RSL REMOVED FROM JAVELIN H/C BY RIGGERS

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Just disconnect the damn thing at the shackle. You don't have to "remove" it.

__________________________________




Chuck

[RIGGER 0]

Quote

So the jist of this is that to remain "legal" in Shlomo's mind, you must jump your Javelin with the RSL installed, but not connected. Since cutting away with the RSL connected would remove the RSL from the H/C system, thereby breaking the law.

Being legal is a very important in our work as riggers.

You should be legal & Safe.

If you find any conflict between legal & safe STOP !!!
contact the mfg. or the FAA & point on the conflict.

Packing the Javelin with the RSL is staying Legal & Safe as the rigger in charge. You can not control the owner if he release the shackle but at least you know that as a rigger your work was done by the manual.

I do not know how long you practice rigging but I hope you do have the willing to learn.

Safe Rigging !!!

[RIGGER 0]

Well said, I hope that all riggers will read your post & will learn.

Safe Jumps !!!

[councilman24 36]

Shlomo,

Despite the post above which indicated that A FAA inspector once took the position that the Javelin RSL shouldn't be removed, the letter you attached, TO ME, doesn't support your opinion in the initial post.

Quote

Sun Path does not approve the removing of the RSL from the rig.

Safe Rigging !!!

And from the letter:

"Our harness/container systems and all related accessories and components are tested in accordance with SAE 8015 Rev. B. During our most current TSO testing, evaluation and approval the Javelin and Javelin Odyssey harness/container system incorporates the reserve static line as part of the complete system and permanent removal of this part is highly discouraged and NOT recommended. Our reserve static line is built with a snap shackle for easy disconnect from the main (wearers) left riser, if the user wishes to not use the option." my bold

If they really didn't want it removed all they had to say was that it could not be removed! Instead they "discouraged" it and said it was "NOT recommended". My take on this is that they don't want to say it can be removed, but they are not saying it can't be. I know your interpretation, Shlomo, tends to be more black and white. And influenced by what you believe is right.

They also talk about permanent removal. Removing the lanyard but not the rings or velcro doesn't sound like permant removal to me.

Now, I usually pack it with the lanyard and let the jumpers unshackle it. But this is so that I'M not removing a safety device from a rig.

In terms of if I can or not.

MEL, you state your opinion of what the regs MEAN based on discussion with your local FAA inspectors, perhaps some in OK, on documents that some of us are unaware of but have access to (the one quoted, which predates the latest version of 65.111) and some that even you don't have a copy of. (in the PM). Derek and others can only go by what they read, in plain English, in the regs and documents readily available to them. If the FAA can't write what they mean we can't guess it. And irregardless of what an appropriate certificate is, the regs certainly NOW say that the NEXT jumper can alter a main. That's what the words say, no matter what they ment. Is that a good thing? No. And FAA inspectors DO differ on the meaning.

A pole at the last PIA Rigging Committee meeting a week ago showed all but one person in attendance believing that either a senior rigger or ANYONE can ALTER a main parachute. This included at least three manufacturer principles(i.e. owners), and two DPRE's. For years and years older riggers have been taught, and I quote a manufacturer of canopies and H/C's, "a main is unregulated". That clearly is not quite the case. But, also no records are required for a main, so how are you going to know Derek did it?

This is a matter of great confusion and differing opinons among riggers, DPRE's, and the FAA staff. We ALL KNOW we don't want a 20 jump wonder altering a main, but is is illegal?

We each also have strongly held opinions. And we can offer them. But in the absence of CLEAR, AUTHORATATIVE direction, they are opinions. Especially if various opinions are held by various FAA personnel.

We've had this debate a lot. We shouldn't be arguing what differing advice we've gotten from the FAA or how we parse the words, we should be working on fixing it. And PIA may be taking steps to try to acomplish that.

And wait until PIA TS-135 is adopted as the new TSO standard. MAIN risers will be part of the TSO'd assembly!

Now return to your respective corners and wait for the next round.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[hookitt 0]

Quote

MAIN risers will be part of the TSO'd assembly!

Does that mean only the risers that came with the rig are "legal" to use?

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[diablopilot 2]

Your argumen still holds no water.

Maintain.

main·tain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mn-tn)
tr.v. main·tained, main·tain·ing, main·tains
To keep up or carry on; continue: maintain good relations.
To keep in an existing state; preserve or retain: maintain one's composure.
To keep in a condition of good repair or efficiency: maintain two cars.

To provide for; support: maintain a family.
To keep in existence; sustain: enough food to maintain life.
To defend or hold against criticism or attack: maintained his stand on taxes.
To declare to be true; affirm: maintained her innocence.
To adhere or conform to; keep: maintain a busy schedule.



Maintaining a main canopy in airworthy condition includes, cleaning, inspection, replacement of linesets, and reparing normal wear and tear including patches.

A Seinor rigger has every legal right to perform such work. Whether they have the skill or not is not regulated by the FARs.

Oh and as for practical tests involving line replacement/repair and patches, you are not the only DPRE, nor are you the only rigging teacher. I feel if you're not training people to do this kind of work, you're doing them a disservice.

As for you thinking it's only a Colorado thing, it's not, try checking with Californina DPRE's, and FSDO's as well as AZ, OR, NV........


by your "logical" interperatation of the regulations, a person not holding any sort of FAA riggers rating may reline their own main canopy, but an FAA Seinor rigger, may not only not reline a customers canopy, but can't even reline their own!!!

THe whole thing fall flat on it's face in the respect there is no requirement to document work performed on a main parachute. And there never will be, untill the FAA makes it illegal to pack your own main.

Again, relining a canopy is part of it's maintinance, not an alteration unless the original trim specs are not being used.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[councilman24 36]

Not "are"!!! I said when (and if) it is adopted, then main risers will be TSO'd. This is at least a year or two away. And riggers sill have the ability to determine compatability.

But, it will bring up some interesting issues. I cautioned against doing this in committee but was out voted. The theory was that if the cutaway system has to be tested, and it will be, the main risers are an intergral part of it. I agree but it makes swapping canopies a whole new issue, IN THE FUTURE!

I LIED, I LIED!!! In an earlier version the main canopy breakaway device was tested. This ment that not only the cutaway handle but the "3 ring" or other system would have to be tested. BUT THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE FINAL VERSION. MAYBE BECAUSE I POINTED OUT THE ISSUES. The final version removed the main canopy breakaway testing. The RSL is part of the TSO'd components but not the risers.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[diablopilot 2]

Yeah, it is a problem.

Think of the issues that will create with demo canopies, demo programs, non riggers swapping canopies on their personal rigs.


Sounds like a poor idea, too much regulation.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[deathtrap 0]

Quote

Quote

So the jist of this is that to remain "legal" in Shlomo's mind, you must jump your Javelin with the RSL installed, but not connected. Since cutting away with the RSL connected would remove the RSL from the H/C system, thereby breaking the law.

Being legal is a very important in our work as riggers.

You should be legal & Safe.

If you find any conflict between legal & safe STOP !!!
contact the mfg. or the FAA & point on the conflict.

Packing the Javelin with the RSL is staying Legal & Safe as the rigger in charge. You can not control the owner if he release the shackle but at least you know that as a rigger your work was done by the manual.

I do not know how long you practice rigging but I hope you do have the willing to learn.

Safe Rigging !!!

So because every H/C system built comes with a Cypres pockect as a standard feature, is it required that you pack Cypres in every rig? What about other AAD's? I hear that Airtec doesn't authorize a Vigil to be installed in their packet, so are you going to remove the Cypres pocket and install a Vigil pocket? What about on rigs such as the Infinity where the pocket is taped into the reserve container? Are you really going to tear apart a new rig to chage a silly pocket that will work equally well with either AAD?

While it's fun and sometimes informative to read these threads, it's scary to see how anal retentive some people are, and how reluctant people are (and I guess discouraged by the FAA in some cases) to make a judgement call based on their experience as a rigger

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

Not "are"!!! I said when (and if) it is adopted, then main risers will be TSO'd. This is at least a year or two away. And riggers sill have the ability to determine compatability.

But, it will bring up some interesting issues. I cautioned against doing this in committee but was out voted. The theory was that if the cutaway system has to be tested, and it will be, the main risers are an intergral part of it. I agree but it makes swapping canopies a whole new issue, IN THE FUTURE!

Quote

And wait until PIA TS-135 is adopted as the new TSO standard. MAIN risers will be part of the TSO'd assembly!

Terry, you're shittin' me!??! "They're" going to make the main risers part of the TSO since that's what an RSL attaches to? I'm assuming because if that riser breaks the RSL may not be activated... or more likely... be activated prematurely... depeinding on the nature of the failure; is what I'm guessing their logic is? What about the arguement that the RSL is a back-up device and not the primary activation system for the Reserve... i.e. pull the friggn' handle. *sigh* You're right, this will complicate life for jumpers and riggers and sadly lead to more folks "viloating" the rules either knowingly or unknowingly. I'm glad I got my riggers ticket and maintain my own stuff.


Edit....

Terry, I did a search on google and found PIA TS-135... I did a quick read of it and will keep looking, but cannot find in there where it says the Main Risers will be part of the TSO'ed assembly. Could you please point out specifically where it says that or where it says something that makes you believe that to be so? I'm not doubting or challenging you, just trying to learn.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

I'm glad I got my riggers ticket and maintain my own stuff.

See, and I'm betting that all this over regulation will make it easier to do things WITHOUT a ticket.

Sheesh.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[hookitt 0]

Woops. I meant will be legal ... not are legal ...

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[justinb138 0]

Quote

And wait until PIA TS-135 is adopted as the new TSO standard. MAIN risers will be part of the TSO'd assembly!

Which I guess would then make replacing velcro on main risers, or sewing some elastic to the back of my rear risers to hold excess steering line a Master Rigger task?



Then is it going to cost 300$ for a new set of risers because of the expenses involved in TSO testing them?

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

A pole at the last PIA Rigging Committee meeting a week ago showed all but one person in attendance believing that either a senior rigger or ANYONE can ALTER a main parachute. This included at least three manufacturer principles(i.e. owners), and two DPRE's. For years and years older riggers have been taught, and I quote a manufacturer of canopies and H/C's, "a main is unregulated". That clearly is not quite the case. But, also no records are required for a main, so how are you going to know Derek did it?

Terry,
I can just about tell you who the people that were at the meeting.

Let me blow a hole right through the "a main is unregulated" theory.
65.111 says who can pack a main, that's regulation!

One could also assume, that if regualtion is needed for packing, one would be for something like modifications and alterations.

Just a thought!

Love and kisses!

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[hookitt 0]

What are the regulations towards the following scenario?

A new skydiver gets the idea to build a parachute and actually does it. The skydiver is not a rigger of any sort, nor does he work under the supervision of anyone but himself.

After completion, the parachute gets assembled onto risers, packed up into a rig and jumped.

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[councilman24 36]

See edited post above. I lied. The main breakaway device, which would have included the riser portion, was removed from the final version.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[councilman24 36]

I lied! See edited post above. The main breakaway device was part of the tso test but was removed from the final version. It was in an earlier version that I have. Main risers are NOT going to be part of the TSO. Sorry

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[councilman24 36]

I lied! See edited post above. The main breakaway device was part of the tso test but was removed from the final version. It was in an earlier version that I have. Main risers are NOT going to be part of the TSO. Sorry

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[councilman24 36]

I apologize to all that I got worked up over main risers. In the almost next to last version the main breakaway device was subject to testing. This would have included the parts on the main riser. The entire system was going to have to be function tested similar to the reserve ripcord. THIS WAS REMOVED IN THE FINAL VERSION. Partly because of my bitching and pointing out the problem. I'd forgotten that this was done.

Again I apologize.

They were long meetings and I forgot.

The RSL lanyard will be part of the TSO testing and a labeled part.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[bob.dino 0]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you say it again? .

[RIGGER 0]

Quote

So because every H/C system built comes with a Cypres pockect as a standard feature, is it required that you pack Cypres in every rig? What about other AAD's? I hear that Airtec doesn't authorize a Vigil to be installed in their packet, so are you going to remove the Cypres pocket and install a Vigil pocket? What about on rigs such as the Infinity where the pocket is taped into the reserve container? Are you really going to tear apart a new rig to chage a silly pocket that will work equally well with either AAD?

You right about the AAD pockets & it came up at the last PIA Sym.

The pockets issue is NOT a Safety issue but an ethical commercial issue between the AAD mfg. which put the h/c mfg. in a conflict.

All time it is not a Safety or a Legal issue you do not have a problem with that as a rigger, it is not against the h/c mfg. manual & it is not illegal.

Same you can say about the reserve closing loop by using a Cypres loop with a Vigil or Any other cutting AAD.

No, I'll not remove & reinstall a new pocket because of the AAD name on a rig that is already set. Doing that needs a Master Rigger & might damage the h/c.

The only solution for that that the h/c mfg. will mfg. the pocket or the slot for the AAD Without any connection to the AAD brand.

Sun Path is the only h/c mfg. to ask you on the order form Cypres or Vigil & if you choose Vigil the rig will arrive with a Vigil pocket & will have an Orange tape on the elastic sleeve for the cutter.

Quote

While it's fun and sometimes informative to read these threads, it's scary to see how anal retentive some people are, and how reluctant people are (and I guess discouraged by the FAA in some cases) to make a judgement call based on their experience as a rigger

If you like to be respected please respect the others. Do not go personal because other have a different opinion then yours. We all have a ticket to learn.

Safe Rigging !!!

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Let me blow a hole right through the "a main is unregulated" theory.
65.111 says who can pack a main, that's regulation!

And the regulation states:

Part 65.111

(b) No person may pack, maintain, or alter any main parachute of a dual-parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping in connection with civil aircraft of the United States unless that person—

(3) Is the person making the next parachute jump with that parachute in accordance with §105.43(a) of this chapter; or

How do you explain that away?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Again I apologize.

Oh admit it. You just had fun getting us all worked up.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[marinho 0]

Hi Shlomo,
Thanks for clarifyng this important issue. I have to confess that I wasn't aware of this problem, but I also think that this situation could be avoid if the manufacturer would informed the rigging community.
Now that we know about it, it comes to my mind, what's the procedure when you receive a javelin for a normal reserve repack that had the RSL removed!
I'd like to hear from everybody and also from the manufacturer and the FAA.
I'll also contact the FAA to ask if I still can use them as a guide because the comments of masterrigger1: "regional ruling by a very non-caring inspector out there in colorado".
It means to me that the FAA as the authority of the law is ruling by regional and personal interpretations.
Well, I hope not!
Cheers,

Gus Marinho

[BrianM 1]

Quote

What will happen if a rigger will remove the RSL from a Javelin & on the next jump the owner could be saved by the removed RSL, how the rigger will feel? What he/she would say?
That the owner asked him/her to remove it?

Just to play devil's advocate: What if the owner asks a rigger to remove the RSL, the rigger refuses, and on the next jump the owner is killed by the RSL? How will the rigger feel? What will he/she say?

"It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg