more efficiently. In all reality the I believe the FAA has much too much on it's plate to be that concerned with sport parachute gear. Why not have a regulatory body within our industry? The problem is how to give it teeth, but also prevent bias. Here's another question: Why must we (in the US) jump TSO'd gear? The DZ requires it. Why? The FAA says they will violate the pilot, jumper(s), owners if they do not enforce that policy. Why? Liability.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #47 October 21, 2004 QuoteHere's another question: Why must we (in the US) jump TSO'd gear? The DZ requires it. Why? The FAA says they will violate the pilot, jumper(s), owners if they do not enforce that policy. Why? Liability. The FAA's prime mission is to protect people and property on the surface from those fools that would fly in the sky. The method they developed to do this was to insure that the airplane was built and maintained in such a way so as to reduce the chance that it would fall from the sky and injure said people and property on the surface. At some point they were charged with the same responsibility for those that would jump from a plane. Being a bureaucracy, they followed the same path they were already using for aircraft. And it seems that way did not fit all that well. As has been said before, we are sort of the step child and they lack the time, interest and training to deal with us in a timely and efficient manner. We jump TSO'd gear because it is the law and we lack a better method of assuring safe equipment. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #48 October 21, 2004 QuoteYour statement sounded like you were not aware that TSO standards apply to much more then parachutes. Exactly what in my statement would lead you to believe that? QuoteSince you were aware of his intent, what was your point in running down his method of presenting it. After all it is his thread. Running down? That is a little harsh to describe what i was attempting to do, but then this is the internet. I was being critical because he started a thread, had some good responses, and then chimed in with: "K, forget it. Since no one really want's to anser the question at hand, I guess my attempt at a "discusion" kinda fell apart. Never mind the pro's of a TSO process, or the education to jumpers about what the TSO process actually involves." I found the tone of that a little offensive, especially in view of the information and thoughts that had already been exchanged. So, "running down" was not my intent, I offerred a critique based on JPs obvious frustration at the responses, although the tone of my post was influenced by his tone. That is just human nature. Look at your own responses to me. Quote Outlining you views on the subject would have been more educational to those who do not fully understand the process. Re-read my posts, including the first one. I did essay my views. That was my point. They are in my post , just not laid out nice and neat with a list of items called "pros" and another called "cons". There are quite a number other posts that do the same. JPs comments quoted above were rather flippant. So, before you hop on your big white horse and ride to JPs rescue, go back and read the meat of what I have posted. I explained my thoughts on why there is a TSO process and why I felt they wouldn't be eliminated, I even addressed the pro and con issue. I may be wrong, I may be right, you may agree, you may disagree, but what I posted was thought out and relevant to the topic, well at least until I had to start defending myself.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f1shlips 2 #49 October 21, 2004 Quoteand we lack a better method of assuring safe equipment. I would say the illusion of safe equipment, or potentially safer equipment.-- drop zone (drop'zone) n. An incestuous sesspool of broken people. -- Attributed to a whuffo girlfriend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #50 October 21, 2004 Yes, I think the "problem" lies more with the bureaucracy than with the concept of the TSO process. That is not to say that the TSO process should not be periodically reviewed and revamped when necessary, as with almost anything, it can usually be improved upon with time. But, I think that bureaucracy is resistant to change in the absence of some strong catalyst for change. I believe that is truly what JP has been trying to get at.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
