New FAA Written Test

[masterrigger1 2]

The new written test that the FAA is using has several issues.

1. Some questions are impossible to answer.

2. Some are believed to be incorrect or simply have the incorrect answer.

3.There are some questions that deal with parachute design that a senior rigger should not even dealing with.

If you have recently taken the written, please make comments to [email protected] with any concerns or comments you may have.

Thanks,
MEL

PS: Any way to make this a sticky?????

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[slotperfect 7]

Quote

PS: Any way to make this a sticky?????

Bada bing, bada boom. Stuck. You got it.

There is another recent thread full of good conversations on the same subject here:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3042000;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;

Arrive Safely

John

[peregrinerose 0]

Is the FAA publishing the new bank of questions? I'd be curious to see it. For as much complaining (sounds like justifiable complaining!) as Dave's students were doing, I hope lots of them write in.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[masterrigger1 2]

Jen,
The new test bank sample is not on their web site yet.
...and it may never be there!

Several DPREs are currently involved with comments regarding the test and it's problems.

If enough people make comments and suggestions, maybe we can get it to a workable condition.

On a side note, if you have taken the written and remember some odd question, please send it to me via email. (even if your memory of it is somewhat vague).

I am collecting questions and am working with the FAA to resolve some of these issues/questions.


Thanks,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[councilman24 36]

MEL,

I read the email you copied me on and the comments here and other places. One of the biggest issues seems to have been surprise. Surprise that the test bank had changed, the FAA website wasn't coordinated with the change, and people weren't prepared for the new test bank. That's now taken care of. Thanks.

I don't have the details you do about the questions you feel inappropriate. But as I thought about it the following discussion came to mind. There have always been questions in the test bank about construction, design, or major repairs that we might consider unnecessary knowledge for a senior rigger based on what they are allowed to do. The test scope is defined in Part 65 as(bold added):

"(b) Pass a written test, with respect to parachutes in common use, on-


(1) Their construction, packing, and maintenance;

(2) The manufacturer's instructions;

(3) The regulations of this subpart; and"


But this is also the written test for a MASTER RIGGER, since there is no other written test. In fact, a person can skip senior rigger altogether and get a Master Rigger certificate without having a senior rigger ticket.

From FAR Part65
"(b) If the applicant is not the holder of a senior parachute rigger certificate, pass a written test, with respect to parachutes in common use, on--


(1) Their construction, packing, and maintenance;

(2) The manufacturer's instructions; and

(3) The regulations of this subpart."


So I'm not so sure the questions appropriate for a master rigger are inappropriate for a senior rigger. Shouldn't a senior rigger have similar knowledge to a Master? The biggest difference is in experience but shouldn't we want a senior rigger to be able to give similar advice to customer based on similar knowledge? Of course working as a senior rigger allows people to gain knowledge over time and be exposed to lots of information they might not have sought out before having a certificate. I certainly learned most of what little I know long after I got my senior certificate. But knowledge of construction or other issues isn't a bad thing for a senior rigger to have. I don't know that the argument is appropriate that a senior rigger doesn't need to know the information being asked by some of the questions.

That DOESN'T excuse questions that are simply inpossible to answer or have wrong answers given as the right answer. Trick questions though have always been a part of FAA tests. Reading the complete question has always been necessary and isn't a bad thing.

So of I certainly believe there are things to fix. There always have been. But I'm not sure complaining about the scope is appropriate or will be effective.

Also, while I know that other complete test question banks from the FAA are on the web site or have been published I wonder if you and others should get too public in trying to reconstruct test questions.

Again from 65, bold added;

"Sec. 65.18 Written tests: Cheating or other unauthorized conduct


(a) Except as authorized by the Administrator, no
person may--


(1) Copy, or intentionally remove, a written test under this part;

(2) Give to another, or receive from another, any part or copy of that test;

(3) Give help on that test to, or receive help on that test from, any person during the period that test is being given;

(4) Take any part of that test in behalf of another person;

(5) Use any material or aid during the period that test is being given; or

(6) Intentionally cause, assist, or participate in any act prohibited by this paragraph.

(b) No person who commits an act prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section is eligible for any airman or ground instructor certificate or rating under this chapter for a period of 1 year after the date of that act. In addition, the commission of that act is a basis for suspending or revoking any airman or ground instructor certificate or rating held by that person."

I doubt anybody should care BUT..........


MEL, I know I haven't written anything here you don't know but I thought I'd start a further discussion. I just don't know that complaining about the scope of the questions is appropriate, even though most of us don't expect senior riggers as they have evolved over the year to know some of this stuff. Hell, I don't know some of this stuff.

But what I don't understand is why the entire test bank isn't available and you believe it may not be available when most, I think all, other test banks are availabe? Care to explain why you believe this Airmen other than Pilot certificate is or will be treated differently?

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

[riggerrob 558]

IOW A Senior Rigger needs to know enough to INSPECT a repair, while a Master Rigger needs to know how to DO the repair.

Same knowledge, just in greater detail for the Master Rigger.

[peregrinerose 0]

I took the written 2 years ago, the questions were all from the bank as far as I remember. From the students I talked to, surprise seemed to be a bigger issue than content of the test.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[SkydiveMO 0]

As one of the privileged few to take the new exam unaware of the changes, I must say I’m not against the new test but like many I am annoyed by the manner of implementation. Several of the questions, as has been noted in other forums, were simply too vague to answer. Others were not covered in Poynter’s Manual, which has long been the source for the test. Had there simply been an announcement that in addition to Poynter’s Manual questions would be pulled from Reid’s Handbook I would have studied this resource also. I agree that there is no need for a published test bank, as has been available up to this point, but I question the intelligence of leaving the old question bank up as if it were the soul source of questions given on the new test. When I referenced the FAA’s website for more information on the written exam had they simply not hidden the link to Reid’s Handbook (available in .pdf format for free if you can find it) I would have happily downloaded this resource and read it front to back. This is exactly what I did once I learned it was available. It’s an excellent resource and I actually used it as my main information source during the practical exam.

I would also agree that a Senior Rigger should have knowledge of canopy, harness and container construction equal to that of a Master Rigger. As a Senior Rigger even though you may not be authorized to make major repairs or alterations you should be knowledgeable of what they are when inspecting and maintaining the equipment. I don’t know where I fall regarding the questions on advanced flight characteristics of ram-air canopies. Only because I had read Brain Germain’s book on canopy flight did I survive that section.

I consider myself a veteran jumper and would like to think I’m pretty knowledgeable about equipment. I was in an active Airborne unit in the Army, I’ve been a skydiving instructor for nearly a decade and have even assisted with parachute research for guided cargo systems. That being said, even though I passed, I wasn’t very happy with my score on the written exam. The questions, in my opinion, were too specific to Reid’s handbook and Rigging Innovations equipment rather than based on knowledge of parachuting equipment in its many forms and applications.

[masterrigger1 2]

Terry,
Without muddying the waters, the test has conflicts that we all agree needs to be fixed.

It is amazing that every single DPRE that I have talked to with these issues, agrees wholeheartedly.

Now, one at a a time:

Quote

"(b) Pass a written test, with respect to parachutes in common use, on-


(1) Their construction, packing, and maintenance;

(2) The manufacturer's instructions;

(3) The regulations of this subpart; and"

Do not confuse "construction' with "design"!

Quote

a) Except as authorized by the Administrator, no
person may--


(1) Copy, or intentionally remove, a written test under this part;

(2) Give to another, or receive from another, any part or copy of that test;

No copies are being stolen, received or etc....

It is from the student's memory...to me. It's context means that a physical state of the test may not be removed from the test site and given to another person.

We discussed that with both Washington and OK City.

If the student comes to me with a question about the test that he or she does not or did not understand, we will go over it in detail and forward that question to OKC for evaluation.

Quote

But what I don't understand is why the entire test bank isn't available and you believe it may not be available when most, I think all, other test banks are availabe? Care to explain why you believe this Airmen other than Pilot certificate is or will be treated differently?

I called OKC on Friday morning and asked for the test questions.

The response I got and I quote, " We are simply not going to give it to you!" was their response.

The break for us was the fact that Washington AFS-350 was there as you know.

On Monday, OKC, Washington, and the DPREs were all working together, vowing to resolve the problems.

So, by what I mean about "muddying the waters", is everyone involved so far has reconized that there are problems.

Not IF there are problems....!

On another note, the Parachute Riggers Handbook is up for renewal and updates in the 2008 and 2009 time frame.
We are also working on the problems, mistakes, and incorrect info there.

If any has a concern and/or finds a problem or mistake, let me know.


Thanks,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[councilman24 36]

None of my comments were related to the content of the PRH. Or to whether a specific question was well written. And I haven't seen most of the questions you referring to.

But, again, there is no other written test for a master rigger. IF the question is well written appropriate at all, is it appropriate for the Parachute Rigger written test, no matter which level is being applied for? Or should there be two written tests?

Don't you love a rabble rouser?

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

[lonelymoose 0]

I was also one of the lucky few to take the test last week. I was expecting changes and additions to the questions from the bank we had. Thus, there was no "surprise" factor for me. However, there were terribly worded questions which seemed to have not been prove read before publication. There were questions, in addition to the 3 extra trial questions, which had spelling and grammar mistakes which made it VERY difficult to choose a best answer. I passed with a lot of room for error, but feel bad for those who failed, whom would have passed had it not been for these poor quality questions/answers.

In addition to grammar/spelling issues, there were questions which were very subjective. Questions where in Poynter's manual it says one thing, and in the Parachute Rigging Handbook it says the opposite, with both as possible answers on the test.

[tdog 0]

I have been privy to conversations between DPREs. If you notice, I started the "other thread" on this when I took the test and was the first to bring this to the DZ.com community's attention.

The DPRE forwarded an email from an FAA employee to me, asking me to make comments on the FAA customer service form.

I sent this:

Quote

After recently taking the written exam for the FAA Parachute Rigger Exam I found that:

1) http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_questions/media/rig.pdf available on the FAA website is grossly out of date as it does not include the questions or source materials used on the last major revision of the exam, and has not been replaced with a revised test bank, nor labeled as obsolete. Please consider marking the document as obsolete and revising appropriately.

2) I encountered at least one question that was manufacture and model specific on the written exam. As technology changes rapidly, I felt it inappropriate to ask a question that required knowledge of every device ever manufactured. The question asked how the device worked with no limits on date of manufacture, thus requiring the applicant to know every device ever made for that purpose. In case my explanation is too vague – the specific question I remember was about how AAD mechanisms worked, including haphazard placement of the word “cutter” in the question, with options of Pyrotechnic, Spring or Both. If the word cutter is significant, the FXC brand AAD, which is spring loaded, is disqualified. But who is to say that a new or old technology may or may not use springs? Do I need to know every brand AAD ever made to be a competent rigger, or just need to know the manufacture's instructions dictate the proper use? And the insignificant placement of the word “cutter” in the question made the question difficult to confidently answer.

My suggestions to the FAA are:

1) Make sure the FAA website and all documentation is clear as to the new highly revised testbank, lists old documents as obsolete, and gives some accurate guidance as to what material to study by at least referencing books and chapters, but maybe even with a new revised testbank.

2) Have a peer review by multiple DPREs and other knowledgeable folks of the written test material to make it pertinent to the material a rigger should have as memorized information, as opposed to manufacture specific details that a rigger should consult manufacturer's instructions to obtain.

FUNNY SIDE NOTE. The FAA software interrupted my submission and asked me if some of their FAQs would answer my question before it was submitted to a human. Of the few options given, the obsolete test bank was linked with something like, "Where can an applicant learn what to study for the written test." My point exactly.

[tdog 0]

Quote

3.There are some questions that deal with parachute design that a senior rigger should not even dealing with.

I saw the aftermath of what happened when I sat down with the DPRE and showed him some of the questions I was asked and he started spreading the news... Specifically, multiple people all agreed, "a senior rigger does not need to know that. That is master rigger stuff." I cry BS... A rigger should know HOW it is made so they can INSPECT it.

Not a single question I was asked in canopy manufacture was inappropriate. I thought they all were good. Maybe 6 questions on angles was too much considering no rigger really changes angles, that is a manufacturing thing... And, as I posted above, I did not like the manufacture specific questions.

My concerns... For an example, there was a question about a tear in a load bearing rib on a ram air canopy. The question asked how the canopy would fly, with answers like, "spin uncontrollably", "completely malfunction", etc.

That question has NO RIGHT ANSWER... I could tear 10 canopies and I bet all ten would fly differently. I could even see a "complete malfunction" should the tear spread, canopies "blowing up" are not a new thing, and it has to start somewhere - like in a tear....

So I am going back on the record to say, I was not as concerned about the TYPE of questions asked, but instead HOW they were asked and WHAT study "hints" and "reference guides" were made available and THAT I was not told the bank was completely different...

I will tell everyone right now... Read the Parachute Rigger Handbook on the FAA site... Know the PIA documents in that document that describe angles of canopies, by heart. Be able to draw the canopy with all the angles. Know which documents are the source materials for the various TSO classifications as shown in a matrix in that book. Know the old obsolete test bank, as some questions remain. Know the FAA FARs that relate to rigging. Know how much to over stitch various stitching when replacing torn out stitching. Know how to add "seat" to your existing "back" rating - as in what testing is required. Know how various spanwise and chordwise canopies are built, how they are sewn, how the fabric is cut, how the line attachments are made. Know how to "upgrade" to master. Know how to attach "old skool" rounds to risers (knots, stitching, etc). Know what the stabilizer does, and why low and high aspect ratio canopies are effected by it.

Without any of the warning everyone got when I started the first thread, I took the test without studying the materials, and did rather well. I was frustrated at the wording, and no warning of the change - not the type of knowledge tested...

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

I saw the aftermath of what happened when I sat down with the DPRE and showed him some of the questions I was asked and he started spreading the news... Specifically, multiple people all agreed, "a senior rigger does not need to know that. That is master rigger stuff." I cry BS... A rigger should know HOW it is made so they can INSPECT it.

Travis, You are entitled to that opinion for sure.

But as a DPRE, I feel differently.

The questions should be relevant to the subject that the person is testing for.

I do agree that more knowledge is always key for future work and/or test.

The fact remains that aking design questions on a Senior rigger's test is just like asking Instrument Rating questions on a Private Pilot's test; absolutely no different.

Quote

I will tell everyone right now... Read the Parachute Rigger Handbook on the FAA site... Know the PIA documents in that document that describe angles of canopies, by heart. Be able to draw the canopy with all the angles. Know which documents are the source materials for the various TSO classifications as shown in a matrix in that book. Know the old obsolete test bank, as some questions remain. Know the FAA FARs that relate to rigging. Know how much to over stitch various stitching when replacing torn out stitching. Know how to add "seat" to your existing "back" rating - as in what testing is required. Know how various spanwise and chordwise canopies are built, how they are sewn, how the fabric is cut, how the line attachments are made. Know how to "upgrade" to master. Know how to attach "old skool" rounds to risers (knots, stitching, etc). Know what the stabilizer does, and why low and high aspect ratio canopies are effected by it.

The problem with reading the PRH is two fold:

(1) Some of it is correct

(2) Some of it is not correct

So, until we go back though it, I can not advise the student thatr the info is correct.

By reading and studying the PRH, it will only allow the person to PASS the test.

...and not neccessarily be correct in the rigging field.

Quote

Without any of the warning everyone got when I started the first thread, I took the test without studying the materials, and did rather well. I was frustrated at the wording, and no warning of the change - not the type of knowledge tested...

According to Walt, I was under the impression that you also had a low score?????


Simply put, we are not going to "teach the test" so that the students may pass; especially an incorrect one!

Thanks,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[mark 102]

Quote

The problem with reading the PRH is two fold:

(1) Some of it is correct

(2) Some of it is not correct

So, until we go back though it, I can not advise the student thatr the info is correct.

By reading and studying the PRH, it will only allow the person to PASS the test.

...and not neccessarily be correct in the rigging field.

What exactly is factually incorrect, as opposed to just being different technique?

Mark

[masterrigger1 2]

Mark,
It starts in certification and ends in the definition/glossary area.

I have found at least 40-45 major errors in the book and have not gone completely though it.

First one...it takes 2 completely filled out 8610-2's when you go to the FAA for the Block V endorsement. Not one as stated in the PRH.

Another....what type of stitch do you use on a closing loop? (actual question)

....Well it depends on what container you are talking about.
National uses 2 bartacks that never see the inside of the pack tray.

A straight stitch is used when the sewn area of the loop comes in contact with the canopy fabric on most containers.

The list goes on.

The book IS a step in the right direction, but has many areas that need addressed before test questions can or should be built from it.

BS,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[tdog 0]

Quote

The book IS a step in the right direction, but has many areas that need addressed before test questions can or should be built from it.

BS,
MEL

For the record, all the questions I was asked, (randomly) were from the PIA documents reprinted in the PRH, especially the controversial parachute design questions ALL came from PIA Technical Standard 100.

Hence, I feel that, the questions are fair to study and fair to know.

The question I hated about AADs because it made the examine determine the importance of the word "cutter" comes from this non-pia text:

Quote

The activation may be by either pulling the
ripcord pin(s) or cutting the locking loop(s), causing the
pilot chute to release. Most older models use a mechanical
or pyrotechnic pin pulling technique. Newer models
use a pyrotechnic loop cutting design.

The question I hated about crossport tears and the net effect to the controllability of the canopy is NOT in the PRH, as I used acrobat to search the words "tear" and "crossport" and found no reference...

[tdog 0]

Quote

The fact remains that aking design questions on a Senior rigger's test is just like asking Instrument Rating questions on a Private Pilot's test; absolutely no different.

I know we both are entitled to our opinions and I certainly am not egotistical enough to think I am always right.... However, I don't agree.

1) Pilots are expected to know (basic) instrument questions and show some instrument proficiency to get their certificate (from what I have been told) as they might accidentally encounter instrument conditions and need to survive.

2) I look at it differently. Instead of saying knowing design is like knowing instruments for a pilot - I believe it is like knowing mechanical systems. A pilot is expected to intimately know the mechanical systems of the aircraft he is going to fly... This allows the pilot to handle emergencies, and inspect the plane before takeoff, and read the gauges to know if there is a pending emergency. In another post I pointed out that the longest glide by a commercial airliner ever was caused when a fuel leak was handled incorrectly by pilots who pumped fuel into a quickly emptying tank, instead of turning off the crossfeed and letting the leaky engine and tank go dry. They lived because random luck of poor weather diverted them 20 miles closer to the island, if the weather was good, the plane would have crashed into the ocean. If the pilots would have had a better knowledge of the basic fuel systems, they would have diagnosed the problem and never won the Guinness world record. This is where KNOWLEDGE never HURTS... Even when on the surface it seems not applicable to the rigger.

Riggers (of any rating) knowing the stuff in the design questions in the PIA100 document is no different. It simply allows them to communicate with the manufacture when a tough to diagnose problem is encountered with a customer's canopy (such as a main that opens poorly), and allows them to inspect properly the manufacture and repairs as completed by the manufacture.

Honestly - when I took the test, I had no clue about Tbeam and Ibeam canopies. So I used the pen and paper provided and drew out what I thought they would look like. Every question made sense, and by drawing them out - I scored 100% on these questions... I felt stupid, so I went home and read the PIA100 over and over again (how I know I got 100% by educated guessing) and am proud of my new found knowledge that I wish I studied before the exam.

I encourage all DPREs and those involved to not dumb-down the test, but embrace the (simple) design questions in the PIA100 and expect students to know more, not less. It is only 10 or so pages, and took me 15 minutes to learn.

[lonelymoose 0]

Quote

1) Pilots are expected to know (basic) instrument questions and show some instrument proficiency to get their certificate (from what I have been told) as they might accidentally encounter instrument conditions and need to survive.

I think the Instrument rating analogy was pretty good. There are questions about basic attitude instrument flying on the Private Pilot Written Exam which cover the knowledge areas required of a Private Pilot. The big difference is that to get an Instrument Rating you have to take a completely different test which covers Instrument Rating knowledge areas. On the Parachute Rigger test you don't have to take a different test to get your Master Rigger certificate unless you never got your Senior Rigger certificate.

Quote

In another post I pointed out that the longest glide by a commercial airliner ever was caused when a fuel leak was handled incorrectly by pilots who pumped fuel into a quickly emptying tank, instead of turning off the crossfeed and letting the leaky engine and tank go dry. They lived because random luck of poor weather diverted them 20 miles closer to the island, if the weather was good, the plane would have crashed into the ocean. If the pilots would have had a better knowledge of the basic fuel systems, they would have diagnosed the problem and never won the Guinness world record. . .

I'm sorry for the wordy post, maybe should be a PM but here goes. I think you might have your facts wrong a bit on this one. I am a commercial airline pilot and have never flown an aircraft which pumps fuel from one tank to another, except for as a maintenance function on the ground or as a completely automatic function not controllable by the pilots on center tanks. When a pilot crossfeeds, he/she is not pumping gas from side to the other but is opening a valve or two to allow the opposite side engine draw fuel from the opposite side tank. Normally, left tank feeds left engine and right tank feeds right engine. By opening a crossfeed valve it allows for example the left engine to draw fuel from the right tank. Therefore, if a tank has a leak, you can't drain the remaining fuel from the other tank by pumping fuel into a leaky tank. You could try to run an engine from an empty tank while having a full tank available to you. All multi-engine pilots know and understand this concept.

Regarding your comment about pilots blindly following checklists without thinking about what is happening behind the scenes. Like you said, we are highly trained on the systems of the aircraft, and usually we have no control, or very little control over these systems. We learn so that we can have the big picture and understand what is happening when things go wrong. However, there are thousands of possibilities when it comes to abnormal/emergency situations and mechanical issues. When we have an issue, we are trained to use the checklist if one exists and for very good reason. One, when the s@#$ hits the fan, it's not always easy to sit back and keep your cool while you're thinking of some nut and bolt you learned about a year ago in a calm classroom. Two, while we know a lot about the aircraft, we don't know everything, and these system are very intertwined. Say we think we know the proper response to a problem and we try it out. Many times that action can affect another system and make the problem many times worse. Of course we are encouraged to use common sense and use good judgment, but we also have to trust our training and procedures. It's very difficult to second guess what a crew did in an emergency because you don't know the situation. It would be similar to second guessing how a canopy pilot handled a malfunction without being there or knowing the circumstances. Of course we should investigate and try to find out what happened and learn from any mistakes they might have made, but many times they are doing the best job they can with the resources they have available to them.

Back to the Rigger Written. I thought the knowledge tested was appropriate as well. Spelling and grammar mistakes are unacceptable on something like that. Having questions come from several different documents covering the same/similar material with conflicting info makes it very difficult to confidently take a test. Usually the FAA has specified documents it pulls its knowledge from so you know what to study and what they expect the answers to be. There were questions on the test which were in Poynter & Blackmon's Parachute Rigger Study Guide and in a separate study guide supplied by Dave DeWolfe which had the exact same questions and possible answers, but one guide said one answer was correct and the other guide said a different answer was correct. I got a couple of those questions on the test. I'm confident I know and understand the material they were testing, but I don't think they effectively tested me on it.

Once again, sorry for the somewhat irrelevant wordy post...just my two cents...

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Riggers (of any rating) knowing the stuff in the design questions in the PIA100 document is no different. It simply allows them to communicate with the manufacture when a tough to diagnose problem is encountered with a customer's canopy (such as a main that opens poorly), and allows them to inspect properly the manufacture and repairs as completed by the manufacture.

It is actually TS-100 and the information is skewed.

Just google the definitions and see the different wording.

For an example, "Plumb Line".

The definition of that term is way different that what is in the book.
If fact the way it is drawn is also wrong IMHO. It is laying at a 15 degree angle in the book.

The correct definition is defined as a straight line in reference to gravity, i.e. straight down and 90 degrees to the horizon.


Also TS-108 states that the pull test was designed for all canopies.

That is not true. Some manufacturer's forbid the pull test and even PD states a 30lb test. Not 40.


So this makes my point, the material that you learned and tested on in reference to TS-100 and TS-108, can be wrong in the field.


Cheers,
MEL


Also, I started this thread merely for the contact info for the people that want to comment ( good or bad) to the FAA.

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[mark 102]

Quote

Mark,
It starts in certification and ends in the definition/glossary area.

I have found at least 40-45 major errors in the book and have not gone completely though it.

First one...it takes 2 completely filled out 8610-2's when you go to the FAA for the Block V endorsement. Not one as stated in the PRH.

Another....what type of stitch do you use on a closing loop? (actual question)

....Well it depends on what container you are talking about.
National uses 2 bartacks that never see the inside of the pack tray.

A straight stitch is used when the sewn area of the loop comes in contact with the canopy fabric on most containers.

The list goes on.

The book IS a step in the right direction, but has many areas that need addressed before test questions can or should be built from it.

BS,
MEL

Okay, 2 8610-2s required.

As to the type of stitch on the closing loop, your problem is with Poynter and the FAA guy who included the question, not the PRH. That question was one of many that were in the test bank well before the new questions were added last October. The reference is in Volume 2, 9.3.17. I didn't find it in the Poynter/Blackmon Rigger Study Guide (last updated in 2000), so if you are using that for test prep, I'd recommend adding your own supplemental material.

I agree that we are better off if we are riggers who think, instead of ones who just say "Poynter's is good enough," or "This is the way I do it, therefore it is the best way."

Do you have other examples of major errors (in the PRH, not Poynter's)?

Cheers,
Mark

[tdog 0]

Quote

It is actually TS-100 and the information is skewed.

Yes, the document is reprinted as "PIA Technical Standard 100, by Parachute Industry Association Publications."

The document was officially adopted by the PIA on January 23, 1984, and approved by the member companies that, at the time, made approximately 90% of the ram air canopies. Or so it says - in it's own first paragraph, as if to give it creditability.

Fortunately or unfortunately, a document that is as "official" as the PIA document - with the opportunity to have been revised for 24 years, I think is a valid source for test questions. If anything, PIA it is the BEST source, over any one handbook written by one author (poynter, PRH, or anything else) even if we don't agree with the official PIA opinion.

I am getting phone calls, emails, PMs and posts that all seem to say, "Foul, the FAA has used the wrong guy and the wrong book for the test." I somewhat agree... However, in life there are no definitive answers on ANYTHING. I bet I could find many errors or things that have changed since publication in Mr. Poynter's treatise...

So, if you think PIA has the definition of Plumb Line wrong, go to PIA and get that document revised. Then immediately notify the FAA that they need to substitute the new PIA document revision.

Quote

Just google the definitions and see the different wording.

Since when has google and websites been the authoritative source for rigging. I think the PIA's documents hold much more credibility than most other sources.

Ok... Wanna make the test more clear... Have the question rephrased to say, "Per the PIA TS-100 document, the plumb line is...."

Also, I would firmly support moving the source materials for the written to PIA documents over Poynter's or PRH, as PIA technically has a solid peer review process and is supported by the industry. Just my opinion.

[mark 102]

Quote

It is actually TS-100 and the information is skewed.

Just google the definitions and see the different wording.

For an example, "Plumb Line".

The definition of that term is way different that what is in the book.
If fact the way it is drawn is also wrong IMHO. It is laying at a 15 degree angle in the book.

The correct definition is defined as a straight line in reference to gravity, i.e. straight down and 90 degrees to the horizon.

If you do not like the angle in the book, rotate the book.
Definitions within an industry may be different than definitions in common use. The definition in TS-100 is a line drawn from the links through the quarter-chord point (the industry approximation of aerodynamic center), so the diagram as drawn is correct.

We do need a common language to be able to talk about angle of incidence, trim angle, etc., so if there's a better way to do it, I'm sure PIA and Manley Butler will be interested.

While you're updating TS-100, please change the TS-100 numbering of the suspension lines to the industry standard method.

Cheers,
Mark

[tdog 0]

Quote

We learn so that we can have the big picture and understand what is happening when things go wrong.

You made my point. And I am not a pilot so when I said pump, I agree - it was a valve. I just reread the incident reports so I could learn more... But the fact you were able to in such detail point out how I was wrong, proves as a Pilot you know about DESIGN, and my point is a RIGGER should know about DESIGN... So, indirectly you made my point, and the fact we don't have checklists as riggers when things go wrong like pilots do ("hey, my canopy opens hard, what should I do"), proves we might need to know MORE about design than a pilot??? But that is just opinion and distracting from the point of this thread.

[masterrigger1 2]

Mark,

Quote

If you do not like the angle in the book, rotate the book.

You just do not know how hard that made me laugh.....

I did rotate the book and thought the same thing...


Cheers,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com