Should PIA develop a rigger certification? (In addidion to the FAA certification)

[blackfox 0]

Quote

The most important thing to remember is that the FAA is not going to relinquish their control so a PIA or USPA rating would be a redundant and useless expense; kind of like the USPA tandem instructor rating.

As it is now the FAA could not release control even if they wanted to because no alternative system is in place.

But if there was another system it would be possible to influence the FAA and slowly over time take certain responsibilities away from them.

As we have seen with the recently pack life extension the FAA can be swayed if we have good data and widespread consensus. That is what a rigger assosiation would provide.

[riggerrob 558]

"

Quote

Quote

I know of some riggers who in the past had never packed a square. That would be found during the biannual and could be handled by the DPRE

A DPRE has no power to do anything in this situation because packing a square is not a requirement by the FAA

"

.....................................................................

That is because the FAA is decades behind the times.
As long as conscientious riggers keep the fatality rate low, the FAA has no incentive to change FARs.

The FAA would be much wiser to enact separate endorsements for round and square reserves.

[riggerrob 558]

The primary motivation for PIA Rigger ratings would be one international standard for professional skydivers who travel.

... New Zealand in January and Spain in July ...

Since very country currently has a different standard - and exhaustive procedures for cross-training - it is almost impossible to understand what a visiting rigger is capable of, much less ....

Less face it, we are slowly moving towards a global economy with one standard. How difficult can it be for riggers to agree on one set of standards.

For example, several countries (eg. Australia) set "reserve packer" as their entry level.
If the FAA does not like that standard, they can simply ignore it and set "PIA Rigger B" (or whatever other label ...) as their entry level.

Oh! And for ease of translation, stick to a simple apha-numeric system, because terms like "senior," "master" and "prufur" get lost in translation.

Rob Warner
FAA Master Rigger (three types)
Canadian Rigger Instructor (all seven types)

[councilman24 36]

Wrong.

Dropzones, independant riggers, hardware forge companies, U.S. agencies, foreign riggers, dealers are all members.

Anyone can apply. Need two current member sponsors. And with some vary rare exceptions (companies completely unknown to any other members with no varifiable business, companies that the members believe do not adher to our ethical standards, a couple of others) membership is rarely denied. Especially to independent riggers.

I've never been sponsored or worked for anybody in the industry and was rigging committee chairman for several years. I've had an equal vote and loud voice at the table in rewritting the TSO standard and debating the 180 day waiver request among other things. I have long advocated for a less expensive independent rigger membership, or membership dues based on number of employees. I've been unsuccessfull so far but always listened to. The best part is I can piss them all off because I don't owe my living to any gear manufacturer or other member.

Parachute and h/c manufactureres are well in the minority of PIA membership.

PIA HAS had a project to develope a generic rigger certification system. Not to implement it but to offer it to other national agencies as an alternative to the FAA system. As any project at PIA, which has one part time employee, it needs a champion and is worked on as time allows. This project is still alive for the moment. That may change at the next business meeting immediately prior to the symposium.

PIA does NOT have the resources to run any kind of certification program at the moment.

All of the above is my opinion, not any official position of PIA.

But you are ALL welcome to apply and unless you are the spawn of satin, join as the will of the members decides. They took me, they'll take most anybody.

On dial up and don't have time right now to fully debate rigger certification. But it is on PIA's mind and may be on the FAA's mind.

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

[riggerrob 558]

"PIA HAS had a project to develop a generic rigger certification system. ... to offer it to other national agencies as an alternative to the FAA system. As any project at PIA, which has one part time employee, it needs a champion and is worked on as time allows."

....................................................................

Who do I talk to in order to volunteer my time and opinions?

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Terry,

Quote

But it is on PIA's mind and may be on the FAA's mind.

Glad to see that happening. It also ( somewhat ) confirms what I posted earlier about having a beer with an FAA-type and ask what they 'really' think.

IMO, if it went to a vote of the actual FAA employees, they would drop the certification of parachutes & riggers in a New York Minute, if not sooner.

Quote

Who do I talk to in order to volunteer my time and opinions?

And I would like to ask this question also.

Thanks,

JerryBaumchen

PS) See you in Feb.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Absolutely not! The system isn't broke. All it would accomplish would be to make rigging much more expensive for everyone involved. I would have to see a compelling case made (based on empirical data) for improved safety to be convinced otherwise.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Who will pay all those fees in skydiving to host, administer, and regulate it???

The jumpers.

Someday, if this keeps up, only people in the military will be able to afford to skydive ;-)

[tdog 0]

Quote

Wrong.

To which part, I think I simply said PIA was invite only, thus not a neutral party.

You said:

Quote

Anyone can apply. Need two current member sponsors.

I don't understand the difference between "invite only" and "need two member sponsors."

I think the PIA homepage says it all - it is a TRADE ORGANIZATION for the BUSINESS OF SELLING PARACHUTES (From their home page):

Quote

The Parachute Industry Association is comprised of companies and individuals united by a common desire to improve business opportunities in this segment of aviation.

I think PIA is great, every trade needs a trade organization to serve them, I just don't think it is the best body to certify anyone or anything as they have a financial interest in their member's products succeeding, which could mean, a financial interest in not supporting non-member's products and techniques. If they spun off a certification arm, which anyone could join and vote, then maybe....

[blackfox 0]

this is not going to cost as much as your all are so worried about, no more than a USPA membership, and the only ones who would have to pay would be riggers, and let me remind you that it would be an optionable certification

look at all the things that USPA has done for skydiving and it only cost you $50 a year. To complain about cost it absurd.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

this is not going to cost as much as your all are so worried about, no more than a USPA membership, and the only ones who would have to pay would be riggers, and let me remind you that it would be an optionable certification

look at all the things that USPA has done for skydiving and it only cost you $50 a year. To complain about cost it absurd.

The point is that it would add nothing to the equation. It is similar to your local city council issuing driver's license; it has no value over the state issued one.

[councilman24 36]

We've discussed doing away with sponsors. They are often sponsors in name only, not really knowing anything about the member applicant. We've also discussed making the sponsors more responsible for knowing who they are sponsoring.

Reality? Sponsorship is often done at the time the application is considered and not a big deal. Many people make more of it that it is. And between Dave DeWolf and I we'll sponsor just about any rigger.

As to certifying 'anything'. MIL specs are no longer maintained, written or supplied (I think) by the government. PIA took on the challenge of maintaining, rewritting and writing new MIL specs so the fabric and hardware manuf. had a standard to manuf. to. The largest committee meetings, the committees that meet the most often and the longest are the specifications committees writing these PIA-xxxx specs. And yes we sell them and do make money on them. But the effort is all volunteer.

Also, PIA TS-135 was written as the new TSO certification standard. There are issues with how the FAA used it and PIA has withdrawn it for the moment. We are working with the FAA to resolve the issues.

So PIA already 'certifies' things. How do you influence these specifications? Join. I had significant input and an equal vote on the new TSO standard and I've never 'tso'd' or manufactured anything.

As to certifying riggers? I'd rather see PIA do it than USPA. But PIA doesn't have the resources to do it.

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