0
bigway

PD Optimum. This year?

Recommended Posts

If it was a brand "new" C23e you'd be waiting 15 years. That's how long, maybe longer, that it has taken for the current e. PIA Parachute Certification Standards Committee PCSC (I'm a member) submitted a stand alone document which we expected to be adopted intact as C23e. The FAA, for reasons I won't go into here, chose to adopt parts of it and replace parts of it with mainly old TSO requirements. PIA and PCSC was very unhappy with that action, protested, got the FAA to recind it and since then we have been working on resolving concerns and issues with the FAA to produce a PIA document that WILL be adopted as C23e. I DON'T know what PD did. But if they filed the bigger ones under C23e and then it was withdrawn it could have caused a delay. Bill Coe, President of PD, is active on the committee.

PCSC has been working HARD to resolve our own differences, and differences with the FAA. We are close to resubmitting a document but still have at least one or two outstanding issues. This changes weekly and in fact daily, like today:S.

PD might or might not have the data that meets D. And there are issues with D that may make it desirable to certify under e. All of this is much too complicated to explain here, even IF I understood all of it. And I'm supposed to. :$ And do sometimes, when my brain is in that mode.

You should be aware that previous C23 documents were based on SAE documents, and NAS. SAE decided not to support this effort anymore and PIA has taken it on. It has been literally 15 years plus that PIA has been working on it. The last few years have been as productive as possible under the leadership of a chairman that does NOT have a financial interest in the standard. If you know him please THANK HIM.

Please understand that PIA is a entirely (okay, for the last two years almost entirely) volunteer organization which has business meetings twice a year. PCSC startded doing business electronically between physical meetings in the last few years. It has helped but brings it's own dificulties.

If your unhappy with PIA's activities your welcome to get involved.;) I'm a part time rigger who joined in 1989 and became more involved in 1997. I've been a part of the the PCSC, chair, vice-chair, and now interim chairman of the rigging committee. Member of the symposium committee, the membership committee, the technical committee and others.

While membership in PIA takes being approved by vote of the members at a meeting, it is rare that we reject a legitimate member. I don't know that we have any members that are ONLY skydivers, not at least instructors or riggers but they are not prohibited. We have MANY member companies with representatives that have never made a jump and never will. Like fabric weavers and finishers, forge companies, etc.

Almost all parts of PIA meetings are open to the public. The next one is in Biloxi. If your in the area and would like to attend your more than welcome. Check out PIA's website for more information. Be careful. We might put you to work.

Okay, enough PIA ad with a little explination.:)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking about reserve packing small, I always have wondered why the spanwise construction used by Paraflite Inc. in the 80's for reserve and main hasn't been used by other manufacturers. I know there is a patent on that type of construction but after 20+ years, it seems it should be tried again. That kind of construction has some advantages like packing smaller and because of lateral seams a cell couldn't tear off from nose to tail like other type of construction. In 1983, I have had a Paraflite Swift reserve 5 cells made spanwise. I never had to fly it but it was packing very small and the size was 179 sq.feet (if my memory is good). Later on, Paraflite made the Swift Plus which was a 7 cells reserve also made spanwise.
Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have no idea what TSO standard PD was aiming for. There was considerable overlap between the standards of C23d and C23e, so I don't think there would be much, if any, redundant testing. It is PD's choice to certify under the standards of TSO-C23d now, or wait to see what the standards of TSO-C23e might be.

Mark



Attached are the 2 standards.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gary,

As I replied in another thread ( I did, didn't I :S [ it's not easy growing old ] ), it is my 'understanding,' based upon a conversation quite some time ago with John LeBlanc of PD, that they ( PD ) are requesting some variant to the TSO standard for the Optimum canopies.

I can conclude that their request is what is causing the delay. I may be right or I may be wrong. I do not know the internal details.

But as I replied before, I do not speak for PD.

The replies from MARK ( Baur ) are dead-on. When you submit your application for TSO-authorization, it is the standard that is in effect on that date that governs.

Reminds me of an old movie with a song about 'Somethings wrong right here in River City.'

JerryBaumchen

PS) Re: 'it is the standard that is in effect on that date that governs.' Now there is a small monkey-wrench in all of this in that the FAA withdrew TSO C23(e) and if PD applied when ( for the very short time-frame ) that 23e was in effect, then maybe that might be causing some problem.

All of this does make for some interesting speculation. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm starting to think more and more like Jerry on this one.

I just really hope that the reason for this delay is not within the bureaucratic bodies established to make things run safer and smoother, but within practical stuff like material availability and sales projections and stuff.
Because if bureaucrats are the cause of this (monster) delay than this case alone speaks volumes on their influence on skydiving as a a sport.
I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> Because if bureaucrats are the cause of this (monster) delay than this case alone speaks volumes on their influence on skydiving as a a sport.

I think that us (the clients who want this product) are at the merci of an idiot in a high position who shouldn't be there. I've order an Optimum 196 since April 2009.

I find that PD is being transparent from their end but from there up there's only speculations = no real information (check the words that I've underlined from PD website). FAA should explain why it takes them so much time to approve this.
Quote



9-22-09


TSO Update on Large Optimums (sizes 160-253)

At this time we still have not had informative feedback from the FAA pertaining to our request for TSO on the large Optimums. We do know that at the time PD submitted the request for TSO to the FAA there were discussions taking place between the FAA and PIA regarding the TSO criteria in general. It now appears that ongoing discussion is what is holding up our TSO request.

Unfortunately for both PD and our customers this leaves us with no TSO and no indication as to when it will be resolved. We can tell you that PD has been diligently providing information, guidance, and data to help both parties determine a conclusion to their discussion in order to move forward with the process.

Thank you again for your continued patience. We will continue to update and inform as we get information.


Lock, Dock and Two Smoking Barrelrolls!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

. . . I find that PD is being transparent from their end. . .



Not so much. If the newer Optimums meet the published standards of TSO-C23d, they can be approved now. No need to wait for resolution of issues in C23e.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi mark,

Quote

If the newer Optimums meet the published standards of TSO-C23d, they can be approved now.



Quote

the reason for this delay is not within the bureaucratic bodies

are at the merci of an idiot in a high position




If, in fact ( and I do not know ), that the delay is because that these canopies do not meet the full & complete req'ments of the TSO standard then there is absolutely no valid reason to hammer on the FAA personnel who are only doing their job.

I agree with Mark on this one; and I do hope that PD can make these canopies available in the very near future.

Let's not beatup on some poor FAA-type who is only doing the job that he is paid to do.

JerryBaumchen

PS) A thought: If you are willing to buy a canopy that does not meet some portion of the TSO standard(s) then why do we have TSO standards at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

PS) Re: 'it is the standard that is in effect on that date that governs.' Now there is a small monkey-wrench in all of this in that the FAA withdrew TSO C23(e) and if PD applied when ( for the very short time-frame ) that 23e was in effect, then maybe that might be causing some problem.



Jerry,

You have dealt with the FAA on TSO matters in the past maybe you would know. If the larger Optima reserves were submitted for certification under TSO-C23e during that small window is it possible that the Feds. put a hold on it until something can be determined on TSO-C23e? Then if it was submitted under the new TSO they won’t accept it under the old TSO. Just something I thought of.
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

Quote

maybe you would know.



That 'maybe' is the killer. I simply do not know what the feds are thinking. And I do not know exactly what was submitted to the FAA by PD.

I have been told, quite some time ago, by an 'exec' at PD that their early Optimums did not comply with the TSO standard 100%. They asked for some variance or a waiver and got their TSO-authorization for those canopies.

This whole problem with TSO C23(e) has me puzzled. I have 'heard' of some stuff about one FAA-type tearing into the C23(e) standard but I am no longer on the TSO committee. I have 'heard' some stuff of what is developing but I agreed to keep it to myself; and I will honor that commitment.

If PD submitted under C23(e) and then it ( the TSO standard ) was withdrawn ( as it has been ) then there is nothing to stop them ( PD ) from submitting under C23(d), the current standard in effect.

As Mark Baur has said, if they submit under the existing standard and if they comply, then the FAA has no grounds to deny the TSO-authorization.

From nothing more than putting my ear to the ground and listening, my gut check is that the feds are not now willing to grant the variance or waiver; but that is just MY thinking.

I do not speak for the FAA nor do I speak for PD.

Like you Sparky, I am old military vet & I just love a juicy rumor; but I got nothing. :S

But as I like to say: Stay tuned, film at 11:00. :P

JerryBaumchen

PS) A thought: If you are someone who makes their living or a good portion of their living from any work that is regulated by any federal agency then I would strongly suggest that you routinely contribute to the election/reelection of your Congressman/woman and Senators. They can and will go to bat for you; been there, done that. Ask me about it Sat. night. B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just bumping this baby up the forums a bit... Anyone got more info on larger optimums?

I have this strange feeling we will not see them for a very very long time [:/]

I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TOS-E is basically being reworked and once that's approved I've heard a rumor that this will be moving along again. I guess an issue with TSO-E was that you couldn't get a tandem or larger people under the reserve to go as slow as the specification required since it was a lot lower then TSO-D so the TSO was basically useless for that group.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I spoke with Rusty at PD today via email. Presently, PD doesn't have a TSO for the larger Optimums and it will take 4-5 weeks at the "earliest" to get FAA approval. There may be some interaction between PD and the FAA at the PIA meeting this week, perhaps the FAA will give them some idea where they want to go with this process. My guess is that we won't see a TSO'd Optimum for months. Mine has been on back-order for the past 10 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Phree,

I have 'heard a rumor' so take it for that. And I will not divulge the source of the rumor.

Anyway, I have 'heard' that the FAA is not satisfied with the total velocity component in TSO C23(d), they think that it is too fast and will seriously injure a person who is unconcious.

Additionally, some FAA office granted PD the 'variance' on the currently TSO'd Optimums and the upper echelon within the FAA is not happy about that.

Putting 2 & 2 together leads me to believe that quite possibly the next version of the TSO will have an even lower total velocity component. I am 'thinking' that if that happens, then the current design of the new Optimums will never get a TSO.

Just some thoughts based on some rumors & and some thinking on my part. Take it for what you paid for it.

JerryBaumchen

PS) One thing to remember; when a new TSO document ( in this case PIA TS-135 ) is completed and forwarded to the FAA, they are not bound to use it as is. They have complete authority to change the document if they choose to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Anyway, I have 'heard' that the FAA is not satisfied with the total velocity component in TSO C23(d), they think that it is too fast and will seriously injure a person who is unconcious.



Just controlling rumors here... AFAIK the FAA doesn't have a problem with the Total Velocity in TSO-C23d which is 36 fps. The have concerns for higher total velocities. C23e will not be "more" restrictive on total velocity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


In January 2009 we submitted the TSO request for approval packet to the FAA, which included all drawings, test data, quality documentation, etc. With full expectation of a normal one to three month turnaround on the TSO approval process, we began accepting pre-orders at the PIA Symposium in February.


ping
more than a year of pending for the new PDOptimum. What can possibly explain this situation?
As long as it makes sense and it's probable, feel free to speculate.
Lock, Dock and Two Smoking Barrelrolls!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
check their website this week. I was told an update would come during this week.
"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you long to return." - Da Vinci
www.lilchief.no

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