0
mjosparky

Is there an answer?

Recommended Posts

Quote

For this test the standard harness may be altered to permit attachment of an auxiliary parachute provided that such alteration does not interfere with the normal operation of the parachute and harness equipment being tested.



This would mean you are attaching an approved parachute to a no-approved harness.
105.43 states: unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container. This is for intentional jumps

NAS-804 and AS8015-B are not FAA documents but just testing minimums referenced by the FAA. (I believe)

I will have to do some research on the "48" drops question and get back to you.

I think you may be referring to Mr. Booth's Vector series of containers. They are manufactured under TSO-C23b. But is it TSO'd in the Low speed category or the Standard category?

Stirring the pot here.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I went out to FAA.gov and used their search function and got the following results:

Your search - TSO-23d - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "TSO-23d ".

Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.

So, it's probably not a big deal to them - go jump it and collect your money. ;)



Attached is a copy of TSO-C23d.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Here is the scenario. Acme Parachute Co. had hired you to complete the required testing for TSO-23d certification of their new Catch me/Kiss me Emergency Parachute Assembly. (pilots rig) The system is complete with an all new harness design and 12 foot Cross Form canopy.
They hand you a Test Plan and 2 of their new rigs.

AS8015-B, 4.3.9 requires that at least 4 of the tests be live jumps.

Part 105.43 states:

No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows:

Also see AC-205-2C, Sec. 6a.

The question is, how do you conduct a “Parachute operation” involving live jumps on this new system when neither the canopy of the harness is “approved” without violating FAA regulations is some way?

What rating or certificate must you hold to conduct these tests and/or make the live jumps?

Sparky






OK Sparks,

I've read all the resopnses so far and they all seem reasonable. When I sought TSO approval (C23d) for the Reflex back in 95' I had exactly the same question for MIDO. Now that was, believe it or not the key so unlocking the whole mystery. MIDO and not FSDO are responsable for AC and Parachute certification. Once you have sought TSO approval in writing and submitted your preliminary drawing plan You are basicly free to do testing on untested equipment/ AC. You are only permitted to to drop/ fly based upon your testing regime. This is basicly an honor system, if you fudge data and get caught don't expect to get certified anytime soon. If you get caught down the road expect sanctions and/ or fines plus re testing the affected areas.

Based on this application submission, one is free to test a complete system. It's because it's a testing program that MIDO has control. FSDO is more the inforcment arm of the FAA while MIDO is the R / D branch. Make sense?

Mick.


Edited to state: Typo, should read: "MIDO is the R / D branch" Sorry.

Mick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Mick,

A question for you because my experience with the FAA folks in Seattle was quite different:

Are you sure you were working with the MIDO guys prior to receiving the actual TSO-authorization?

During my process I only worked with the ACO guys as they are ones (in my case) who granted the TSO-authorization.

It was after the TSO-authorization was granted that the MIDO guys came into the picture.

MIDO) Manufacturing & Inspection Dist. Ofc. I may be slightly off on whether it 'manufacturing or manufacture.'

ACO) Aircraft Certification Office.

I'm just curious about your experience.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read section 4.3 of PIA TS-135.

http://pia.com/piapubs/TSDocuments/PIA%20TS%20135_Final%2027%20Sep%202004_a.pdf

"There shall be no failure to meet any of the requirements during the qualification tests of this section. In case of a failure, the cause must be found, corrected, and all affected tests repeated."

Also, for the structural overload tests the same components have to be used. There was great argument about this. Whether on harness or parachute should hold all three structural overload tests of if different individual parachutes/harnesses should be allowed.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hi Mick,

A question for you because my experience with the FAA folks in Seattle was quite different:

Are you sure you were working with the MIDO guys prior to receiving the actual TSO-authorization?

During my process I only worked with the ACO guys as they are ones (in my case) who granted the TSO-authorization.

It was after the TSO-authorization was granted that the MIDO guys came into the picture.

MIDO) Manufacturing & Inspection Dist. Ofc. I may be slightly off on whether it 'manufacturing or manufacture.'

ACO) Aircraft Certification Office.

I'm just curious about your experience.

Jerry





Jerry,

MIDO was there from the get go. When we decided to produce the Reflex we went by the book. Long Beach MIDO gave us the green light to start testing. All it took was a letter of intention. We could have just started doing it with out their consent and no one would have been the wiser, but we chose the "right" route. This is a very "cloudy" area with regard to parachute testing, but one would and should follow the basic criteria set about by the FAA about certificated testing. It's not too difficult. As I stated before it's an honor system, if one falsifies data he/ she will be investigated if caught.

Think about how an AC is tested, What backup does an an untested air frame and power plant have? Answer.....None!! How would one practially strap their brand new concept AC to the belly of something "approved" in order to satify the regulation especially if the "concept" outweighed the approved model?

It's mostly about the sprit of the law and not so much about the (easily negated) facts of the law. I hope this provides all of the people currently engaged in the RSL removal debate some pause for refelection.


Mick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Rigging Innovations drop-tested the Aviator pilot emergency parachute, we started with (heavy weight, high speed) strength tests from a B-25 bomber.
Most of the rest of the jumps were manned and included certified reserves hooked to the chest of slightly modified Aviator harnesses.
The prototype Aviator harnesses were modified with 3-Ring releases and extra D-rings to attach our chest-mounted reserves. All that was a waste, because the P124A canopies opened during 99.9999999999% of the 100 drop tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is a very "cloudy" area with regard to parachute testing, but one would and should follow the basic criteria set about by the FAA about certificated testing.



Hey Mick,

This is starting to get really interesting. :P

And where would one look to find the "basic criteria" set about by the FAA?

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Teathering a balloon high enough to jump from hasn't been tried



Sure about that?:P



If it has I have never heard of it. that's not to say I would know 100% fact. got info on it?



You may want to see some videos published by the Australian BASE Association. ;)



Base is not skydiving. I realize that you can teather a balloon high enough for base, but I said skydiving.

Gunnery Sergeant of Marines
"I would like it if I were challenged mentally at my job and not feel like I'm mentally challenged." - Co-worker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Base is not skydiving. I realize that you can teather a balloon high enough for base, but I said skydiving.



A balloon can be tethered high enough for skydiving. Think helium envelope design, not the hot air version.;)
Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

I believe a "tethered balloon" has a ceiling limit of 500 feet.

Then explain the ones tethered off of Cape Canaveral and Key West at 15K.



I can't, can you?

Sparky

Wait, are they like the one tethered at YPG?



FAA Part 101 Sec. 101.13 (2)

a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate a moored balloon or kite--

(2) More than 500 feet above the surface of the earth;


The balloons at the cape, Key West, YPG and several other locations are part of the Aerostat Radar System operated by the Feds.

Aerostat

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Base is not skydiving. I realize that you can teather a balloon high enough for base, but I said skydiving.



A balloon can be tethered high enough for skydiving. Think helium envelope design, not the hot air version.;)



teathered means connected to the ground. you gonna connect a balloon high enough for skydiving to the ground with out a pilot?

Gunnery Sergeant of Marines
"I would like it if I were challenged mentally at my job and not feel like I'm mentally challenged." - Co-worker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I believe a "tethered balloon" has a ceiling limit of 500 feet.

Then explain the ones tethered off of Cape Canaveral and Key West at 15K.



I can't, can you?

Sparky

Wait, are they like the one tethered at YPG?



FAA Part 101 Sec. 101.13 (2)

a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate a moored balloon or kite--

(2) More than 500 feet above the surface of the earth;


The balloons at the cape, Key West, YPG and several other locations are part of the Aerostat Radar System operated by the Feds.

Aerostat

Sparky



Those aren't passenger balloons.

Gunnery Sergeant of Marines
"I would like it if I were challenged mentally at my job and not feel like I'm mentally challenged." - Co-worker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Part 105.43 states:

No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows:

Also see AC-205-2C, Sec. 6a.

The question is, how do you conduct a “Parachute operation” involving live jumps on this new system when neither the canopy of the harness is “approved” without violating FAA regulations is some way?




Well... I realize that this is splitting hairs a bit... but the above FAR, as stated, doesn't say the the main, and one approved reserve have to be on the same approved single person harness and container.

Thus, you could have yout "test" (read: not yet approved) ACME backpack parachute H/C on and a second, approved, under-harness with approved chest mount reserve... thus, if you were able to cut-away your "test" parachute from its "test" H/C system and deploy your approved chest mount reserve attatched to your approved (under) harness... you'd be "legal".

Okay... now here comes my disclaimer... THROW A BIG SALT-LICK ON WHAT I JUST SAID... because, as I was recently "taught" in a seperate thread... there is a MOUNTAIN of additional documentation... AC's... handbooks for FAA Inspectors... guidelines for DPRE's... that numerous Master Riggers, FISDO's (sp?), FAA Inspectors, etc. cannot seem to agree upon that are heaped on top of the FARs to "help clear things up"...

*sigh*

... so who knows if there is really a correct answer for this... in otherwords... I'll bet you could round-up a half dozen "experts" on this and come up with about a dozen opinions; more even depending on how much beer was consumed over the course of the conversation... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

This is a very "cloudy" area with regard to parachute testing, but one would and should follow the basic criteria set about by the FAA about certificated testing.



Hey Mick,

This is starting to get really interesting. :P

And where would one look to find the "basic criteria" set about by the FAA?

Sparky




Sparks,


It's been over ten years since we applied for TSO approval and I've miss-placed alot of the documentation. From memory, most of the documentation was internal (MIDO) and much of a "gentlemens agreement". It was/ is always with regard to observance with of the nature of intent. MIDO does have specfic rules which have to be observed, however some contadictory rules occasionally clash. Under the MIDO doctrine test vehicles are exempt from certain FAA regulation specifically because they meet the definition of test vechicles. There is no FAA Police Department (save for FSDO). When one rises to the level of test approvial canditate the FAA gives certain exemptions to the FAR's in order to facilliate the furtherence of commerce. This has always been a "grey" area and will probably will always will be, this is how it get's done. For most Skydivers the FAA is the "bad guy" for manufacturers the FAA is there to facillitate business not to quash it. Once one has become a manufacturer within this enviroment one sees the FAA very differently. For manufactures they really are "our freind".

Thats all I got (for now).

Mick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These test were done using a military approved, Part 105.3, torso harness with an approved reserve canopy in a chest mount container. In the 1st. picture you can see part of the torso harness at the left leg strap and at the yoke. (OD color) You can also see a 2nd. pack under the reserve that contains the testing telemetry. The Navy, and I believe the Air Force, has since put the system in service as an aircrew system.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
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.

0