Senior or master rigger?

[tdog 0]

In ref to your question about a Main not being TSO'ed, so why does a rigger have to work on it....

Quote

I really am wondering and wanting a real answer.

The real answer to this is - it depends on who you ask. There have been a lot of debates on this subject online here and in person around the country in rigging lofts and even meetings with the FAA.

I would recommend you find a few key people you trust, who are qualified to read and interpret the regulations.... Like people who are lawyers who understand FAA regulations. I have played devil's advocate against some people online here on multiple occasions, and they clearly have expressed their opinions... I even took their posts to a few lawyers who are friends and involved with aviation, with the FAA documents and FARs. I have received lectures on interpretation and meaning of words in regulations, and when you can and cannot assume if A is true, B is true, therefore we have to assume C is true type scenarios... You will find there are a lot of open holes in the regulations where the revisions over the years have made the regulations sloppy... Thus people will argue what they assume the answer to C must be.

One of the more interesting replies I got a while ago, online, about the non-TSOed main canopy went something like this:

"Anyone can build a main canopy from scratch as there are no testing or building requirements. But the second it needs repair or alteration, unless the person who built it is a Master Rigger, it must be rebuilt from scratch." (There is even debate to if the person who built it would therefore be the manufacture, thus they could do the work.)


When and if you read my previous posts, some of them, if not a lot of them, were designed to inspire debate and get people to say their opinions. My actual actions and actual opinions are not always the same....

[fcajump 153]

I am no expert, and am the first to say that the FAR's are written such that they can be interpreted differently by different people (inspectors/lawyers)...

I would direct you to:

Quote

FAR 65.111
(b) No person may pack, maintain, or alter any main parachute of a dual-parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping in connection with civil aircraft of the United States unless that person--

(1) Has an appropriate current certificate issued under this subpart;

(2) Is under the supervision of a current certificated parachute rigger;

(3) Is the person making the next parachute jump with that parachute in accordance with Sec. 105.43(a) of this chapter; or

(4) Is the parachutist in command making the next parachute jump with that parachute in a tandem parachute operation conducted under Sec. 105.45(b)(1) of this chapter.

From 65.111 (b) (3) - I would take that I, as the next jumper of the main canopy can maintain and/or alter the parachute in any way I want.

I note that 65.111 (b) (1) does not specify that individual that

Quote

Has an appropriate current certificate issued under this subpart

is bound to stronger limitations than the next jumper of the gear for altering/maintaining the main canopy.

HOWEVER, sections 65.125 (a) and (b) in identifying the privileges and limitations of the Sr/Master ratings does not specify that these privileges and limitations are for TSO'ed gear. To the contrary, it states that it is concerned with "any type of parachute for which he is rated".

Finally, as section 65.125 (c) does address itself to relaxing the some of the rigger's limitations with respect to working on main canopies, we would assume that if Sr riggers had the authority to alter mains, it would have also been specified as a relaxing of the regulations.

So, based on this argument, I would suggest that if you are a Sr. Rigger, you should not perform major repairs or alterations on a main canopy unless you are the next person jumping that canopy, in which case it would be permitted under per 65.111 (b)(3).

Now... I will also admit that I have skated around what exactly is a major/minor repair... but with respect to lines I would _think_ that _a_ line replacement could be argued minor, but a new line set would not... so where is the line??

JW

PS - to the OP, I would strongly suggest that the reconstruction of a reserve pilot chute bridle would be a major repair (master). Converting it to a different configuration would be an alteration (master). IMHO, only over-stitching existing seams (if there were a few missing stitches for example) would be minor and therefore correct for a Sr.

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...