FAA violation for packing a 20 year old rig?

[billvon 2,397]

>If I have a Mirage that was built in 1985, should I pack it according to
>the manual that came with it, or according to the newest Mirage manual?

You should pack it according to the most updated packing manual for that particular harness/container; this should be available from the manufacturer. One big advantage of the net is that most mfrs now have their most updated manuals on line, so it's not much extra work.

Things change; cutter locations move, hesitator loops are used or not used, parts are tacked down or not. Usually such changes are improvements, and are worth noting (even beyond any legal issues.)

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

If I have a Mirage that was built in 1985, should I pack it according to the manual that came with it, or according to the newest Mirage manual? They are completely different animals as far as packing the reserve is concerned, and yet they are built under the same TSO.

The last time I saw a very old Mirage (i think it was called an M3), I checked with the manufacturer. Their recommendation was to use the latest G3 manual.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[councilman24 36]

Your idea of an old Mirage and our idea of an old Mirage are two different things.

An OLD Mirage is from the early 80's and had a two pin (vertical) reserve container. The new ones are built under the TSO C23b (yes b) approval like the Vectors and others.

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

[stratostar 5]

LOL mine says RTS on it and has a horzonial two pin....

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi strato,

I am going from memory here.

The original TSO was issued to SouthEast Sewing for the Rapid Transit System ( RTS ) which was a horizontal 2-pin design. They then did a Minor Change to the Mirage with a vertical 2-pin design.

After some time, they licensed the production of the Mirage to National Parachute who mfd them for a number of years ( the vertical 2-pin design ).

The company was then sold ( I think ) to the current owner who did another Minor Change to the Mirage of today.

Anyone have any info other than that?

JerryBaumchen

PS) It says 'RTS" & TSO C23b on the label because that is what the original TSO was issued against.

[RiggerLee 61]

Don't froget that it went to a vertical two pin with the pins on the back pad like a racer and the loops on the top flap. Very clean but poor lanch. then to a vertical two pin on the out side ala swift. I think there may be one more step in who was licened to manufacer them. can't remember... company starting with an A? And lets not forget that the number one "high speed freefly rig" is TSOed to only 3000 lb shock load under the LOW speed catigory, TSO-C23B LOW SPEED PARACHUTE LIMITED TO AIRPLANES UNDER 150 MPH. Que the laugh track. always get a kick out of that.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Lee,

Quote

Don't froget that it went to a vertical two pin with the pins on the back pad like a racer and the loops on the top flap. Very clean but poor lanch.

I had completely forgotten that iteration.

And, yes it is in the Low Speed category.

Not that anyone pays any attention to that little factoid.

JerryBaumchen

[riggerrob 558]

Sorry Bill,

But I am going to have to disagree with you.
My 1985 Mirage Lady Astra has two reserve ripcord pins, so it cannot be packed in accordance with the G3 or G4 manuals.
The primary reason that I no longer jump my 1985 Mirage is that I cannot find written instructions on how to install a Cypres.
Yes, I reviewed the sacred purple Cypres binder.

Rob Warner
FAA Master Rigger
CSPA Rigger Examiner
Airtec certified Cypres installer

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

My 1985 Mirage Lady Astra has two reserve ripcord pins, so it cannot be packed in accordance with the G3 or G4 manuals.

Wouldn't that be because they are two different animals? Lady Astra and G4 do even have the same name other than Mirage.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

My 1985 Mirage Lady Astra has two reserve ripcord pins, so it cannot be packed in accordance with the G3 or G4 manuals.

Wouldn't that be because they are two different animals? Lady Astra and G4 do even have the same name other than Mirage.

I can't speak about the Lady Astra, but the RTS, G3 and G4 all carry the same RTS TSO.

As far as the FAA is concerned, they would be the same thing, right?

But the new instructions for this thing cannot be used on an older version of this thing, which is what leads to the question in the first place.

The new manuals are not necessarily inclusive of all the earlier products.

So with some things you must use the old manuals, and with other things, we are being told we must use the new manuals.

If they want to establish the rule that any new manual supercedes all earlier manuals, then any new manual must include all the old information as well as the new information. It cannot only pertain to the newer version of the product.

[riggerrob 558]

Chosing which manual to use is a grey area ... at best.
I tend to draw the line whne components change.

Fore xample, I have advised several Flexon owners to use Talon 2 manual, because they share the same reserve pilot chute and the freebags are almost the same.
The Talon 2 manual includes 6 years of learning the finer points of packing Stealth type pilot chutes.

Newer Javeling manuals should not be used when distributing reserve cnaopy bulk in older Javelins, because the newer method puts far too much bulk across the top and main riser covers will not stay closed.
OTOH Since Javelin reserve pilot chutes have not changed much - over the years - I use the latest method to compress pilot chutes of all vintages on Javelins.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Paul,

Quote

As far as the FAA is concerned, they would be the same thing, right?

Absolutely!!!!

Ask anyone working in the one of the ACO's around the country.

Or better yet; find a retired guy, he'll tell the truth.

Excuse me: ACO = Aircraft Certification Office

I do not speak for Rigging Innovations but I do believe that all of their sport rigs ( Talon, Flexon, Genera, etc ) are under the same TSO.

This is not an uncommon thing to do.

JerryBaumchen

[riggerrob 558]

That sounds harsh!

I would only give the guy grief if the 20-year-old rig was faded, frayed and filthy.

Oh! ... and I quit packing round canopies that were mentioned in the acid mesh recall ... all of which are more than 20 years old.

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

Fat men should not jump Phantoms.

[stratostar 5]

I was digging around in my storage bins the other day,

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[Jeffrey 0]

That brings back some memories; I built the harness on it.

The 1981 Sky Supplies Crew:
Billy Weber, Me, Alison, Larry Weber, TK Donle

[robinheid 0]

Quote

PIA needs to get their act together.

+1

It is truly bizarre that PIA is more worried about limiting its liability by limiting the customer pool to adults instead of limiting its liability by cleaning up this documentation clusterfink.

Fixing said clusterfink should be PIA's #1 liability mitigation priority, not hassling 16-year-olds who want to skydive.

If anyone knows which yoyos at PIA are responsible for this idiotic state of affairs, would you be so kind as to post their names on this thread?

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[stratostar 5]

Love the pic man, what a hoot to see Billy back then. He sent me his dad's 74 SST w/mk1 and tri con in it. Haven't seen him in a number of years now.

To add to the topic at hand..... Se some people still have nice old shit and the current manual wouldn't apply.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[mark 102]

Quote

If anyone knows which yoyos at PIA are responsible for this idiotic state of affairs, would you be so kind as to post their names on this thread?

Here you go.

Mark

[councilman24 36]

Hmnm, I guess I'm one of the yo yo's.

First, life limits are being put forward by individual manufacturers, not the PIA. No PIA committee is currently supporting life limit recommendations. Individual members incompass the whole range of opinions. (Last I knew I haven't stated mine here.)

As an alternative the technical committee is working on providing more information to riggers so they can better determine the safety of a rig during inspection.

The FAA in TSO C23e, which was recinded shortly after it was issued, required service life to be specified. Quoted from the TSO cover letter....
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/dcc7634eb0849cf3862574f60072b088/$FILE/TSO_C23e.pdf

"c. A component maintenance manual (CMM), covering periodic maintenance, calibration, and repair, for the continued airworthiness of the personnel parachute assemblies. Include recommended inspection intervals and service life. ...."

This is NOT part of the PIA standard, TS=135, but part of the FAA TSO document that will reference the PIA spec.

So how that will shake out for things TSO'd under 23e is yet to be seen.



The suggestion about a change to the BSR's comes from the risk management committee. The chairman is probalby the most experienced skydiving lawyer in the world, on the sport and industry's side. He believes that one lawsuit concerning an underage jumper could kill the sport. Not any particular manufacturer but the entire sport. "Our" lawyer is trying to help us. I wasn't envolved in that committee before last week.

ANYONE is welcome to attend any PIA business meeting and participate in discussion, whether a member or not.
PIA is only as good as the VOLUNTEER members that show up at the meetings and do the work. We have one part time paid employee that helps us out with the busy work and website.

I'm more than happy to sponsor almost any rigger who would like to join.

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

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Hmnm, I guess I'm one of the yo yo's.

Indeed. Thanks for acknowledging it.

I spoke of the documentation clusterfink in general, not "life limits" specifically. As other posters above have documented, there are multiple areas where ambiguous and/or contradictory documentation represents a serious liability.

Is the risk management committee going forward with cleaning up that -- a truly fundamental liability issue (you know, "have your paperwork in order")?

No, it is, as you confirm, pursuing a goofball strategy that increases liability risk to the whole sport rather than reducing it, and at the same time limits the potential customer pool.

So I say again;

It is truly bizarre that PIA is more worried about limiting its liability by limiting the customer pool to adults instead of limiting its liability by cleaning up this documentation clusterfink.

Fixing said clusterfink should be PIA's #1 liability mitigation priority, not hassling 16-year-olds who want to skydive, no matter how many jumps your lawyer has.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[councilman24 36]

You must be getting old like me, your repeating yourself.

Come, join, and help.

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

[AndyMan 7]

A simple fix would be to have the manufacturers list off which products are applicable for which manuals.

A simple thing, really.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Terry,

From PIA SOP-306 v. 8, Standing Committees, for anyone interested:

The Rigging Committee will represent and serve the needs of riggers by promoting and coordinating rigging-related programs.

The Rigging Committee will consist of an elected Chairman, Co-Chair and at least three other members appointed by the Chairman. The Chairman's term is two years, commencing the first meeting of the even years.

JerryBaumchen

[councilman24 36]

"...promoting and coordinating rigging-related programs...." is always within the greater PIA organization. And as a committee. Some of the things I've advocated in support of riggers have been shot down by others.

BTW so far pretty much anyone who has asked to be a member of the committee while I've been chairman has been appointed. The current committee is available on the website, www.pia.com A few folks have been removed because their participation and role in the association or their company have changed.

Jerry, did you have a point? Or complaint?

BTW the photos will be on the way soon. Wife is never home to take them.
(That ought to get people talking.)

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Terry,

Quote

Jerry, did you have a point? Or complaint?

Neither. At one time I sent an email to PIA ( do not remember who to ) asking about what each committee was charged with. I never received a response.

Sent an email to Cliff asking again & he responded.

The info is just for people who might wonder just what your committee is supposed to be doing ( as I did ).

IMO information is a good thing.

JerryBaumchen