mjosparky 3 #26 February 6, 2005 QuoteIf you want to build an RV4 or Lancair, the FAA needs to see pictures, that show the aircraft in various stages of assembly, with you in frame, showing that you built it. There will be, of course, a final inspection, but it is not one where they spend an enormous amount of time, just as you said, to ensure it is airworthy How do you think the plans you buy to build the RV4 or Lancair got approved? They didn't just fall out of the sky. The designer of the plane had to jump through the hoops so the builder wouldn't have to. QuoteBut back to the original question- Why am I not allowed to follow the same rules and procedures that aircraft are under, to jump with an experimental harness and canopy? Failure would cause far less damage than a poorly constructed aircraft. You are allowed to follow similar rules. They get the design and drawings approved and you can do the same with a parachute harness, its called "TSO" approval. Both take time and effort.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 262 #27 February 7, 2005 Quote How do you think the plans you buy to build the RV4 or Lancair got approved? They didn't just fall out of the sky. The designer of the plane had to jump through the hoops so the builder wouldn't have to. But I don't think the plans do need any sort of approval! People can just design an airplane and market it, whether as plans or as a kit, with ZERO outside control over design or quality. It does seem incredible that it works that way, but in general the homebuilt aircraft industry works out not too badly. While wings don't usually come off, there are plenty of little issues that crop up, that can cause airplanes to be broken and pilots killed. Pilots building the planes can't be assured by any Big Brother that the design they chose are safe. They have to rely on the designer's reputation, the opinion of others in the industry, reports from other builders of the same design, and so on. Builders have to be self educating. Despite the lack of oversight of DESIGN, homebuilts in the USA (and Canada and elsewhere) do receive inspections during the building process and prior to flight, and to some degree need to show compliance with general industry practice. That will tend to catch hardware related issues (eg, wrong type of nut on a bolt), and perhaps provide an 'eyeball engineering' check of the design. But nothing forces anyone to prove the design. I could go on about all this. In any case, without knowing anything about the original poster's experience or motives, I feel it is not unreasonable to question why there is no Experimental category for parachute systems. (Other than for the reason that it might cause even more paperwork problems with the FAA in the US, which is notoriously slow to react to changes in the parachuting industry.) What I don't personally know - and am curious about - is how parachute manufacturers deal with drop tests of stuff before that equipment becomes TSO'd. After all, there are some live jumps done in the process. Or would all the unmanned drops for a TSO have to be completed before live jumps on a pre-TSO'd harness? I haven't read the standards lately. Is there anything that legally distinguishes a recognized manufacturer from a clever guy with a sewing machine in his basement? Peter Chapman (FWIW, my background is that I helped build & test fly a homebuilt kit aircraft.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wingnut 0 #28 February 15, 2005 QuoteIs there anything that legally distinguishes a recognized manufacturer from a clever guy with a sewing machine in his basement? yes, the award of the TSO... ______________________________________ "i have no reader's digest version" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #29 February 15, 2005 Quote... the award of the TSO... True for the harness/container and reserve. However, anybody can make a main parachute or components from main risers up. I don't think the FAA has ever ruled on how much work the manufacturer has to do (as they have with the 51% rule for experimental amateur-built aircraft), so if you wanted to test the limits, you could build a Rocket89 from a Xaos89, a few stitches here and there and a new label. Mark. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
