diablopilot 2 #1 October 18, 2004 So, the FAA for the most part doesn't really understand skydiving equipment. They have bigger fish to fry. What if the TSO requirement and process we're eliminated overnight? There is mirror image industry to ours, that opperates without TSO requirements alread, and I don't hear stories about poorly manufactured gear. Without TSO's we might have the problem of a reserve that can withstand head down 200mph deploymenst WITHOUT breaking the jumper. Without TSO's more saftey devices could be added to gear more easily. Without TSO's gear would be somewhat less expensive. What do you think?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #2 October 18, 2004 What do you think the price drop would be with manufactures that would most likely still test the ever living hell out of their gear (RWS for example)? Do you think it would take a number of years before the price started to go down since some manufactures may be still trying to recoup money spent on the TSO and everything involved?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #3 October 18, 2004 QuoteWhat do you think the price drop would be with manufactures that would most likely still test the ever living hell out of their gear (RWS for example)? Unknown. Much of the cost of a TSO is NOT in testing.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #4 October 18, 2004 Where does the money go then? Man hours, sample equipment, testing equipment, or the actual fees of the paperwork? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #5 October 18, 2004 Yep.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #6 October 18, 2004 The FAA might not understand the equipment, but the society of automotive engineers are the ones that wrote the requirements. Well, I don't agree with you about the FAA thing anyway. The TSO requirements aren't particularly complicated. I'd have no problem with someone other than the FAA setting our standards if it saved some money, but I definitely think we're in a sport that needs standards for the equipment. And since the FAA is about the only organization that can actually regulate us, they work for me. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #7 October 18, 2004 QuoteI'd have no problem with someone other than the FAA setting our standards if it saved some money How about the PIA?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #8 October 18, 2004 Sorry to disillusion you, but TSO standards are only "administered" by the FAA. TSO standards are really written by an SAE committee consisting of PIA members. PIA's Parachute Certification Standards committee is currently chaired by Pat Wilson of the US Forest Service. Other PCS Committee members include: Terry Urban, JC Berland, Paraflite Manley Butler, BPS Bill Coe, Performance Designs Stefan Ertler, Paratec George Galloway, Precision Bob Gilmour, Strong Enterprises Dominic Hayhurst , Aerodyne International Sady Reid, Rigging Innovations J.F. Rives, Parachutes de France George Soteropoulos. FAA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #9 October 18, 2004 Quotebut TSO standards are only "administered" by the FAA. No disillusion, I am full aware of that fact SAE members often come up with the proposed rules. The point is the "Administration" doesn't understand the rules. They quite frequently apply them in confusing and conflicting ways. Back to the discusion, what positives and negatives would exist if TSO requirements were droped by the FAA?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #10 October 18, 2004 I feel most of the current top manufactures would continue to test to the present AS-8015B standards. The would also continue to keep the same or similar records for materials traceability and production QA. But on the other hand, you would also get rigs produced by the local rigger who thinks he understands all that is involved in making a rig that is safe and reliable. In the early 80's there where people making copies of popular rigs without following the QA checks required by a TSO. Quote Pilotdave The TSO requirements aren't particularly complicated.*** When was the last time you completed a test series for a TSO or set up a production line to include the required paperwork and QA points for a TSO. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggermick 6 #11 October 18, 2004 QuoteI feel most of the current top manufactures would continue to test to the present AS-8015B standards. The would also continue to keep the same or similar records for materials traceability and production QA. But on the other hand, you would also get rigs produced by the local rigger who thinks he understands all that is involved in making a rig that is safe and reliable. In the early 80's there where people making copies of popular rigs without following the QA checks required by a TSO. Quote Pilotdave The TSO requirements aren't particularly complicated.*** When was the last time you completed a test series for a TSO or set up a production line to include the required paperwork and QA points for a TSO. Sparky No, he's right it's not that complicated its just very time consuming and as we all know time is money!!. The last time I went through the procedure was in 1995 and we were the first harness/ container "TSO'd" under C23d (that's a whole story in it'self). Eliminating TSO requirments is not a smart idea, it sounds good on paper but in reality it would open up a whole Pandoras box of issues that are currently addressed. Mick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #12 October 18, 2004 QuoteNo, he's right it's not that complicated its just very time consuming and as we all know time is money!!. Hey Mick, Any paperwork that is time consuming is complicated to me. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggermick 6 #13 October 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo, he's right it's not that complicated its just very time consuming and as we all know time is money!!. Hey Mick, Any paperwork that is time consuming is complicated to me. Sparky I hear ya bro!!! Mick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #14 October 18, 2004 You should be happy with TSO system. There are some countries like Hungary that not accepting TSOd equipment. Every piece of equipment has to have its time approval and thats a hell.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites councilman24 36 #15 October 18, 2004 Not quite right. SAE is no longer involved and no longer will be supporting AS8015b. PIA has just adopted PIA Technical Standard 135 which either has been or will be submitted to the FAA in the very near future as a replacement standard for TSO C23. I'm on the committee because the FAA wanted user representation and I'm Chairman of the PIA Rigging Committee. BTW George from the FAA is not a voting member but either he or other FAA reps often set in.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pilotdave 0 #16 October 18, 2004 QuotePIA has just adopted PIA Technical Standard 135 which either has been or will be submitted to the FAA in the very near future as a replacement standard for TSO C23. Will it be available online (for free)? Any major changes from the SAE standard? Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wuffo 1 #17 October 18, 2004 You know, I think one of the big, big flaws in the system is that manufacturers are on the "honor system" when it comes to compliance with TSO requirements. I certainly have no proof, but I do have a suspicion that some of the required tests are not fully completed, only the paperwork is. Why else would some product supposedly tested so thoroughly fail on several occasions when used well under the weight and speeds that they were supposedly tested to? I would like to see any changes in the process include non-company affiliates involved with witnessing and documenting required tests and some way to substantiate to the public that they were actually done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites councilman24 36 #18 October 18, 2004 It will be posted on the PIA web site in the near future. The cover letter to send to the FAA is being drafted now. This was the effort of a number of people over 10 years! One issue was personnal disagreements between the participents. Also, over the years issues were revisited over and over. With Pat Wilson and myself as user representatives on the committee, we forced things to come to a vote. Over about 20 hours during three days we finished the document in Reno last March. In Jacksonville in September we finished cleaning up some cross references and had the number assigned.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites f1shlips 2 #19 October 18, 2004 Quote You know, I think one of the big, big flaws in the system is that manufacturers are on the "honor system" when it comes to compliance with TSO requirements. Self certification is normal for any governmental testing standard. It works for all the FMVSS### standards.-- 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 billbooth 10 #20 October 18, 2004 There are two parts to the TSO. One is the specific tests that a piece of equipment must pass. That's the easy part. (Besides, we do many more tests than are required in the TSO before we let a new product out the door anyway.) The second part is the manufacturing system checks you must set up to make sure each part you make is the same as the one which passed the tests. That's the hard part..or at least I used to think it was until we got into being ISO certified. The ISO system makes the TSO system seem like child's play. However, we had to do it, because it's the wave of the future, and more and more government agencies, especially outside the US, are requiring it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites alan 1 #21 October 18, 2004 QuoteBack to the discusion, what positives and negatives would exist if TSO requirements were droped by the FAA? As has been pointed out, the PIA has set the standards via the SAE and FAA. Now the standards will take a slightly more direct route, via the PIA and FAA. The real question is one of enforcement. We need an authority that, by law, can prescribe and enforce the standards to ensure the public safety, as I believe that is a basic tenent of a democratic society. We really need an authority that can regulate and enforce standards in the industry. Enforcement implies the power to impose penalties for failing to comply with standards that are established as law. Is privatizing it a better way than having governmental agency administer it? That debate can go on forever and I don't want to get sucked into it. I agree that the FAA can frequently apply the rules in confusing and conflicting ways. I can't imagine that any private authority would do any differently. Different people still have differring opinions, regardless of who there employer is. Terry point out in his post that the PIA committee took a considerable amount of time to work through issues. That would not change and PIA field inspectors would have interpretation issues just as the FAA FI's do. Are you really asking about saving money? If so, then I would suggest that it is too late. We have become "mainstream" and that means we are an industry and industry is driven by the profit motive. Big resort DZs, wind tunnels, bigger and faster aircraft, bigger gear manufacturers with big R&D budgets, employing ever higher technology, sponsorships, bigger events.....it all leads to more money. Economies of scale? They manage to keep the cost at a level the market will support. Several years ago our leadership embarked on a philosophy of mainstreaming the sport. I believe that that effort has been successful and it the continued direction. Was it good for the sport or bad? I don't know yet, but look at the question you posed and look deep into your motivation for asking it. I'll go now. I'm trying to choose colors for my new Infinity and have a lot a material to cover in that thread. Do you think you could talk a moderator into moving the posts that don't actually have a photo attached? You see, as a group, we tend to support all of the bullshit, so why would it make sense to get the FAA out of our gear? Sorry, couldn't help that one. alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #22 October 18, 2004 So, what pro's and con's do you think would come about from a disappearance of the TSO process?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #23 October 18, 2004 QuoteNot quite right. SAE is no longer involved and no longer will be supporting AS8015b. PIA has just adopted PIA Technical Standard 135 which either has been or will be submitted to the FAA in the very near future as a replacement standard for TSO C23. I'm on the committee because the FAA wanted user representation and I'm Chairman of the PIA Rigging Committee. BTW George from the FAA is not a voting member but either he or other FAA reps often set in. AS-8015B will continue to be the standard for TSO-C23d for some time. It will take the FAA at least a year, once accepted, to change. AS-8015B was issued 7 July 1992 but TSO-C23d did not take effect until 1 June 1994. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites councilman24 36 #24 October 18, 2004 I didn't bother trying to explain this part. It will take awhile, and the FAA could reject it altogether and not have a supported standard. Our intention is for it to become the European JTSO standard also.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billbooth 10 #25 October 18, 2004 While 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 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 Go To Topic Listing
riggermick 6 #11 October 18, 2004 QuoteI feel most of the current top manufactures would continue to test to the present AS-8015B standards. The would also continue to keep the same or similar records for materials traceability and production QA. But on the other hand, you would also get rigs produced by the local rigger who thinks he understands all that is involved in making a rig that is safe and reliable. In the early 80's there where people making copies of popular rigs without following the QA checks required by a TSO. Quote Pilotdave The TSO requirements aren't particularly complicated.*** When was the last time you completed a test series for a TSO or set up a production line to include the required paperwork and QA points for a TSO. Sparky No, he's right it's not that complicated its just very time consuming and as we all know time is money!!. The last time I went through the procedure was in 1995 and we were the first harness/ container "TSO'd" under C23d (that's a whole story in it'self). Eliminating TSO requirments is not a smart idea, it sounds good on paper but in reality it would open up a whole Pandoras box of issues that are currently addressed. Mick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #12 October 18, 2004 QuoteNo, he's right it's not that complicated its just very time consuming and as we all know time is money!!. Hey Mick, Any paperwork that is time consuming is complicated to me. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggermick 6 #13 October 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo, he's right it's not that complicated its just very time consuming and as we all know time is money!!. Hey Mick, Any paperwork that is time consuming is complicated to me. Sparky I hear ya bro!!! Mick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #14 October 18, 2004 You should be happy with TSO system. There are some countries like Hungary that not accepting TSOd equipment. Every piece of equipment has to have its time approval and thats a hell.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites councilman24 36 #15 October 18, 2004 Not quite right. SAE is no longer involved and no longer will be supporting AS8015b. PIA has just adopted PIA Technical Standard 135 which either has been or will be submitted to the FAA in the very near future as a replacement standard for TSO C23. I'm on the committee because the FAA wanted user representation and I'm Chairman of the PIA Rigging Committee. BTW George from the FAA is not a voting member but either he or other FAA reps often set in.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pilotdave 0 #16 October 18, 2004 QuotePIA has just adopted PIA Technical Standard 135 which either has been or will be submitted to the FAA in the very near future as a replacement standard for TSO C23. Will it be available online (for free)? Any major changes from the SAE standard? Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wuffo 1 #17 October 18, 2004 You know, I think one of the big, big flaws in the system is that manufacturers are on the "honor system" when it comes to compliance with TSO requirements. I certainly have no proof, but I do have a suspicion that some of the required tests are not fully completed, only the paperwork is. Why else would some product supposedly tested so thoroughly fail on several occasions when used well under the weight and speeds that they were supposedly tested to? I would like to see any changes in the process include non-company affiliates involved with witnessing and documenting required tests and some way to substantiate to the public that they were actually done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites councilman24 36 #18 October 18, 2004 It will be posted on the PIA web site in the near future. The cover letter to send to the FAA is being drafted now. This was the effort of a number of people over 10 years! One issue was personnal disagreements between the participents. Also, over the years issues were revisited over and over. With Pat Wilson and myself as user representatives on the committee, we forced things to come to a vote. Over about 20 hours during three days we finished the document in Reno last March. In Jacksonville in September we finished cleaning up some cross references and had the number assigned.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites f1shlips 2 #19 October 18, 2004 Quote You know, I think one of the big, big flaws in the system is that manufacturers are on the "honor system" when it comes to compliance with TSO requirements. Self certification is normal for any governmental testing standard. It works for all the FMVSS### standards.-- 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 billbooth 10 #20 October 18, 2004 There are two parts to the TSO. One is the specific tests that a piece of equipment must pass. That's the easy part. (Besides, we do many more tests than are required in the TSO before we let a new product out the door anyway.) The second part is the manufacturing system checks you must set up to make sure each part you make is the same as the one which passed the tests. That's the hard part..or at least I used to think it was until we got into being ISO certified. The ISO system makes the TSO system seem like child's play. However, we had to do it, because it's the wave of the future, and more and more government agencies, especially outside the US, are requiring it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites alan 1 #21 October 18, 2004 QuoteBack to the discusion, what positives and negatives would exist if TSO requirements were droped by the FAA? As has been pointed out, the PIA has set the standards via the SAE and FAA. Now the standards will take a slightly more direct route, via the PIA and FAA. The real question is one of enforcement. We need an authority that, by law, can prescribe and enforce the standards to ensure the public safety, as I believe that is a basic tenent of a democratic society. We really need an authority that can regulate and enforce standards in the industry. Enforcement implies the power to impose penalties for failing to comply with standards that are established as law. Is privatizing it a better way than having governmental agency administer it? That debate can go on forever and I don't want to get sucked into it. I agree that the FAA can frequently apply the rules in confusing and conflicting ways. I can't imagine that any private authority would do any differently. Different people still have differring opinions, regardless of who there employer is. Terry point out in his post that the PIA committee took a considerable amount of time to work through issues. That would not change and PIA field inspectors would have interpretation issues just as the FAA FI's do. Are you really asking about saving money? If so, then I would suggest that it is too late. We have become "mainstream" and that means we are an industry and industry is driven by the profit motive. Big resort DZs, wind tunnels, bigger and faster aircraft, bigger gear manufacturers with big R&D budgets, employing ever higher technology, sponsorships, bigger events.....it all leads to more money. Economies of scale? They manage to keep the cost at a level the market will support. Several years ago our leadership embarked on a philosophy of mainstreaming the sport. I believe that that effort has been successful and it the continued direction. Was it good for the sport or bad? I don't know yet, but look at the question you posed and look deep into your motivation for asking it. I'll go now. I'm trying to choose colors for my new Infinity and have a lot a material to cover in that thread. Do you think you could talk a moderator into moving the posts that don't actually have a photo attached? You see, as a group, we tend to support all of the bullshit, so why would it make sense to get the FAA out of our gear? Sorry, couldn't help that one. alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #22 October 18, 2004 So, what pro's and con's do you think would come about from a disappearance of the TSO process?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #23 October 18, 2004 QuoteNot quite right. SAE is no longer involved and no longer will be supporting AS8015b. PIA has just adopted PIA Technical Standard 135 which either has been or will be submitted to the FAA in the very near future as a replacement standard for TSO C23. I'm on the committee because the FAA wanted user representation and I'm Chairman of the PIA Rigging Committee. BTW George from the FAA is not a voting member but either he or other FAA reps often set in. AS-8015B will continue to be the standard for TSO-C23d for some time. It will take the FAA at least a year, once accepted, to change. AS-8015B was issued 7 July 1992 but TSO-C23d did not take effect until 1 June 1994. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites councilman24 36 #24 October 18, 2004 I didn't bother trying to explain this part. It will take awhile, and the FAA could reject it altogether and not have a supported standard. Our intention is for it to become the European JTSO standard also.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billbooth 10 #25 October 18, 2004 While 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 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 #12 October 18, 2004 QuoteNo, he's right it's not that complicated its just very time consuming and as we all know time is money!!. Hey Mick, Any paperwork that is time consuming is complicated to me. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggermick 6 #13 October 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo, he's right it's not that complicated its just very time consuming and as we all know time is money!!. Hey Mick, Any paperwork that is time consuming is complicated to me. Sparky I hear ya bro!!! Mick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #14 October 18, 2004 You should be happy with TSO system. There are some countries like Hungary that not accepting TSOd equipment. Every piece of equipment has to have its time approval and thats a hell.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #15 October 18, 2004 Not quite right. SAE is no longer involved and no longer will be supporting AS8015b. PIA has just adopted PIA Technical Standard 135 which either has been or will be submitted to the FAA in the very near future as a replacement standard for TSO C23. I'm on the committee because the FAA wanted user representation and I'm Chairman of the PIA Rigging Committee. BTW George from the FAA is not a voting member but either he or other FAA reps often set in.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #16 October 18, 2004 QuotePIA has just adopted PIA Technical Standard 135 which either has been or will be submitted to the FAA in the very near future as a replacement standard for TSO C23. Will it be available online (for free)? Any major changes from the SAE standard? Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wuffo 1 #17 October 18, 2004 You know, I think one of the big, big flaws in the system is that manufacturers are on the "honor system" when it comes to compliance with TSO requirements. I certainly have no proof, but I do have a suspicion that some of the required tests are not fully completed, only the paperwork is. Why else would some product supposedly tested so thoroughly fail on several occasions when used well under the weight and speeds that they were supposedly tested to? I would like to see any changes in the process include non-company affiliates involved with witnessing and documenting required tests and some way to substantiate to the public that they were actually done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #18 October 18, 2004 It will be posted on the PIA web site in the near future. The cover letter to send to the FAA is being drafted now. This was the effort of a number of people over 10 years! One issue was personnal disagreements between the participents. Also, over the years issues were revisited over and over. With Pat Wilson and myself as user representatives on the committee, we forced things to come to a vote. Over about 20 hours during three days we finished the document in Reno last March. In Jacksonville in September we finished cleaning up some cross references and had the number assigned.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f1shlips 2 #19 October 18, 2004 Quote You know, I think one of the big, big flaws in the system is that manufacturers are on the "honor system" when it comes to compliance with TSO requirements. Self certification is normal for any governmental testing standard. It works for all the FMVSS### standards.-- 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
billbooth 10 #20 October 18, 2004 There are two parts to the TSO. One is the specific tests that a piece of equipment must pass. That's the easy part. (Besides, we do many more tests than are required in the TSO before we let a new product out the door anyway.) The second part is the manufacturing system checks you must set up to make sure each part you make is the same as the one which passed the tests. That's the hard part..or at least I used to think it was until we got into being ISO certified. The ISO system makes the TSO system seem like child's play. However, we had to do it, because it's the wave of the future, and more and more government agencies, especially outside the US, are requiring it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #21 October 18, 2004 QuoteBack to the discusion, what positives and negatives would exist if TSO requirements were droped by the FAA? As has been pointed out, the PIA has set the standards via the SAE and FAA. Now the standards will take a slightly more direct route, via the PIA and FAA. The real question is one of enforcement. We need an authority that, by law, can prescribe and enforce the standards to ensure the public safety, as I believe that is a basic tenent of a democratic society. We really need an authority that can regulate and enforce standards in the industry. Enforcement implies the power to impose penalties for failing to comply with standards that are established as law. Is privatizing it a better way than having governmental agency administer it? That debate can go on forever and I don't want to get sucked into it. I agree that the FAA can frequently apply the rules in confusing and conflicting ways. I can't imagine that any private authority would do any differently. Different people still have differring opinions, regardless of who there employer is. Terry point out in his post that the PIA committee took a considerable amount of time to work through issues. That would not change and PIA field inspectors would have interpretation issues just as the FAA FI's do. Are you really asking about saving money? If so, then I would suggest that it is too late. We have become "mainstream" and that means we are an industry and industry is driven by the profit motive. Big resort DZs, wind tunnels, bigger and faster aircraft, bigger gear manufacturers with big R&D budgets, employing ever higher technology, sponsorships, bigger events.....it all leads to more money. Economies of scale? They manage to keep the cost at a level the market will support. Several years ago our leadership embarked on a philosophy of mainstreaming the sport. I believe that that effort has been successful and it the continued direction. Was it good for the sport or bad? I don't know yet, but look at the question you posed and look deep into your motivation for asking it. I'll go now. I'm trying to choose colors for my new Infinity and have a lot a material to cover in that thread. Do you think you could talk a moderator into moving the posts that don't actually have a photo attached? You see, as a group, we tend to support all of the bullshit, so why would it make sense to get the FAA out of our gear? Sorry, couldn't help that one. alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #22 October 18, 2004 So, what pro's and con's do you think would come about from a disappearance of the TSO process?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #23 October 18, 2004 QuoteNot quite right. SAE is no longer involved and no longer will be supporting AS8015b. PIA has just adopted PIA Technical Standard 135 which either has been or will be submitted to the FAA in the very near future as a replacement standard for TSO C23. I'm on the committee because the FAA wanted user representation and I'm Chairman of the PIA Rigging Committee. BTW George from the FAA is not a voting member but either he or other FAA reps often set in. AS-8015B will continue to be the standard for TSO-C23d for some time. It will take the FAA at least a year, once accepted, to change. AS-8015B was issued 7 July 1992 but TSO-C23d did not take effect until 1 June 1994. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #24 October 18, 2004 I didn't bother trying to explain this part. It will take awhile, and the FAA could reject it altogether and not have a supported standard. Our intention is for it to become the European JTSO standard also.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billbooth 10 #25 October 18, 2004 While 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
