peterk 0 #1 February 3, 2005 Would you support the creation of an “EXPERIMENTAL HARNESS/PARACHUTE” category? Why is it that with no training, minimal supervision, and no license needed, I can build an airplane in my garage and fly at several hundred knots- under the experimental aircraft category. People are encouraged to design their own aircraft, with their own ideas and try them out, with minimal FAA government interference/involvement. However, if I want to make a parachute system better, or make one on my own in my sewing room, I would violate several FAA part 105 rules. Just because I want to improve on a design, sew my own skydive gear if I have those capabilities as a rigger, and test it at my own risk. What if it wasn’t offered for sale, just my own design for myself, that I trust to save my own life? The current system seems to be bogged down in politics and bureaucracy, stifling progress and innovation. I can build and fly a plane, and if small enough, don’t even need a license or permission. But I can’t jump out of a plane with a parachute unless I am interested in spending $50,000 for a TSO process that is, for all practical purposes, impossible for the average skydiver.--------------- Peter BASE - The Ultimate Victimless Crime Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicknitro71 0 #2 February 3, 2005 Build a BASE rig then.Memento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peterk 0 #3 February 3, 2005 Then let me jump one out of a plane legally.... Why is there the perception that non-TSO'd gear is somehow less safe? The Skyhook that is supposed to be a huge breakthrough for safety, and replace the RSL, has been around in non-TSO'd parachute applications for well over 10 years. The list goes on and on... Shouldn't the USPA work for us to encourage the open and free flow of ideas and designs, instead of smothering us with more laws and regulations? BASE gear and technology is cutting edge today, mainly because anyone with the confidence to test an idea that they believe is superior is free to do so. And why does it seem that the USPA has simply become a political puppet for riggers who need money every 120 days, based on a 50 year old idea? Why does a parachute system cost $4000-5000, just because it has two stickers on it that say "FAA approved"? Wouldn't skydiving be improved by less bureaucracy, and lower entry cost? And safety would improve. The FAA couldn't care less what happens with the rig that you jump. They are the same FAA that has 747s flying all over the place, and international airports all over to worry about. Why does the USPA continue to encourage rules and regulations that inhibit safe and economical ideas and equipment? If you disagree, explain to me the difference in a jumpmaster and instructor? Exactly my point...--------------- Peter BASE - The Ultimate Victimless Crime Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicknitro71 0 #4 February 3, 2005 I'm dieing to do itMemento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #5 February 3, 2005 QuoteLet me jump one out of a plane legally.... No problem, you'll just need to fly or drive to a free country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,410 #6 February 3, 2005 You can do just that with a main canopy. I have two home-made canopies upstairs right now now. They are perfectly legal, and I could even sell them to anyone, as long as they don't violate any current patents. If you want to build a canopy, then go for it. You had better LOVE sewing; I don't, and that's why I quit doing it. Now the harness and reserve is a whole 'nother ballgame."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #7 February 3, 2005 The difference is the FAA has lots of people who are qualified to inspect and sign of that "Experimental" Aircraft before you fly it. The FAA know's next to nothing about parachute equipment for the most part, and they probably are not to motivated to learn more. Build the BASE rig.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peterk 0 #8 February 3, 2005 Yes, JP, again, you know everything about everything. I would assume by your last statement that you have never participated in a homebuilt aircraft, or the laws concerning ultralight operations. There is little inspection involved, since the FAA is understaffed, and has better things to do like inspect 747s. Much less your rig. I will build a BASE rig, soon. Just out of curiousity, when someone lands a wingsuit without deploying a parachute, where will that fall, and under what jurisdiction? It would essentially not have anything to do with parachutes, and the pilot is flying a aircraft suit. Should the suit have some kind of TSO? Maybe it should have one now?--------------- Peter BASE - The Ultimate Victimless Crime Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
larsrulz 0 #9 February 4, 2005 QuoteYes, JP, again, you know everything about everything. I would assume by your last statement that you have never participated in a homebuilt aircraft, or the laws concerning ultralight operations. There is little inspection involved, since the FAA is understaffed, and has better things to do like inspect 747s. Much less your rig. That was kind of a jerkish thing to say. By how you comment, you don't appear to know much about homebuilts for that matter. Take a gander at FAR 21.191(g) and FAA Advisory Circular AC-20-27 (on Certification and Operation of Amateur-built Aircraft) both, and then come back. There is in fact quite considerable emphasis placed on safety and certification. If you don't have detailed information about your plane to prove that it is airworthy, then you aren't legally getting the thing certified! And I have to admit that experimental aircraft builders have a much better track record than skydivers. I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peterk 0 #10 February 4, 2005 To the contrary. If your "aircraft" has an empty weight of less than 254 pounds, and a few other rules, you do not need ANY inspection, or even a license to operate it. If 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. You do not need to become an A&P mechanic to build and fly your own plane. Why would I even have to talk to a rigger to build and try it out? I will ensure that my container and canopy are airworthy, as well. But 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.--------------- Peter BASE - The Ultimate Victimless Crime Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #11 February 4, 2005 >You do not need to become an A&P mechanic to build and fly your own >plane. Why would I even have to talk to a rigger to build and try it out? Slightly different scenarios. There may be incompetent aircraft builders out there; their aircraft may crash, but typically unless they strike a very careful balance between incompetence and expertise the thing won't get off the ground to begin with. In other words, if it doesn't work at all, they end up sitting on (or off the end of) a runway. When you build your own harness, if it doesn't work the first time you try it you will die (and impact in a populated DZ.) >I will ensure that my container and canopy are airworthy, as well. I have no doubt that you could do that. Keep in mind that the homebuilt and ultralight parts of the FAR were not always there; homebuilts were first allowed in the 1950's and ultralights in the 1980's. There was enough demand for the new categories that they happened. That demand has not yet appeared in skydiving. In addition, if you really want to build your own rig and jump it, you can do it without much difficulty. Legally, to cover the pilot and the DZ, you need the rig to be sealed and signed off. You as a senior rigger could do that. You'd be breaking the law technically, but you would be the only one to suffer the consequences. Or you could become a master rigger and do it legally. (Well, mostly legally; the rules covering TSO testing of rigs has always been slightly murky.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #12 February 4, 2005 QuoteYes, JP, again, you know everything about everything. I don't know who pissed in your cornflakes this morning, but if you don't want to hear the input people have, don't post the question. QuoteI would assume by your last statement that you have never participated in a homebuilt aircraft, Yes I have. Quoteor the laws concerning ultralight operations. No I haven't. QuoteThere is little inspection involved, since the FAA is understaffed, and has better things to do like inspect 747s. Really. You think so? Not so much. Considering I've been through the process of transferring a TSO when moving a TSO'd facility, a process that requires a re-issuance of the TSO with existing test data, and inspections of the new facility I have a bit of insight. Most of the FAA has little to no clue about parachute equipment. Nor do they want to know about it except to be sure they are covered from a liability standpoint. In fact when said inspection was conducted the local FAA representatives were amazed by allowable tolerances of 1/4 to 1/2 inch. They are used to inspecting things with a micrommeter. Why can't you build your own gear and jump it without becoming a master rigger? Because the governing agency doesn't want the liability and chooses to protect yourself from you, and protect others from you. QuoteJust out of curiousity, when someone lands a wingsuit without deploying a parachute, where will that fall, and under what jurisdiction? When it's done once? No one will care. When it's done repeatedly? We'll probably not need to worry about that for some time. QuoteJump more, bitch less... Yep.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #13 February 4, 2005 You can build your own "Harness/container". The FAA requires that you then test it to the standards of AS-8015B before they will issure you a TSO. There are something like 70 drops and tests needed. Something like 42 to 48 of these test can be done with a live jump. And 12 of them must be done live. I have jumped several harness/container systems, some earned a TSO, some didn't So all you have to do is build your harness/container and start jumping. At first you might think about wearing a second harness and a QAC. This a test of a single canopy system, on the front is a QAC and a telemetry pack hooked to a torso harness. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,081 #14 February 4, 2005 In reality, this has been done. A jumper by the name of Cary 'Something' in the late '70's (I think it was, maybe early '80's) up at Issaquah built his own H/C and got the local FAA guys to give it the OK. Now what he had to go through, I do not know but it did NOT have a TSO. I've gotten a number of things OK'd by the locals that some folks would cringe at. It's all about schmoozing and realizing that anything can be done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jbrasher 0 #15 February 4, 2005 Mike, Handbury never had a riggers license and yet he built many rigs/canopies. Did he just use Douris' ticket? Red, White and Blue Skies, John T. Brasher D-5166 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #16 February 4, 2005 QuoteMike, Handbury never had a riggers license and yet he built many rigs/canopies. Did he just use Douris' ticket? You don't need a rigger license to design and build gear. Until it is TSO'd you don't have to be a rigger to pack it because it is not an "approved" parachute and harness/container. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 562 #17 February 4, 2005 I really don't understand the original poster's rant. Back in the 1980s, I sewed together two Para-Kits. I put 200 jumps on one and 300 jumps on the other. I was perfectly legal. The FARs allow anyone to sew and jump anything in a main container. TSO standards only apply to reserves and harnesses. The FAA knows little about main parachutes and cares less. The FAA knows so little that a good smoozer can pull the wool over their eyes on almost any parachute-related topic. For example, when I worked for Manley Butler, we needed FAA approval for a spin-recovery chute. We invited the FAA to observe a test-firing on the taxiway and video of all our tests. At the end of the day, the FAA rep said: "I feel like a pig reading a newspaper, but you boys seem to have done your homework, so I'll approve it." Hah! Hah! As for the original poster's comment about amateur-built airplanes not requiring supervision. BULLSHIT! Amateur-built airplanes require several pre-closure inspections and a final inspection before they are allowed anywhere near a runway. Over the years, the FAA and Transport Canada have gradually shifted inspections to EAA and RAAC. EAA inspectors are more thorough than gov't inspectors because most of them have built a few airplanes and understand the finer points of aircraft construction in ways that bureaucrats can never grasp. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RogerRamjet 0 #18 February 4, 2005 QuoteIn reality, this has been done. A jumper by the name of Cary 'Something' in the late '70's (I think it was, maybe early '80's) up at Issaquah built his own H/C and got the local FAA guys to give it the OK. Now what he had to go through, I do not know but it did NOT have a TSO. I've gotten a number of things OK'd by the locals that some folks would cringe at. It's all about schmoozing and realizing that anything can be done. Well it may just be that the general climate has changed. I worked for two different rig makers in the mid '70s, Bill Booth and Bill Buchman, and also built and sold my own rigs briefly (I'm a Senior Rigger, not a Master Rigger). None of them were TSO approved at that time. Niether were the Jump Shack SST rigs of the time and probably none of the other custom fit rigs made around the country. It was simply not a requirement at any dropzones I went to in those days (or even asked about). I jumped at Z-Hills, Deland, Hinkley, and a few others as well as making many jumps here and there around the East Coast. I made several FAA special approval jumps into airshows, malls, and little league diamonds. Never was I asked about my rig at all. I don't believe Bill Booth started the TSO process on the WonderHog until toward the end of the decade. I remember seeing Wonderhog drops from the 196 at Z-Hills sometime around 1978 or 79 (I think, long time ago). Maybe Bill will drop in to this thread and offer his recollections. I assume from reading this that TSO is now required anywhere you go? ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #19 February 4, 2005 I am sure there are more than a few of us who have put tons of jumps on containers that were built in garages by people working on Master tickets. I know I jumped a Roger Pickett-built faux Centaurus for two years in the late 80's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Designer 0 #20 February 4, 2005 I'm all for New Designs.Alas,unless your rich(or have very rich friends)your screwed.You Can design and build your own main parachute if you want.Be Aware!Alot of people who thought they knew what they were doing,spent alot time,money for a piece of crap they had to cut away every time they tested it!good luck.rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #21 February 4, 2005 QuoteI assume from reading this that TSO is now required anywhere you go? A TSO has always been "required". At least since sometime in the 40's SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkwing 4 #22 February 4, 2005 The 1970s was the real decade of non-approved gear. That is because the sport was transitioning from military surplus to its own industry. the fact is the FAA was pretty much unaware of it, so at least for a few years I'm sure that more jumps were made on unapproved gear than on approved gear. Then in the 1980s the system started to catch up, and manufacturers got their gear TSO'd. At some point the DZs started to care, and it became more important to have TSO'd gear, otherwise you might not be able to jump at some DZ. As said above, approval has pretty much always been required, but for a while it was just ignored. I owned several rigs that weren't tso'd: Guardian, Top Secret, SST (I think), and maybe others. -- Jeff My Skydiving History Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RogerRamjet 0 #23 February 4, 2005 QuoteThe 1970s was the real decade of non-approved gear. That is because the sport was transitioning from military surplus to its own industry. the fact is the FAA was pretty much unaware of it, so at least for a few years I'm sure that more jumps were made on unapproved gear than on approved gear. Then in the 1980s the system started to catch up, and manufacturers got their gear TSO'd. At some point the DZs started to care, and it became more important to have TSO'd gear, otherwise you might not be able to jump at some DZ. As said above, approval has pretty much always been required, but for a while it was just ignored. I owned several rigs that weren't tso'd: Guardian, Top Secret, SST (I think), and maybe others. I think you summed it up perfectly! ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 562 #24 February 5, 2005 A further dig at the original poster .... Most of the people who bring up this argument lack the skills, sewing machines or patience to build their own prototypes. Heck, the original poster's profile does not list ANY rigger's ratings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #25 February 6, 2005 QuoteThe 1970s was the real decade of non-approved gear. That is because the sport was transitioning from military surplus to its own industry. the fact is the FAA was pretty much unaware of it, so at least for a few years I'm sure that more jumps were made on unapproved gear than on approved gear. Then in the 1980s the system started to catch up, and manufacturers got their gear TSO'd. At some point the DZs started to care, and it became more important to have TSO'd gear, otherwise you might not be able to jump at some DZ. As said above, approval has pretty much always been required, but for a while it was just ignored. I owned several rigs that weren't tso'd: Guardian, Top Secret, SST (I think), and maybe others. I can only think of one guy, that I know of, making non-TSO'd rigs in the late 70's. And was Yanta making a knock off of the Wonder Hog. TSO-C23B was in effect from 1949 to 1984, so it was possible there were other non-TSO'd rigs being manufactured during the 70's. I just can't remember any. Of course at my age I sometimes forget to eat lunch. Here is a list of people/companies holding a TSO-C23B: Sparky TSO-C23B Personnel Parachutes Assemblies AeroSports USA Airotech, Inc. Alpha Para-Equipment Annex, Inc Barish Associates, Inc. Bruce Deville Butler Parachute Systems, Inc B&F Enterprises Cazer Para Loft Centaurus Corporation Eagle Parachute, Inc Eagle Systems Free Flight Enterprises Free Flight Systems G Q Security Parachutes, Inc Green Star Systems Guardian Parachute Div. of FXC Corporation Herb M. Graves, Jr Horizon Parachute System Irving Air Chute Co. Inc Jump Shack, Inc J. E. Rodriguez Lite-Flite, Inc. Mirage Systems, Inc. Nat'l Parachute Supply, Inc. North American Aerodynamics, Inc No. American Aerodynamics, Inc Para-Flite, Inc Para-Innovators Co., Inc Para-Phernalia, Inc. Parachute Company Parachute Laboratories Inc. dba Jump Shack Parachutes Australia, Pty. Ltd Parachutes Australia, Pty. Ltd Performance Designs, Inc. Pioneer Parachute Co Quantum Leap Enterprises Relative Workshop Reltny Parachute Service Riggers Workshop Rodriguez Parachute Systems, Inc. Security Parachute Co Sign of the Gul Sky Sports Inc. Sky Supplies, Inc. Springer Enterprises SSK Industries Inc Steinthal Corporation Stencel Aero Engrg. Corp Steve Snyder Enterprises, Inc Strong Enterprises, Inc. Swoop ShopMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
