FAA Written Rigger Test HAS CHANGED

[tdog 0]

November Skydiving Mag:

Quote

The FAA recently started basing questions on its parachute rigger written tests on information in the "Parachute Rigger Handbook"....

The FAA has the most recent test bank (5/2007) at http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_questions/media/rig.pdf HOWEVER - it is out of date. A test that was taken last week had over 70% new material/questions not even loosely matching the test bank or subject areas in the test bank - however were directly from the PRH and the Appendix of the PRH. The test bank published on the internet is heavily from Poynter's two manuals, whereas the new bank is heavily from the PRH, and quite a few of the questions are not even found in the Poynter manuals even indirectly.

If you know anyone planning on taking the test - and they want to study using a test bank - they need to contact the FAA to get the revised bank as the FAA internet site is out of date. The DPRE locally was aware that the changes were going to occur from reading the magazine, but was not aware that they HAD occurred.

The applicant will want to ask, when they contact the FAA, for a revised AC 60-25F "Reference Materials and Subject Matter Date Knowledge Codes for Airman Knowledge Testing" as the document is out of date also - only including the Poynter Manuals, TSO docs and AC 105-2.

The FAA-G-8082-15C, PARACHUTE RIGGER KNOWLEDGE TEST GUIDE, has been updated last month to reflect the new questions and probably makes the strongest hint towards the revisions and new focus by saying:

Quote

Note: Of particular interest to Parachute Riggers is the FAA handbook FAA-H-8083-17 (for current version see the website) Parachute Rigger Handbook. This is a large document and will take a few minutes to download.

[mark 102]

Quote

The applicant will want to ask, when they contact the FAA, for a revised AC 60-25F "Reference Materials and Subject Matter Date Knowledge Codes for Airman Knowledge Testing" as the document is out of date.

There is no revised AC 60-25F. Instead, there is a "Learning Statement Reference Guide," which includes new codes for all the airman test. Rigger stuff is on page 15.

The "Learning Statement Reference Guide" and the Parachute Rigger Handbook can both be found in pdf on the FAA website if you use the search function on their home page.

Mark

[tdog 0]

Quote

Cancellation: AC 60-25F, Reference Materials and Subject Matter Knowledge Codes for Airman Knowledge Testing, dated 6/8/04, is canceled. Because Airman Knowledge Test Reports are valid for two years, AC 60-25F will remain available on this web site until September 30, 2009. Codes listed in this reference guide shall be used for exams delivered on and after September 28, 2007.

Well, that changes everything then, huh? Would think that they would notate the old out of date forms as being old and out of date, if they are going to discontinue them.

[lonelymoose 0]

I just got off the phone with my local FSDO/FAA in New Jersey and they told me to study the latest knowledge test guide on the FAA website: http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_guides/media/FAA-G-8082-15C.pdf

I told them that I was told the website doc was out of date already as well. He said: ". . parachutes are parachutes and haven't changed much, same shit, different day."

He said the only way to get the test bank is to open a testing center account with the Oklahoma City office.

I'm taking the test at DeWolf's course in Jan and am studying all the books, but also wanted to study the test bank to make sure.

[mark 102]

Quote

I am studying all the books, but also wanted to study the test bank to make sure.

The test bank is the collection of all possible questions.

The sample questions on the FAA web site are from the test bank but are not all the possible questions. Even before the recent test changes, there were over 300 questions in the test bank. The questions on the website are similar to, but not the same as, about 75% of the questions you'll encounter on the written. The remaining questions come from newer material in Poynter Volume 2 and the Parachute Rigger Handbook (particularly Appendix A, which is a reprint of PIA TS-100, standardized nomenclature for ram-air canopies).

Mark

[neandertal 0]

I've got 53 questions instead of 50. A lot of aerodynamic related questions and similar/trick options on the answers as well.
I recall a good one (not exactly these words):
After the third flap how much loop should be left:
1/16" to 1/8"
1/4" to 1/2"
1/2" to 1"

All right, witch rig are they talking about? Racer, Vector, Javelin, Dolphin or Reflex? Should I assume we are talking about the reserve tray?

No Drogue, no JUMP!!

[tdog 0]

Quote

All right, witch rig are they talking about? Racer, Vector, Javelin, Dolphin or Reflex? Should I assume we are talking about the reserve tray?

Or... Before or after they moved the cutter.

[mark 102]

Quote

I've got 53 questions instead of 50. A lot of aerodynamic related questions and similar/trick options on the answers as well.
I recall a good one (not exactly these words):
After the third flap how much loop should be left:
1/16" to 1/8"
1/4" to 1/2"
1/2" to 1"

All right, which rig are they talking about? Racer, Vector, Javelin, Dolphin or Reflex? Should I assume we are talking about the reserve tray?

You get extra questions if they are testing new ones. You don't get graded on them, they're just interested in seeing how many folks get it right or wrong.

And there have always been trick/option questions, with answers like: A-statement 1 is true; B-statement 2 is true; C-both statements are true. I have to think it's an unintentional test of your ability to understand written English (which is a requirement to be a rigger).

As far as your specific question, how much loop should you be able to pull up after closing flap three, see page 5-42 of the Parachute Rigger Handbook (PRH). The answer is B, 1/4" to 1/2" -- it's a Voodoo. I don't know anyone, including the guy who wrote the PRH, who thinks that's a reasonable question.

To its credit, the FAA is trying to modernize its rigging oversight program. You might try getting your local DPRE to talk to his or her FAA Principal Inspector who can relay your suggestions to OK City. I don't think you'd get very far with "Go back to the old way," but perhaps there's a way forward.

Mark

[paraloft 0]

I contacted the FAA in OK City and they say that the test list is not out of date but as always they have added some questions. Some may be from the Parachute Rigger Handbook. Of course another thing that may happen is the question can be asked in a different way so you would do well to read the questions very carefully. The PRH is for sure a step in the right directon however of course most of it is also in Poynter's and as far as a reference source Poynter's is much better. There are some things that are in my opinion not right in it and it seems to have a lot of opinions and is not very objective in a lot of areas. For those who go to the PIA Symposiums, they will notice that some of the repair information is not up to date. However I hope that newer editions will be improved.

[riggerrob 558]

Which parts of the FAA PRH "are not up to date?"

[paraloft 0]

Riggerrob,
I had pages of comments I did send in but in short the canopy patch method(Rags has been showing us a better way for 20 years) spectra Line replacement(does not mention shrinkage) Using a Navy end tab to push a needle and not a sewing palm etc. What would help the FAA is if everyone would go over the PRH and send in things like the above.

[tdog 0]

Quote

Of course another thing that may happen is the question can be asked in a different way so you would do well to read the questions very carefully.

That was addressed in the first post - the content was very different, not just wording.

Quote

Some may be from the Parachute Rigger Handbook.

Some = a lot.

Quote

The PRH is for sure a step in the right directon however of course most of it is also in Poynter's and as far as a reference source Poynter's is much better.

However, for studying for a written test, you can read 1000 pages of poynter, or read and digest certain noteworthy sections in PRH... One will give you 1000 pages of very good information. The other will give you the answers to the majority of the questions that were randomly selected for a test administered last Friday, despite what OK City says.

[riggerrob 558]

Both Navy end tabs and sail makers' palms are both obsolete.
I have not used either since Manley Butler introduced me to 9 inch long mattress needles 15 years ago.

[tdog 0]

Quote

What would help the FAA is if everyone would go over the PRH and send in things like the above.

It seems like PIA has the credibility and clout. Perhaps a committee there could work with the FAA to keep documents updated? I am sure the FAA would respect a single point of contact better than 50 guys sending things ad hoc...??? Or maybe not.

[Gawain 0]

Well, I just completed Dave DeWolf's class and as it relates to the "Senior Parachute Rigger" test...wow...

The revised question bank has about 300 questions and there are a ton of questions that a "Senior Rigger" would not normally be expected to know in most cases.

The classes overall performance averaged below 80 and I guess half of a class being held in Missouri had to retake the test.

The DPRE's are requesting a hand-grade of all the tests that were taken and the FAA Inspector was encouraging everyone to contact the FAA via the Customer Service Initiative.

Dave's class is awesome. The written test is borderline irrelevant in it's current form.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[tdog 0]

Quote

The classes overall performance averaged below 80 and I guess half of a class being held in Missouri had to retake the test.

Quote

Dave's class is awesome. The written test is borderline irrelevant in it's current form.

I apologize in advance for being a snippety b*t&h... But...

Without knowing the test bank changed (because I had no warning like I gave you guys) - I got well above 80%.

There has been a long standing debate between some of my friends on learning methods....

1) Find an instructor and take a week long course and see what you can jam in.

2) Find a mentor and work in their loft.

I did the second. I worked under the DPRE and Master Rigger, in his loft, for one night a week, for almost a year.

Every time he had an obscure parachute or issue come thru the loft, I was invited over to "help".

Not a single word or concept on the test was "new material" to me even though the material was a complete surprise... I just had to really dig hard in my memory, and draw canopies on paper, to get the answers...

So the question of irrelevancy. At least the questions moved from all old school material (how to field repair a cone - rotating it 180 degrees) to square parachute design and construction. The questions (at least the ones I was randomly given) were MOSTLY on the design and building of square canopies of various flavors (chordwise and spanwise).

I just on the phone read these posts to my mentor and DPRE, and he and I see differently. He believes for an example, that the reference line and plumb line, are irrelevant to a senior rigger charged with the task of inspecting and assembling and packing a parachute. I agree, as a rigger I don't need to know these things. However to really know the parachute system I do? So where should the design knowledge stop???? The method of attaching the ribs to the top and bottom skin of the parachutes of various designs was tested... Some would say, "if there is damage to ribs, you will send it to the manufacture to get repaired". But, short of seeing stitching tears, if the skin is still attached but one fabric is torn out of one of the two lines of stitching, it could "look" right, but be damaged... So maybe this manufacturing knowledge is important?

What comes to mind... There was an aircraft incident a while back because one engine was spilling fuel. That engine was feeding off of it's own wing tank. The pilots saw the tank empty, so they turned on the cross feed from the other wing. Soon they realized both tanks were emptying at an alarming rate. The plane ran out of fuel... The pilots blamed the checklists for not covering the scenario in enough detail, as only a word or two covered the issue...

If the pilots would have stepped back and drawn the fuel storage and delivery system on paper, and asked themselves (not using a checklist) - what could be the most probable cause for the fuel loss, they would have "got it". To do this, they would have to know the complete design of the fuel system (where the valves and pumps and where the storage is). I am not a pilot, but even I know this from being curious about planes... When I saw the pilots on TV getting praise for setting the record for the longest glide by a commercial aircraft, I thought, "they should get the award for being the most stupid pilot ever. Duh, if a tank is empty, and you pump more fuel into it, and it still empties too fast, you got a leak!"

So is the same true for rigging? By knowing all the "irrelevant" design questions, including things as detailed as where the reference line intersects the chord line (that was a real question I had) - does it prove the rigger candidate has an intimate knowledge of the gear he is working with, to a point that when the checklists fail, he can step back, draw out the system, and discover what is truly wrong hiding behind the surface?

Looking at the test bank as published online, versus the new questions - I think they made a HUGE step towards relevancy to the modern sport (and even pilot) rigger.

Anyway - done rambling. My two points are:

1) I believe learning under a bunch of riggers, and picking one primary mentor, was superior (for me) than trying to take a formal course.

2) The written test in the current form is relevant as it tests on parachute design and manufacture, whereas the oral and practical tests on the actual work you will do as a rigger. Combining knowledge of how it is made, with knowledge of how it is repaired and assembled, means you have total grasp of the complete big picture...

Just my two cents.

(And my other two cents - the test bank, as delivered now, NEEDS to be released in either partial or complete detail by the FAA. The highest level commercial pilot knows what questions he will be asked, why shouldn't we, even though we are such a smaller market segment.)

[Gawain 0]

You bring up some valid points. I was given about two week's notice that I would be going to the class. Not that I wasn't interested in being a rigger, but my choices were more limited.

There are merits to both methods you cited, and there is a third as well -- experienced jumpers who pick up bits-and-pieces over time, in and out of the loft.

As to the training, we covered round and ram-air components thoroughly. My own issue with the written test was a matter of terminology. DPRE's on site, looking at some of the "new" questions were getting these answers wrong. The consensus from some of these guys, with combined experience of well over 100 years experience is that the written exam has considerable flaws.

You points about Senior Rigger Knowledge as it relates to relevance are also well noted. However, when it comes to the tasks to which the individual is to be certificated, that is where the line is crossed. However, for an individual that spends a year in the loft learning from a mentor, I can see that issue being less of a problem. Not everyone will have, or see, that opportunity available to them.

Your summary point #2 is spot on.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!