skysurfcam 0 #1 June 12, 2008 http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/equip/para/PARA-018.pdf QuoteCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 107 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY SCHEDULE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE On the effective date specified below, and for the reasons set out in the background section, the CASA delegate whose signature appears below revokes Airworthiness Directive AD/PARA/18. Parachute Equipment AD/PARA/18 VIGIL Parachute Automatic Activation Device 8/2008 TX Requirement: CANCELLED. This AD is cancelled on 13 June 2008. Background: This AD was raised against French DGAC AD UF-2008-005. CASA has cancelled this AD because it is confusing and the French DGAC is not the Airworthiness Authority responsible for the affected parachute automatic activation device. The Belgian authority has not issued an equivalent AD. David Villiers Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority 12 June 2008 Brother Wayward's rule of the day... "Never ever ever go skydiving without going parachuting immediately afterwards." 100% PURE ADRENALENS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 37 #2 June 13, 2008 I am confused: "This AD was raised against French DGAC AD UF-2008-005. CASA has cancelled this AD because it is confusing and the French DGAC is not the Airworthiness Authority responsible for the affected parachute automatic activation device. The Belgian authority has not issued an equivalent AD" They don't like the Vigial becuase they are confused ???"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jurgencamps 0 #3 June 13, 2008 QuoteI am confused: "This AD was raised against French DGAC AD UF-2008-005. CASA has cancelled the French DGAC AD UF-2008-005 because it is confusing and the French DGAC is not the Airworthiness Authority responsible for the affected parachute automatic activation device. The Belgian authority has not issued an equivalent AD" Is my edit to your text less confusing? Jurgen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brettski74 0 #4 June 13, 2008 QuoteThey don't like the Vigial becuase they are confused ??? Actually, if I understand correctly, quite the opposite. CASA issued an airworthiness directive questioning the reliability of the Vigil shortly after the French issued a similar directive. It was based on the French statements. This statement cancels that airworthiness directive. Effectively, they are saying that they no longer have any reason to believe there is a reliability problem with the Vigil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #5 June 13, 2008 Remember that several recent French airworthiness directives have been motivated by a law suit involving the French Parachute Federation. Unfortunately, this law suit is clouding their judgement. Just another reason to distrust lawyers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LongWayToFall 0 #6 June 16, 2008 Quote Just another reason to distrust lawyers. As well as the french...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
erdnarob 1 #7 June 17, 2008 Not all the French but some having key positions and who are under the influence $$$$$ of AirtecLearn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
