PIA Rigging Committee - What should it do?

[councilman24 36]

Until at least Sunday Feb. 7th I'm Chairman of the PIA Rigging committee again.

I'd like any comments you have on what you think the PIA Rigging Committee should be doing.

Aside from the continuing education at the PIA symposium the rigging committee has been more a discussion forum than an action forum. This is as much my fault as anyones. I'm usually a healthy percentage of the debate, no matter what the issue is.

For a while we were working on a generic rigger certification program for an alternative to the FAA version for use as an example by countries needing one. With the hope that it might be a model for the U.S., and perhaps others, to work toward. Rewriting Part 65 for riggers has always been on the table since PIA was formed, but has never had much chance of support from the FAA. That climate may be changing and I may soon have a greater role for the FAA than I do now. So, leave that one aside.

Remember this is an international organization and committee. At least one recent discussion, which I was unable to attend, was concerning the use of paper seals where a seal is required. I'm aware that some U.S. riggers are using various versions already.

We've discussed state (good or bad depending on your viewpoint) of rigger education in the U.S. (because frankly most of the members are most familiar with the U.S.).

But what do you think we should be talking about, lobbying for, or directly working on? And, what specific information would you like to see at the next PIA Symposium? While we try to schedule seminars on a wide range of topics besides rigging what to the riggers want to see? And for that matter the non riggers. I'll be able to pass on or help act on other specific needs.

Nothing is off the table, except rewrite of part 65 as already a given need, although opinion varies widely on that also.

As always anyone is welcome to attend 99% of the PIA business meeting in Lexington, Kentucky Feb. 4-7th. We go into member only executive session only to consider new member applications. Visitors are welcome to any of the other plenary or committee meetings. See the website for location details and for new member applications if you interested. I am one of only a very few riggers that are members but anyone involved in the industry, including riggers, is welcome. Don't let the need for sponsors for the membership application get in your way. Sponsors are usually easily obtained. And unless I know you routinely leave molar straps in rigs I'm usually willing to sponsor any riggers.

www.pia.com

Thanks for you input.

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

[PhreeZone 15]

I would love to see the PIA have a mailing list of all service bulletins worldwide. From what I've seen they are usually included on the notices from the manufacturers or from the individual countries aviation body. It would be great to have an automated mailing list to get those directly from the PIA instead of having to hear about them on here or on other forums/Parachutist.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[riggerpaul 1]

(Oops, I realize that this post covers matters that are far larger than just the Rigging Committee. I apologize for hijacking the thread.)

Expanding on PhreeZone's ideas, a complete collection of documentation for all the member's products. If PIA members were somehow encouraged/required to supply the documentation to PIA, it would be a great service to the industry.

I am not quite sure I understand who PhreeZone wants on the mailing list. But I would love to see a mailing list of riggers. If the PIA site has the documentation, then a mailing to the riggers might only mention what's new, and not contain the actual documents.

A cheaper membership for a rigger would be nice. Much to my disappointment, I've not done much rigging lately. I guess the economy has finally hit my segment of the market. Jumping is down, and the change in the US repack regulations had an instant impact on my rigging volume. I can't afford a membership. Having a cheap membership that mostly just gets me in the notification list(s) we're discussing would be great.

I had a thought about how the documentation system could be made more self-sustaining. If the system is based on a discussion forum system, you could have the manufacturers "post" the documentation themselves. The top level forums could be for each of the manufacturers, for instance, and the threads could be the complete historical product documentation. The riggers themselves might not be allowed to post at all, but might only have read privilege, except that there probably needs to be an area for questions from the "readers". There could be lots of other ways to organize such a system. But PMs from readers to manufacturers might handle that need, so maybe posting would be restricted to manufacturers entirely. I'm only proposing this manner as a straw-man for discussion. May intent is to distribute the work load of creating and maintaining such a system so that everybody does a little, reducing the immediate burden placed on PIA itself. The less centralized the work requirement, the better chance we have to make such a large project work. Hopefully the server administration would be a very small bit of work, possibly done by a volunteer. This system would be mostly for reading, not having millions and millions of posting members.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

What does it mean to be a rigger in Latvia? in Kenya? Although the FAA makes this question moot in the US it is important in other countries. In the late '90s a Kenyan by the name of Harro Trempeneau compiled data on most IPC member countries' criteria for various licenses (CoPs). From that the IPC came out with international minimum standards for FAI-CoPs.
http://www.fai.org/parachuting/certificates_proficiency/
Although most countries have not begun to issue the international CoPs, the exercise was useful in realigning the various countries' criteria.
Perhaps the committee could perform a similar function for riggers' certifications around the world.

[riggerrob 558]

The Australian Parachute Federation already publishes an excellent master-list of Service Bulletins, Airworthiness Directives, etc.
Why duplicate their excellent list?

[riggerrob 558]

Agreed, in the short run, a PIA Rigger's rating would be a mere add-on for ticket-punchers, but in the long run, would set a global standard.

A PIA Rigger's rating would probably resemble the Canadian model, with more short courses: round canopies, square canopies, 1-pin sport containers, 2-pin sport containers, Pop-Top containers, chest, seat and back type pilot emergency parachutes.

I also believe that PIA Rigger D (similar to FAA Master Rigger) should include a thesis about some new tool or method. Thesis would be presented at bi-annual PIA Symposia.

[michaelted57 1]

Quote

A cheaper membership for a rigger would be nice. Much to my disappointment, I've not done much rigging lately. I guess the economy has finally hit my segment of the market. Jumping is down, and the change in the US repack regulations had an instant impact on my rigging volume. I can't afford a membership. Having a cheap membership that mostly just gets me in the notification list(s) we're discussing would be great.

Ditto

If it comes easy, I'm automatically suspicious

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

I'd like any comments you have on what you think the PIA Rigging Committee should be doing.

How about developing a sub-committee for developing new written test questions for the FAA?

The written is a mess to say the least.

I have enacted the FOIA(1976) to get the test question and answer bank from the FAA for my review.

Also the PRH is up for contract renewal. It needs a complete redo as there are numerous errors in it. Not to mention a one sided view on most things in there.

I think a select panel needs to do the rewrite this time.

Cheers,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[mark 102]

Quote

How about developing a sub-committee for developing new written test questions for the FAA?

I'll second that, if the FAA is receptive to our input and review.

The Practical Test Standards need a lot of work as well.

Mark

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

How about developing a sub-committee for developing new written test questions for the FAA?

I'll second that, if the FAA is receptive to our input and review.

The Practical Test Standards need a lot of work as well.

Mark

You are talking about the same FAA that still has a "Lap" rating on the books, right?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[mark 102]

Quote

You are talking about the same FAA that still has a "Lap" rating on the books, right?

Well, yes. But the lap rating is enshrined in Part 65, which requires an regulatory rule change to update. The written test can be revised with no notice at all, and the Practical Test Standards are revised on a 5-year cycle, so there is some basis for the hope we can change things for the better.

Mark

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Okay, I didn't realize the difference.

I've had to deal with the FAA on a few occasions and the buracracy (sp?) was staggeringly stifling.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi joe,

Quote

buracracy (sp?) was staggeringly stifling.

Having spent over 30 yrs as an employee of the federal gov't, it is like that everywhere.

They tend to change only when outside forces are doing the pushing. What reasons would they have to change on their own volition?

In their minds: Change = risk

JerryBaumchen

[councilman24 36]

I have read all your comments and the PIA rigging committee will be meeting in one hour.

Some of your suggestions are possible, some have been tried and failed.

I'll respond to your suggestions individually later, either as a member of the committee or the chairman if elected tomorrow.

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

[councilman24 36]

I will be exploring this suggestion this weekend at the PIA meeting.

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

[councilman24 36]

I fought for a cheaper membership for individual riggers for years. I've always failed. I plan on trying again.

Since the FAA no longer issues AWD's to riggers for parachutes a centralized mailing list would be a good idea. Again, I'll be exploring it this weekend.

As to the documents. I considered this when I was previously chair and frankly there were issues about the manufacturers wanting to be the one to desiminate their materials. Other issues existed also.

I've found the APF and the UKskydiver documentation to fill much of the need. The manufacturer's websites are the best place for current information. Frankly, PIA with almost no paid staff is not in a position to do this. I understand the concept of a manufacturer populated site and I'll give that more thought.

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

[councilman24 36]

Rigging committee was working on a generic standard for rigger certification to be available as an alternative model to the FAA or any other national system. PIA does not have the resources to issue 'PIA' rigger ratings for the near future.

The member working on this most directly has fallen away from envolvement. And the previous chair didn't persue the project. If I continue as chair I may resurrect it.

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

[councilman24 36]

This may be a committee of a whole. PM me about your upcoming event.

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

I fought for a cheaper membership for individual riggers for years. I've always failed. I plan on trying again.

Since the FAA no longer issues AWD's to riggers for parachutes a centralized mailing list would be a good idea. Again, I'll be exploring it this weekend.

As to the documents. I considered this when I was previously chair and frankly there were issues about the manufacturers wanting to be the one to desiminate their materials. Other issues existed also.

I've found the APF and the UKskydiver documentation to fill much of the need. The manufacturer's websites are the best place for current information. Frankly, PIA with almost no paid staff is not in a position to do this. I understand the concept of a manufacturer populated site and I'll give that more thought.

Thanks Terry!! Having given it even this much thought is all I could have hoped for.

That you have, and will continue to do so, speaks very highly of you.

-paul