How would you deal with this?

[linestretch 0]

So 2 rigs came through that had this horrible shit going on. The jumpers really didn't have any idea about how unsafe and unsat this is. Both closing loops were 6" long (from the disc to the end of the loop, about 1.5" too long). This is the main reason this shit came about. How can something this shitty be overlooked? And to add to it, it came from the same master rigger (his seal on it) that this disaster came from.

Anyone have any suggestions?

(edit to fix pics)

my pics & stuff!

[JALUV2 0]

Wow, very poor work indeed!
Do you have any pictures of it popped? I would like to see what actually comes out of there!

[skydiverek 55]

This would be likely result in case of AAD fire. This situation is NOT Micron/Vector specific:

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYIUjKGxagI&fmt=18

THREAD: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2101957;page=1;mh=-1;;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC

[linestretch 0]

I didn't personally open them. But was told that one of them, the spring was basically like a slinky, starting protrude out the side.

my pics & stuff!

[captain1976 0]

I guess the best thing is to advise the rigger of his errors. If he agrees to follow manufacturers instructions in the future, fine. If he gets defensive, take those pictures and make a report to the FAA. If you won't or don't want to, PM me the info and I will.

They must investigate and take appropriate action on any report. This is a serious safety issue and shouldn't be ignored.

You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime

[RiggerLee 61]

Going and running to the FAA is NOT the way to deal with this. First off you don't really have that good of a case, second they don't want to hear it, but most importantly it's just not right.

Master rigger... let me guess he's been around for a long time. Riggs and rigging have changed a lot over the years. If you don't evolve you get left behind. Today you have to fold not just stuff. Old guy, learned on Vector 1's, can't really get down on his knees and really work it any more, and never learned to make propper use of tork/closeing tools?

Standards have changed. In the 80's that wasn't concedered that bad. Once I would have said that it was just poor quality work. Now with cutters it's more of an issue. I'd send it back to him with a loop half that length and a note in the flap to have fun disecting it and a dare to reclose it with the same length loop. Let him take it apart. If he accepts the chalange then soon his rigs will get a lot tighter. That's what really keeps the standards in our industry. Riggers learning from each other and the fear of pear ridicule. Hell if he was near me I'd tell him to bring over a few rigs. By the end of the day I'd have him up to speed.

By the way. The worst example of this that I ever saw was an FAA inspector. His wifes rig made yours look a tight clean. Then again it was his wifes rig...

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[theonlyski 3]

What do you think about the fact that he had rigged a reserve with the break line on atleast one side, not going thru the slider?

I'm not trying to knock anyone, yeah, those two rigs look pretty damn loose, but the break line not going thru the slider??

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[RiggerLee 61]

I thought we were talking about the general level of his packing. That was a hands down fuck up. That guy was in for an interesting opening. That's a phone call and an emailed picure or polleroid, to him I mean not the FAA. I don't know a rigger that wouldn't be embarest at that. Never seen it take more then that.

On the other hand the only riggers that I know that I haven't cought in a misstake are the ones that haven't been doing it for very long. Riggers are people. They make errors like any one else. We try to be carefull in every way we can knowing what's at stake but we are all just people. Judge not lest you be judged. It goes a lot better to show some one there mistake then to try to be high and mighty dispenceing judgement from above. Some day I may open your pack job and I find all kinds of errors. In the end it's the same thing. We polece our selves. That's what maintaines the standards in our industry not the fucking FAA.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[Slurp56 0]

Quote

On the other hand the only riggers that I know that I haven't cought in a misstake are the ones that haven't been doing it for very long. Riggers are people. They make errors like any one else. We try to be carefull in every way we can knowing what's at stake but we are all just people. Judge not lest you be judged. It goes a lot better to show some one there mistake then to try to be high and mighty dispenceing judgement from above. Some day I may open your pack job and I find all kinds of errors. In the end it's the same thing. We polece our selves. That's what maintaines the standards in our industry not the fucking FAA.

Lee

I understand the point that you are trying to make, but this is an example where the mistake is pretty damn obvious. You wouldnt be able to visually catch the mistake about the brake line without opening the packjob, but when you get on an airplane with someone and their reserve looks like a damn volcano... That should have never left the loft, and this is coming from a riglet who does not yet have a ticket. Let alone the brake line, how could any person in an un-altered state of mind NOT catch the brake line?

I understand that with the longer repack interval, the visual quality of the pack jobs will begin to degrade over time, but it should never degrade to this point. A rig packed and sealed and sitting on a shelf for 10 years shouldnt degrage to this point, yet, "they're out there."

JJ: I would inform this jumper of the problem and advise them of the consequences. I would also advise them never to use this rigger again and explain why this is unacceptable and what to look for in a good reserve packjob. I would also encourage them to tell their friends. If I knew who this work came from, I would take pictures and write a formal dated letter explaining why you think this is a problem and follow up with them, so the rigger understands why you think this is a problem. You cant expect to change them, the best you can do is advise them.

________________________________________
I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

[Davemon 0]

I would have to question the user who would accept this kind of work. This is where the training needs to be done.This rig is going on their back and its their life on the line to know what quality work looks like. I guess everyones rig on this DZ looks like this? Sure the rigger is derlict to put out such shitty work but if the user had watched a pack job and questioned the process this rigger would be out of business.

[RiggerLee 61]

It's hard to imagion how you could miss the brake line, slider all the way down at the base and then picked it up and ran the slider up all the way and started to propack it... hard to imagion but you wouldn't beleve some of the things I've seen over the years.

Acctually there are some ways that you can get a really lose pack job like that. Did he have both knots tied in the loop. I've seen them slip when people only tie one overhand knot. If you're stuffing a wrinkled canopy instead of folding a clean one then you can get a substancal amount of settelling in the pack job. I'm talking on the order of an inch. Also changes in humidity. Classic case would be an Eloy jumper gets his rig packed and then flies to FL. it's gona get lose. It's just a question of by how much. If you've got a messy ie wrinkally packjob then it will settle a lot more. Even if the guy has a really good AC unit and keeps his house really dry there will be a noticable settle. Much greater if it's a stuffed packjob. There are acually maximum and minimums for the humidity that you pack a reserve in.

I wish I could have disected it my self but I'll bet it was an old school messy/stuffed packjob. I'll bet he packs it all the way through at one time. I'll bet he closes it with his hands and does not knee/walk/beat the pack job as he goes to pree age/compress it. I'll bet it was a little lose by todays standards but not scary when he was done. I'll bet he gave it back or dropped it off and then it settled further. Add a little summer humidity and wala.

On the other hand. If your pack job is ironed neat. Not one fucking wrinkle. It takes a few cycles to train a canopy but I love following my self. There really isn't any where for it to go. It's about as flat as it's going to get already. If you take a day or even two closing the rig letting it settle you can close it a lot tighter. You should have to walk/knee/beat before the PC and after to pin it. You should have to let it rest a bit and settle. Go back and rock the PC and kneal on it before you can close the next flap. I like to put it in the corner of the door frame on the floor. I stand with my back against the oposit side of the door frame With my back braced holding the frame behind my back with my hands. It lets me put more then twice my weight on the rig as I walk on top of the PC compressing/pre ageing the packjob before I can close the last few flaps. I'll do it again after the sideflaps. In short I don't get complants about lose loops. I can still grab the cable with my fingers and slide the pin back and forth. That's he test I use for pull force but I've basically aged and settled the pack job before and durring closeing alowing me to use a shorter loop then most riggers could close it with.

He's not doing that. In the tradisional sence of the word he's probably a perfetly good rigger. He's just a little out of touch. I'll bet tose rigs would open fine if you pulled the ripcord. The issue with the cypres cutter is a little diffrent mater. I again attribute it to being out of touch.

I don't want to see a cutter fail any more then you do but it is supposed to be a backup. This has been a link in fatalities but not the sole cause. If you feel so dependent on it that the thought of it failing causes you this much fear maybe you should reevaluate the fact that you are jumping out of an airplane.

And if you want to start a thread about really bad rigging stories I'm game but they'll make this guy look like a shineing star and turn your hair white to boot. If you want to feel good about your gear do not hang out in the loft and lissen to a bunch of riggers bullshit.

Do you reallize that you are seriously talking about going to the FAA and trying to get this guys ticket yanked because his loops are a bit lose? Think about it.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[linestretch 0]

One of the pack jobs was flat packed...FYI. Yes, both very wrinkly. Both had knots but weren't set.

The big issue is these pack jobs have the master rigger's seal on them. I'm pretty sure he didn't pack them. He even commented on that rig where the brake lines didn't go through the slider. His attitude was that the guy that packed it was fired cuz of those mistakes....but HIS seal is on them. It's the same with these that have the long closing loops. He has riglets working for him but very little supervision. And it's been long rumored that he has a black list of riggers and their mistakes. The guy is a dirt bag. The jumpers who own these rigs know all about it now....and really didn't their rigs pictured on here but I didn't really give a fuck. It makes us all look bad.

This shit has been brought to his attention before...but he didn't care.

my pics & stuff!

[roccoflys 0]

i opened both of these pack jobs & the one with the misrouted brake lines. riggerlee- i understand everything you are saying. however.... if we don't hold each other to a higher standard, who will?? i don't expect any of my customers to know ANYTHING about their reserve, how it is packed or to some extent, how it works. that is why they hand it off to us. it is not part of skydiver training to learn about the reserve or how it's packed- just to get it repacked per the rules and how to pull the handle. if my customers are interested, i tell them! if there is a mistake, i tell them. yes, we are all human (even us riggers!

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

The big issue is these pack jobs have the master rigger's seal on them. I'm pretty sure he didn't pack them. He even commented on that rig where the brake lines didn't go through the slider. His attitude was that the guy that packed it was fired cuz of those mistakes....but HIS seal is on them. It's the same with these that have the long closing loops. He has riglets working for him but very little supervision.

Well. you might want to educate him a little.

It is illegal for anyone other than a certificated rigger to air, inspect, and pack a reserve intended for use.

A rigger cannot supervise anyone else for this.

Maybe what you are seeing is educational rigging at it's worst!

Cheers,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[mark 102]

Quote

It is illegal for anyone other than a certificated rigger to air, inspect, and pack a reserve intended for use.

A rigger cannot supervise anyone else for this.

You and I disagree.

FAR Part 65 explicitly permits supervision, and in every other aviation context (looking for intent of the regulation here), supervision means, well, supervision of actual work, not just supervision of training.

You and I agree that if your seal is on a rig, you are responsible for the all the work ever done on it up to that point. (Yes, senior riggers, you are responsible for any preceding master rigger's work, too.) That responsibility cannot be delegated.

Mark

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

You and I disagree.

Mark,
No, you disagree with the FAA and also myself.

Supervision is not permitted on a rig that is intended for use. It states it plainly in the rule.

Supervision is allowed for anything NOT intended for use, like training.

It is that simple.

You have to be a certificated rigger to pack a parachute FOR USE.

65.111

(a) No person may pack, maintain, or alter any personnel-carrying parachute intended for emergency use in connection with civil aircraft of the United States (including the reserve parachute of a dual parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping) unless that person holds an appropriate current certificate and type rating issued under this subpart and complies with §§65.127 through 65.133.

There are no provisions for supervision for reserves intended FOR USE.

There are provisions for the rigger to supervise a rigger canidate NOT FOR USE.

That is the difference.

Remind me to bring this up in the DPRE Recurrent Seminar for you if it still does not make sense to you.

Cheers,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[mark 102]

Quote

Remind me to bring this up in the DPRE Recurrent Seminar for you if it still does not make sense to you.

I look forward to it.

Will you be at the PIA meeting in Lexington next month?

Mark

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

You and I disagree.

Mark,
No, you disagree with the FAA and also myself.

Supervision is not permitted on a rig that is intended for use. It states it plainly in the rule.

Supervision is allowed for anything NOT intended for use, like training.

It is that simple.

You have to be a certificated rigger to pack a parachute FOR USE.

65.111

(a) No person may pack, maintain, or alter any personnel-carrying parachute intended for emergency use in connection with civil aircraft of the United States (including the reserve parachute of a dual parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping) unless that person holds an appropriate current certificate and type rating issued under this subpart and complies with §§65.127 through 65.133.

There are no provisions for supervision for reserves intended FOR USE.

There are provisions for the rigger to supervise a rigger canidate NOT FOR USE.

That is the difference.

Remind me to bring this up in the DPRE Recurrent Seminar for you if it still does not make sense to you.

Cheers,
MEL

Hi MEL,

Interesting that you specifically mention the text I have highlighted.

Reading 65.125(a)(2) and 65.125(b)(2), where the supervisory privileges of our certificates are described, it seems we may only be allowed to supervise the packing of a main parachute.

65.125(a)(2) and 65.125(b)(2) say we can supervise work according to 105.43(a) and 105.45(b)(1).

105.43(a) and 105.45(b)(1) deal exclusively with main parachutes.

So I wonder if our supervisory privileges are actually more limited than even you have said.

Where does it talk about supervising a candidate packing reserves not intended for use?

Thanks!

-paul

[fendor1369 0]

On a personal level as a Rigger, this is really bad. I would send pics to the rigger in question with a great big WTF and stress to the jumpers that they would be better off finding another rigger in the future / not accept work like this again.

Sky diving is dangerous enough we don’t need this kind of extra crap up in the air. Reserves are a jumper’s last chance for life that work has to be precise.

John - D.S 1313

"I'll jump it, Np. It's all good"

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Hi MEL,

Interesting that you specifically mention the text I have highlighted.

Reading 65.125(a)(2) and 65.125(b)(2), where the supervisory privileges of our certificates are described, it seems we may only be allowed to supervise the packing of a main parachute.

65.125(a)(2) and 65.125(b)(2) say we can supervise work according to 105.43(a) and 105.45(b)(1).

105.43(a) and 105.45(b)(1) deal exclusively with main parachutes.

So I wonder if our supervisory privileges are actually more limited than even you have said.

Where does it talk about supervising a candidate packing reserves not intended for use?

Thanks!

-paul

I was waiting for someone with a bit more authority to answer, but since no one has:

65.115 (a):Present evidence satisfactory to the Administrator that he has packed at least 20 parachutes of each type for which he seeks a rating, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and under the supervision of a certificated parachute rigger holding a rating for that type or a person holding an appropriate military rating;


The candidate needs to have been supervised. It doesn't mention for use or not. It also doesn't mention main or reserve.

But it does say "supervised".

I'd personally have a problem with a candidate who has only packed mains, not reserves. And the practical test I took was packing a reserve. The DPRE said that it would be a valid packjob, and would have my seal on it (at least it would have if the reserve canopy had been airworthy).

"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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Hi MEL,

Interesting that you specifically mention the text I have highlighted.

Reading 65.125(a)(2) and 65.125(b)(2), where the supervisory privileges of our certificates are described, it seems we may only be allowed to supervise the packing of a main parachute.

65.125(a)(2) and 65.125(b)(2) say we can supervise work according to 105.43(a) and 105.45(b)(1).

105.43(a) and 105.45(b)(1) deal exclusively with main parachutes.

So I wonder if our supervisory privileges are actually more limited than even you have said.

Where does it talk about supervising a candidate packing reserves not intended for use?

Thanks!

-paul

I was waiting for someone with a bit more authority to answer, but since no one has:

65.115 (a):Present evidence satisfactory to the Administrator that he has packed at least 20 parachutes of each type for which he seeks a rating, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and under the supervision of a certificated parachute rigger holding a rating for that type or a person holding an appropriate military rating;


The candidate needs to have been supervised. It doesn't mention for use or not. It also doesn't mention main or reserve.

But it does say "supervised".

I'd personally have a problem with a candidate who has only packed mains, not reserves. And the practical test I took was packing a reserve. The DPRE said that it would be a valid packjob, and would have my seal on it (at least it would have if the reserve canopy had been airworthy).

Yes, of course. I've read that before. I should have remembered.

But I can answer your question, so maybe that makes up for it some.

Mains have no associated type ratings. So if the candidate must pack parachutes for which the supervisor holds an appropriate type rating, it must be a reserve.

Thanks for your help!

[riggerrob 558]

That reminds me of a student Telesis that was returned to Rigging Innovations, with a complaint that it was difficult to pack.
Both main and reserves closing loops were twice as long as normal.
The poor container looked like a two-humped camel!!!
One of the factory riggers repacked it with normal length closing loops and we never heard back from the DZO.

[riggerrob 558]

PIA has a 3-stage process for disciplining sloppy riggers.
The first step involves contacting them personally and explaining the error of their ways. Most riggers are embarrassed and mend their ways and that is the end of the problem.
The second stage involves collecting photos and witness statements and contacting the offending rigger.
The third stage involves more photos and signed witness statements and usually involves informal conversations with the local FAA Designated Parachute Rigger Examiner.
Avoid taking the problem to just any FAA bureaucrat, because you will probably present him with a problem he cannot understand.

The bottom line is that the FAA would prefer the rigging community - and maybe PIA - to discipline sloppy riggers, so that the FAA can ignore parachute riggers.

Rob Warner
FAA Master Rigger (all types)
Canadian Rigger Examiner (all types)

[Unstable 8]

Quote

Mark,
No, you disagree with the FAA and also myself.

Supervision is not permitted on a rig that is intended for use. It states it plainly in the rule.

Supervision is allowed for anything NOT intended for use, like training.

It is that simple.

You have to be a certificated rigger to pack a parachute FOR USE.

65.111

(a) No person may pack, maintain, or alter any personnel-carrying parachute intended for emergency use in connection with civil aircraft of the United States (including the reserve parachute of a dual parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping) unless that person holds an appropriate current certificate and type rating issued under this subpart and complies with §§65.127 through 65.133.

There are no provisions for supervision for reserves intended FOR USE.

There are provisions for the rigger to supervise a rigger canidate NOT FOR USE.

AGREED!!! I don't understand how it could get any easier! I've heard rigger-lets (Riggers in training) talk about who is jumping their supervised packjobs and I've raised cain for that before.

=========Shaun ==========

[mark 102]

Quote

AGREED!!! I don't understand how it could get any easier! I've heard rigger-lets (Riggers in training) talk about who is jumping their supervised packjobs and I've raised cain for that before.

That is a perverse reading of 65.125(b)(2) which allows master riggers to supervise packing, maintaining, and altering. To accept that reading, you have to sever the supervision for packing into one class of supervision, and maintaining/altering into another class of supervision. There is nothing in any legislative history, rule-making, or legal action that supports that separation.

In fact, there is ample precedent throughout FAA regulations and administrative actions to support the idea that at any repair station there needs to be a person (live, not corporate) who takes responsibility for the work his subordinates perform under his supervision. Those subordinates need not have a rating to work at the repair station. If they did, they wouldn't need supervision, would they? So what would be the point of having supervision as a privilege?

I don't understand exactly what the problem is. Is there a safety issue here? Or is there just some sea-lawyering gone overboard? The FAA has some leeway here; there is ambiguity in the regulations. We ought to be helping the FAA interpret that ambiguity broadly to our advantage.

Will you be at the PIA meeting in a couple weeks? I asked MEL and got . . . silence.

Mark