RIGGER 0 #51 December 5, 2004 I wish we could use the Soft Links on all the Reserve canopies - they are much better. We should have the approval from all reserve mfg. that does not mfg. reserve soft links YET & then we can do the change for all using the Reserve TSO'd Soft Links we have on the market. Why it so hard to understand that even Riggers have working limits created by the mfg. Same for Reserve canopies repairs: the fabric, lines & thread should come from the canopy mfg. PD have a limit of 2 years from date the Rigger bought the Fabric, Lines or Thread to be used for PD reserves repairs - How you live with that ? it is a Mfg. limit which must be respected !!! PD manual page 27. Can you use a #4 or #5 SS links on a PR from a box you get from a gear shop ? NO !!! You must order it from PD which test & approved each metal link. Filling the Packing/Deployments boxes on the PR is a must & a part of the canopy TSO by the Mfg. Why some Riggers are not marking the boxes ? Same for the PR 30 lb. annual fabric pull test Why ? Why some Riggers are removing the Silicone bumpers from the PD #4 links ? Some MANDATORY SB are from the mfg. & not from the FAA, does the Rigger must follow the SB or wait to an FAA note ? Derek & my fellow Riggers all I try to say & educate is: There are limits set by the mfg. & items that are a part of their TSO process, you would like to replace with a better TSO'd items - ask for a written Approval. Who says that being a Rigger is easy ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RIGGER 0 #52 December 5, 2004 *** Do you refuse to pack a rig that comes to you already in that condition? Quote If I'll inspect a system that come to me with an assembling NOT APPROVED by the Reserve canopy like: a PR with Aerodyne or Precision Soft Link or a Precision Reserve with Aerodyne Soft Links or a Tempo or Smart R with PD or Precision Soft Links or a Techno R with any of the above Soft Links I'll not pack it. My steps will be: 1.I'll mail the canopy mfg. & inform him regarding the change, wait to read his opinion. 2.If the reserve mfg. says NO I'll not pack the rig and inform the owner that the change is NOT APPROVED by the reserve mfg. & the item MUST be replaced with the reserve mfg. APPROVED item before repack. 3.My advice to the rig owner & the DZ will be DO NOT jump it before change. On a PR I'll use only PD SR-1 Slinks which are the only Soft Links approved by PD for the PR. *** I think there are VERY few riggers that will not repack a rig because of this. Quote You might be surprised !!! More & More GOOD Riggers are paying attention to such issues. Today mfg. are marking all items with their names & p/n for a reason - release handles, reserve ripcords, Soft Links, main risers & more mfg. are asking in the manuals for the use of the original parts from the mfg. *** So, riggers by their collective action are using their license to determine compatibility to outweigh any supposed requirements of reserve or container mfg. Quote Yes, they can determine the compatibilty of canopies into containers based on the H/C mfg. manual & if they found an unsure compatibilty they MUST contact the H/C mfg. & get his advice. We have seen reserve canopies that has been assembled by RIGGERS into too SMALL or too LARGE reserve containers. Few years ago I found an assembling coming from the USA with a PR193 in a reserve container built for PR176 & the Rigger also use a free bag that was ONE size larger then the size of the reserve container so the PR193 will fit in. This was a NOT APPROVED assembling !!! Riggers have the ticket to learn & be BETTER, being a Rigger does not means you can do ALL !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #53 December 5, 2004 You haven't answered my question. We had agreed to forget the FAR's for the purpose of this discussion, at least temporarily, and talk about what is safe and what isn't safe. Since we’ll have to agree to disagree about the legality of using PD’s Slinks on other reserves than PD’s. Again, my question is: “Why should we use #4 or #5 Rapide links when Slinks are stronger?” Again, disregard the FAR’s and just discuss safety and compatibility. I believe that since they are stronger and any reserve that is compatible with #4 or #5 Rapide links is compatible with Slinks, it is safer and better to use Slinks for those reserves. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RIGGER 0 #54 December 5, 2004 I did answer your question. I do agree with you that the SR-1 are better then metal links & I think that all reserve mfg. should move to Soft Links or approve the other mfg. Soft Links. Why we can not use the SR-1 on other mfg. reserves even they are better & stronger ? Not ALL mfg. approved the SR-1 on their reserves. I asked in the past 2 mfg. for the approval & the answer was NO, we did not test it. Using metal links does not means that the reserve is not safe or less safe. The reserves which still use #4 & 5 SS metal links are SAFE to use all time the links are set correctly. The SR-1 are better from all points of view. On the PR you can replace the metal links with the SR-1 BUT on other reserves you have to get the reserve mfg. approval. I hope this answer your question. Safe Rigging !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #55 December 5, 2004 QuoteI hope this answer your question. Yes, it does. We agree that Slinks are much better and there is no reason to use Rapide links. We disagree about the legality of using them on other than PD's reserves. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slotperfect 7 #56 December 7, 2004 A status update: -I researched three soft links: PD Slink SR-1, Precision Wrap-It, and Aerodyne P1487-01. I found written confirmation that each of these was approved under TSP C23d as a "separate component." I either found it posted on the manufacturer's website or they emailed it to me. Note: HiPer listed their link as compatible only main canopies, and Flight Concepts didn't reply to my question about their Cinch Links. -I emailed PD, Aerodyne, Precision, Strong, Flight Concepts, North American, and Para Flite to ask them specifically about the reserves they manufacture. I did not go too "deep in the weeds" naming older reserves; for example, I only asked Para Flite about the Swift Plus Reserve. Once I receive all replies I'll post another update, and hopefully HH will post the docs permanently here.Arrive Safely John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #57 December 7, 2004 John, Thank you for all your efforts on this. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #58 December 7, 2004 Quote-I researched three soft links: PD Slink SR-1, Precision Wrap-It, and Aerodyne P1487-01. I found written confirmation that each of these was approved under TSP C23d as a "separate component." That is all that is needed to legally install them on any compatable container/reserve. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites extreme 0 #59 December 8, 2004 I mailed to Performance Variable and they answered to me "Sorry ,but there is no possibility for installing them on a Quick". But when I looked at Quick's manual, under "suspension line links" is stated "Stainless-steel Mini Link or Soft Links". After all I read here, I think it is legal to install PD SR-1 to Quick. Blue Skies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RIGGER 0 #60 December 9, 2004 If PV mailed you that you can not use the SR-1 on their "Quick" reserve that means you can not, even the manual states Soft Links. Also consider that the Quick R is also approved under JTSO C23D which is a European TSO C23D & the SR-1 are approved under FAA TSO C23D & not by the JTSO. Using a non JTSO item on the JTSO certified parachute is not an approved assembling & the only way to do that is the Reserve Mfg./JTSO holder approval. Safe Rigging !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #61 December 9, 2004 QuoteAlso consider that the Quick R is also approved under JTSO C23D which is a European TSO C23D & the SR-1 are approved under FAA TSO C23D & not by the JTSO. The Quick R is also covered under FAA TSO-C23D or it could not be jumped in the US. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/2DB61E5BC909D98185256E5900556BC1?OpenDocument SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #62 December 9, 2004 QuoteThe Quick R is also covered under FAA TSO-C23D Which means you may use Slinks, if compatable. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #63 December 10, 2004 QuoteWhich means you may use Slinks, if compatable. Exactly.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RIGGER 0 #64 December 10, 2004 The PV "Quick R" is covered under FAA TSO C23D from 26 July 2002. All early mfg. are covered only by the JTSO C23D & or the German LBA (FAA) approval. Even if the canopy in question is under BOTH TSO C23D it still also a JTSO item & the SR-1 slinks are NOT under the JTSO, so assembling the reserve with the SR-1 will void the JTSO. The owner mailed the reserve Mfg. & get a NO answer this disapprove the SR-1 assembling on the Quick R. Riggers, you can not & you are not allowed to advice the owner to assemble the SR-1 when the Quick Mfg. said NO !!! The only way to do that is dealing with the TSO holder - the Quick R mfg. PV in Germany. Think again !!! Safe Rigging !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #65 December 10, 2004 QuoteEven if the canopy in question is under BOTH TSO C23D it still also a JTSO item & the SR-1 slinks are NOT under the JTSO, so assembling the reserve with the SR-1 will void the JTSO. But will not void the FAA TSO and is therefore legal in the U.S. I couldn't care less about JTSO's. QuoteRiggers, you can not & you are not allowed to advice the owner to assemble the SR-1 when the Quick Mfg. said NO !!! And Strong tried to say you could only use their mains in their tandems rigs. That exceeds their authority. I don't think you understand U.S. FAR's. Do you realize that all those Service Bullitines, such as the Capewell SB are not mandatory? I follow them as if they were, but they are not. If I need any help w/ Israeli regualations, I'll give you a call, but I've got a good handle on the FAR's. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RIGGER 0 #66 December 10, 2004 Do not take it as a personal point. I do understand the FAA FAR's but I think that the mfg. manual must be followed. The Israeli CAA (FAA) FAR's are based on & very similar to the US FAA FAR's regarding parachuting & parachutes. Yes, I know about the SB by the mfg. & not by the FAA but Riggers should follow the mfg. SB. Issues like the Soft Links assembling we discuss here is between the Mfg. & Riggers, this is the reason we have manuals & the Mfg. is the TSO holder. If the Rigger think that his action is better he can ask the Administrator for the approval. Safe Rigging & Happy New Year !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 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
RIGGER 0 #52 December 5, 2004 *** Do you refuse to pack a rig that comes to you already in that condition? Quote If I'll inspect a system that come to me with an assembling NOT APPROVED by the Reserve canopy like: a PR with Aerodyne or Precision Soft Link or a Precision Reserve with Aerodyne Soft Links or a Tempo or Smart R with PD or Precision Soft Links or a Techno R with any of the above Soft Links I'll not pack it. My steps will be: 1.I'll mail the canopy mfg. & inform him regarding the change, wait to read his opinion. 2.If the reserve mfg. says NO I'll not pack the rig and inform the owner that the change is NOT APPROVED by the reserve mfg. & the item MUST be replaced with the reserve mfg. APPROVED item before repack. 3.My advice to the rig owner & the DZ will be DO NOT jump it before change. On a PR I'll use only PD SR-1 Slinks which are the only Soft Links approved by PD for the PR. *** I think there are VERY few riggers that will not repack a rig because of this. Quote You might be surprised !!! More & More GOOD Riggers are paying attention to such issues. Today mfg. are marking all items with their names & p/n for a reason - release handles, reserve ripcords, Soft Links, main risers & more mfg. are asking in the manuals for the use of the original parts from the mfg. *** So, riggers by their collective action are using their license to determine compatibility to outweigh any supposed requirements of reserve or container mfg. Quote Yes, they can determine the compatibilty of canopies into containers based on the H/C mfg. manual & if they found an unsure compatibilty they MUST contact the H/C mfg. & get his advice. We have seen reserve canopies that has been assembled by RIGGERS into too SMALL or too LARGE reserve containers. Few years ago I found an assembling coming from the USA with a PR193 in a reserve container built for PR176 & the Rigger also use a free bag that was ONE size larger then the size of the reserve container so the PR193 will fit in. This was a NOT APPROVED assembling !!! Riggers have the ticket to learn & be BETTER, being a Rigger does not means you can do ALL !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #53 December 5, 2004 You haven't answered my question. We had agreed to forget the FAR's for the purpose of this discussion, at least temporarily, and talk about what is safe and what isn't safe. Since we’ll have to agree to disagree about the legality of using PD’s Slinks on other reserves than PD’s. Again, my question is: “Why should we use #4 or #5 Rapide links when Slinks are stronger?” Again, disregard the FAR’s and just discuss safety and compatibility. I believe that since they are stronger and any reserve that is compatible with #4 or #5 Rapide links is compatible with Slinks, it is safer and better to use Slinks for those reserves. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RIGGER 0 #54 December 5, 2004 I did answer your question. I do agree with you that the SR-1 are better then metal links & I think that all reserve mfg. should move to Soft Links or approve the other mfg. Soft Links. Why we can not use the SR-1 on other mfg. reserves even they are better & stronger ? Not ALL mfg. approved the SR-1 on their reserves. I asked in the past 2 mfg. for the approval & the answer was NO, we did not test it. Using metal links does not means that the reserve is not safe or less safe. The reserves which still use #4 & 5 SS metal links are SAFE to use all time the links are set correctly. The SR-1 are better from all points of view. On the PR you can replace the metal links with the SR-1 BUT on other reserves you have to get the reserve mfg. approval. I hope this answer your question. Safe Rigging !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #55 December 5, 2004 QuoteI hope this answer your question. Yes, it does. We agree that Slinks are much better and there is no reason to use Rapide links. We disagree about the legality of using them on other than PD's reserves. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slotperfect 7 #56 December 7, 2004 A status update: -I researched three soft links: PD Slink SR-1, Precision Wrap-It, and Aerodyne P1487-01. I found written confirmation that each of these was approved under TSP C23d as a "separate component." I either found it posted on the manufacturer's website or they emailed it to me. Note: HiPer listed their link as compatible only main canopies, and Flight Concepts didn't reply to my question about their Cinch Links. -I emailed PD, Aerodyne, Precision, Strong, Flight Concepts, North American, and Para Flite to ask them specifically about the reserves they manufacture. I did not go too "deep in the weeds" naming older reserves; for example, I only asked Para Flite about the Swift Plus Reserve. Once I receive all replies I'll post another update, and hopefully HH will post the docs permanently here.Arrive Safely John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #57 December 7, 2004 John, Thank you for all your efforts on this. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #58 December 7, 2004 Quote-I researched three soft links: PD Slink SR-1, Precision Wrap-It, and Aerodyne P1487-01. I found written confirmation that each of these was approved under TSP C23d as a "separate component." That is all that is needed to legally install them on any compatable container/reserve. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites extreme 0 #59 December 8, 2004 I mailed to Performance Variable and they answered to me "Sorry ,but there is no possibility for installing them on a Quick". But when I looked at Quick's manual, under "suspension line links" is stated "Stainless-steel Mini Link or Soft Links". After all I read here, I think it is legal to install PD SR-1 to Quick. Blue Skies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RIGGER 0 #60 December 9, 2004 If PV mailed you that you can not use the SR-1 on their "Quick" reserve that means you can not, even the manual states Soft Links. Also consider that the Quick R is also approved under JTSO C23D which is a European TSO C23D & the SR-1 are approved under FAA TSO C23D & not by the JTSO. Using a non JTSO item on the JTSO certified parachute is not an approved assembling & the only way to do that is the Reserve Mfg./JTSO holder approval. Safe Rigging !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #61 December 9, 2004 QuoteAlso consider that the Quick R is also approved under JTSO C23D which is a European TSO C23D & the SR-1 are approved under FAA TSO C23D & not by the JTSO. The Quick R is also covered under FAA TSO-C23D or it could not be jumped in the US. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/2DB61E5BC909D98185256E5900556BC1?OpenDocument SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #62 December 9, 2004 QuoteThe Quick R is also covered under FAA TSO-C23D Which means you may use Slinks, if compatable. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #63 December 10, 2004 QuoteWhich means you may use Slinks, if compatable. Exactly.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RIGGER 0 #64 December 10, 2004 The PV "Quick R" is covered under FAA TSO C23D from 26 July 2002. All early mfg. are covered only by the JTSO C23D & or the German LBA (FAA) approval. Even if the canopy in question is under BOTH TSO C23D it still also a JTSO item & the SR-1 slinks are NOT under the JTSO, so assembling the reserve with the SR-1 will void the JTSO. The owner mailed the reserve Mfg. & get a NO answer this disapprove the SR-1 assembling on the Quick R. Riggers, you can not & you are not allowed to advice the owner to assemble the SR-1 when the Quick Mfg. said NO !!! The only way to do that is dealing with the TSO holder - the Quick R mfg. PV in Germany. Think again !!! Safe Rigging !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #65 December 10, 2004 QuoteEven if the canopy in question is under BOTH TSO C23D it still also a JTSO item & the SR-1 slinks are NOT under the JTSO, so assembling the reserve with the SR-1 will void the JTSO. But will not void the FAA TSO and is therefore legal in the U.S. I couldn't care less about JTSO's. QuoteRiggers, you can not & you are not allowed to advice the owner to assemble the SR-1 when the Quick Mfg. said NO !!! And Strong tried to say you could only use their mains in their tandems rigs. That exceeds their authority. I don't think you understand U.S. FAR's. Do you realize that all those Service Bullitines, such as the Capewell SB are not mandatory? I follow them as if they were, but they are not. If I need any help w/ Israeli regualations, I'll give you a call, but I've got a good handle on the FAR's. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RIGGER 0 #66 December 10, 2004 Do not take it as a personal point. I do understand the FAA FAR's but I think that the mfg. manual must be followed. The Israeli CAA (FAA) FAR's are based on & very similar to the US FAA FAR's regarding parachuting & parachutes. Yes, I know about the SB by the mfg. & not by the FAA but Riggers should follow the mfg. SB. Issues like the Soft Links assembling we discuss here is between the Mfg. & Riggers, this is the reason we have manuals & the Mfg. is the TSO holder. If the Rigger think that his action is better he can ask the Administrator for the approval. Safe Rigging & Happy New Year !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 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
Hooknswoop 19 #53 December 5, 2004 You haven't answered my question. We had agreed to forget the FAR's for the purpose of this discussion, at least temporarily, and talk about what is safe and what isn't safe. Since we’ll have to agree to disagree about the legality of using PD’s Slinks on other reserves than PD’s. Again, my question is: “Why should we use #4 or #5 Rapide links when Slinks are stronger?” Again, disregard the FAR’s and just discuss safety and compatibility. I believe that since they are stronger and any reserve that is compatible with #4 or #5 Rapide links is compatible with Slinks, it is safer and better to use Slinks for those reserves. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RIGGER 0 #54 December 5, 2004 I did answer your question. I do agree with you that the SR-1 are better then metal links & I think that all reserve mfg. should move to Soft Links or approve the other mfg. Soft Links. Why we can not use the SR-1 on other mfg. reserves even they are better & stronger ? Not ALL mfg. approved the SR-1 on their reserves. I asked in the past 2 mfg. for the approval & the answer was NO, we did not test it. Using metal links does not means that the reserve is not safe or less safe. The reserves which still use #4 & 5 SS metal links are SAFE to use all time the links are set correctly. The SR-1 are better from all points of view. On the PR you can replace the metal links with the SR-1 BUT on other reserves you have to get the reserve mfg. approval. I hope this answer your question. Safe Rigging !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #55 December 5, 2004 QuoteI hope this answer your question. Yes, it does. We agree that Slinks are much better and there is no reason to use Rapide links. We disagree about the legality of using them on other than PD's reserves. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slotperfect 7 #56 December 7, 2004 A status update: -I researched three soft links: PD Slink SR-1, Precision Wrap-It, and Aerodyne P1487-01. I found written confirmation that each of these was approved under TSP C23d as a "separate component." I either found it posted on the manufacturer's website or they emailed it to me. Note: HiPer listed their link as compatible only main canopies, and Flight Concepts didn't reply to my question about their Cinch Links. -I emailed PD, Aerodyne, Precision, Strong, Flight Concepts, North American, and Para Flite to ask them specifically about the reserves they manufacture. I did not go too "deep in the weeds" naming older reserves; for example, I only asked Para Flite about the Swift Plus Reserve. Once I receive all replies I'll post another update, and hopefully HH will post the docs permanently here.Arrive Safely John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #57 December 7, 2004 John, Thank you for all your efforts on this. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #58 December 7, 2004 Quote-I researched three soft links: PD Slink SR-1, Precision Wrap-It, and Aerodyne P1487-01. I found written confirmation that each of these was approved under TSP C23d as a "separate component." That is all that is needed to legally install them on any compatable container/reserve. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
extreme 0 #59 December 8, 2004 I mailed to Performance Variable and they answered to me "Sorry ,but there is no possibility for installing them on a Quick". But when I looked at Quick's manual, under "suspension line links" is stated "Stainless-steel Mini Link or Soft Links". After all I read here, I think it is legal to install PD SR-1 to Quick. Blue Skies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RIGGER 0 #60 December 9, 2004 If PV mailed you that you can not use the SR-1 on their "Quick" reserve that means you can not, even the manual states Soft Links. Also consider that the Quick R is also approved under JTSO C23D which is a European TSO C23D & the SR-1 are approved under FAA TSO C23D & not by the JTSO. Using a non JTSO item on the JTSO certified parachute is not an approved assembling & the only way to do that is the Reserve Mfg./JTSO holder approval. Safe Rigging !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #61 December 9, 2004 QuoteAlso consider that the Quick R is also approved under JTSO C23D which is a European TSO C23D & the SR-1 are approved under FAA TSO C23D & not by the JTSO. The Quick R is also covered under FAA TSO-C23D or it could not be jumped in the US. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/2DB61E5BC909D98185256E5900556BC1?OpenDocument SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #62 December 9, 2004 QuoteThe Quick R is also covered under FAA TSO-C23D Which means you may use Slinks, if compatable. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #63 December 10, 2004 QuoteWhich means you may use Slinks, if compatable. Exactly.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RIGGER 0 #64 December 10, 2004 The PV "Quick R" is covered under FAA TSO C23D from 26 July 2002. All early mfg. are covered only by the JTSO C23D & or the German LBA (FAA) approval. Even if the canopy in question is under BOTH TSO C23D it still also a JTSO item & the SR-1 slinks are NOT under the JTSO, so assembling the reserve with the SR-1 will void the JTSO. The owner mailed the reserve Mfg. & get a NO answer this disapprove the SR-1 assembling on the Quick R. Riggers, you can not & you are not allowed to advice the owner to assemble the SR-1 when the Quick Mfg. said NO !!! The only way to do that is dealing with the TSO holder - the Quick R mfg. PV in Germany. Think again !!! Safe Rigging !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #65 December 10, 2004 QuoteEven if the canopy in question is under BOTH TSO C23D it still also a JTSO item & the SR-1 slinks are NOT under the JTSO, so assembling the reserve with the SR-1 will void the JTSO. But will not void the FAA TSO and is therefore legal in the U.S. I couldn't care less about JTSO's. QuoteRiggers, you can not & you are not allowed to advice the owner to assemble the SR-1 when the Quick Mfg. said NO !!! And Strong tried to say you could only use their mains in their tandems rigs. That exceeds their authority. I don't think you understand U.S. FAR's. Do you realize that all those Service Bullitines, such as the Capewell SB are not mandatory? I follow them as if they were, but they are not. If I need any help w/ Israeli regualations, I'll give you a call, but I've got a good handle on the FAR's. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RIGGER 0 #66 December 10, 2004 Do not take it as a personal point. I do understand the FAA FAR's but I think that the mfg. manual must be followed. The Israeli CAA (FAA) FAR's are based on & very similar to the US FAA FAR's regarding parachuting & parachutes. Yes, I know about the SB by the mfg. & not by the FAA but Riggers should follow the mfg. SB. Issues like the Soft Links assembling we discuss here is between the Mfg. & Riggers, this is the reason we have manuals & the Mfg. is the TSO holder. If the Rigger think that his action is better he can ask the Administrator for the approval. Safe Rigging & Happy New Year !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
