Rigging horror

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

You the nail on the head.

Unless some one-off harnesses were produced, Mirage harnesses come in three flavors.

• no rings
• hip rings - located below teh lateral junction, pointing down
• unisyn - chest rings and hip rings. chest ring are pointing outward, with the hip rings located AT the lateral junction and pointing down.


this harness was obviously bastardized.

I am attaching a picture proper hip/chest ring harness

The only thing changed on this system appears to be the main lift web.

I think everything else is factory.


The change to Type VII is also OK as it is a stronger Type.
But the absence of a confluence wrap and the poor workmanship is not!


MEL

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[RiggerLee 61]

The manufatorer could call the change in webbing a minor alterration but I don't think a rigger could do that unapproved. The sew pattern is totaly diffrent and is a major alteration and to the best of my knowladge they never drop tested that harness configuration. And where is the chest strap any way!

I don't think you could squeak by on any of it.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

The manufatorer could call the change in webbing a minor alterration but I don't think a rigger could do that unapproved.

Minor changes are not required to be reported to the FAA.
The manufacturers are no different than a Master rigger in this case.

Case and point woyld be the Vector III changes(minor) from the Wonderhog.

Quote

The sew pattern is totaly diffrent and is a major alteration and to the best of my knowladge they never drop tested that harness configuration. And where is the chest strap any way!

I don't think you could squeak by on any of it.

The stitch pattern was was on previous models as "approved"
So it would be legal!

But back to the OP ...terrible workmanship at it's best!

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[piisfish 135]

Quote

The manufatorer could call the change in webbing a minor alterration but I don't think a rigger could do that unapproved. The sew pattern is totaly diffrent and is a major alteration and to the best of my knowladge they never drop tested that harness configuration. And where is the chest strap any way!

I don't think you could squeak by on any of it.

Lee

I don't think there are such things as minor and major alterations. Alteration is alteration.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[RiggerLee 61]

For a rigger there is no such thing as a minor alteration. This is a TSO thing. It's between the manufacorer and the... MIDO? Rather then a Rigger going through the FSDO. They will allow the manufatorer to make minor changes to a design with out redroptesting or up dateing their paper work and line drawing. One example of a minor alteration would be the use of a mateareal stronger then the one specified in the line drawing of the component. That's why a lot of rigs that were drop tested were built from para pack. It was concidered the mimimum, lightest mateareal. That made the use of 1000 denear cordura and any thing that tested stronger leagle. That way you don't have to test drop with every thing. I remember when the shiny antron stuff came out. Stanford was exspaining this to me and showed me the test data of the mateareal that he was fileing away with his TSO. I don't think a rigger would have this lattitude. I beleave that he would have to submit the same spec's to the FSDO and ask for an approval of the substitution. It should be an easy rubber stamp but I don't think he can just do that on his own. I don't think that a Rigger can alter a design with out calling it an alteration. And I'm pretty sure that would be defined as anything not matching the original paper work on the rig.

As to the harness. The unison is the only harness I can recall on the mirage with chest rings. The webbing is sewn in a ring with the four point wrapped around the hardware at the bottom, I never liked this, And covered with a confluance wrap mostly for esthetics. This apears to be sewn through like a beam in one huge stitch pattern. I don't think you can just arbutrarally mix the two designs togather. Not fair. It nolonger matches the data on file with the TSO holder. Further I don't think they have drop test on file for this frankenstine mix of the two harnesses so I don't think that even the manufactorer could tecnically do this. They don't hold a TSO for this harness.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[piisfish 135]

I understand your explanation and was not trying to start an argument .

Thanks for taking the time to write the long and detailed explanation though.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Lee,

I cannot speak for how anyone else works with their nearest Aircraft Certification Office but I work with the Seattle ACO.

Back in the '80's they sent me a document that they developed called Guide for Manufacturers. In it are detailed steps that one has to go through when submitting a Minor Change. One of the steps says:

(5) List of data being submitted describing the minor change as required by FAR 21.611(a) and 21.605(a).

The Seattle ACO says that this is the specifications for the TSO ( specifications is FAA-speak for what most of us call 'line drawings' ).

The Seattle ACO requires that I submit revised drawings for all Minor Changes.

Just for your info,

JerryBaumchen

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

One example of a minor alteration would be the use of a mateareal stronger then the one specified in the line drawing of the component. That's why a lot of rigs that were drop tested were built from para pack. It was concidered the mimimum, lightest mateareal. That made the use of 1000 denear cordura and any thing that tested stronger leagle. That way you don't have to test drop with every thing. I remember when the shiny antron stuff came out. Stanford was exspaining this to me and showed me the test data of the mateareal that he was fileing away with his TSO. I don't think a rigger would have this lattitude. I beleave that he would have to submit the same spec's to the FSDO and ask for an approval of the substitution.

Negative.
If a Master Rigger subsituted 6 cord thread (stonger)instead of using the factory standard 5 cord, do you still believe that he or she has to gain an FAA or manufacturer approval.
Of course not....

Quote

As to the harness. The unison is the only harness I can recall on the mirage with chest rings.

From what I can see is that the lift web seems to be the only thing changed on this rig.

...minus the missing Chest Strap!

Quote

This apears to be sewn through like a beam in one huge stitch pattern. I don't think you can just arbutrarally mix the two designs togather. Not fair. It nolonger matches the data on file with the TSO holder. Further I don't think they have drop test on file for this frankenstine mix of the two harnesses so I don't think that even the manufactorer could tecnically do this. They don't hold a TSO for this harness.

As far as matching Data on file with the manufacturer; most harness resizes are never reported, but legal.

If you look closely the Lateral is up against the turnback of the lift web, not allowing a confluence wrap to be used.
It looks like the longer 4 point was being used in lieu of the confluence wrap.

In fact, I wonder how the factory will do it any differently?
If that are going to keep the same lateral offset, how is the confluence wrap to be used?

It will have to be used above the lateral junction, which would be different that all of the standard rigs I have seen to date.


BS,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[chutingstar 1]

Mirage doesn't do a 1" chest strap either...which is what the one side remaining is.

ChutingStar.com

[RiggerLee 61]

The idea of a repair is that it should match the original. So yes it should use the same mill spec materials and be done in the same manner. same stiches per inch, same thread, same sew pattern, etc. It's not cool to use more stiches per inch because you think it will be stronger just like it's not cool to use more rivits per inch. Or to drill out the holes to put larger rivits or use heavier cord. And for the rig to still be airworthy it needs to ba able to pass the same final inspection. That means that it should meet all the secs layed out in the production manual otherwise it nolonger falls under that TSO. That's what i mean by matching the data on file. It wont specify the length of the main lift web but it will say the exact stich pattern that a joint should be sewn with. And it will certinly list the harnesses that have been tested and approved. Mirage makes a hip ring harness with the lateral interceting above the ring. In that harness the webbing goes up to become the reserve risers. Not on this rig so no that's not approved. They build a chest ring harness but the latteral comes in at the ring allowing the MLW to aline along the direction of the pull built as I discribed. Not the case here. I don't think even Mirage systems could just arbitraroly build a harness like this without test dropping it.

I was a young rigger at the time when I was working for stanford but I don't recall the process there being quite so formal. Perhaps it was the office he was dealling with. He was small time in compareison to other manufactorers. Or I might just not have been privy to all the interplay between him and the FAA but I recall watching him make several minor changesto the design and matereals while I was there. It was a really interesting part of my education and I always incurage young riggers to try to get jobs in large lofts.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

The idea of a repair is that it should match the original. So yes it should use the same mill spec materials and be done in the same manner. same stiches per inch, same thread, same sew pattern, etc.

Generally, I agree,
But if the repair man stronger better materials than the TSO requires, he may use them provided that they are acceptable materials for the job.

The TSO is a Standard to which you must at least use materials of set caliber and manufacture.
This is why we have Technical Standard Order.

It is totally acceptable to use materials that exceed the minimum type spelled out in the TSO.

Quote

It's not cool to use more stiches per inch because you think it will be stronger just like it's not cool to use more rivits per inch. Or to drill out the holes

This rig had a longer Stitch Pattern; not more stitches per inch.

The stitch pattern is key as I also agree.
But here again If the pattern used has a higher number of total stitches ( at the same SPI) and of a stitch pattern that the manufacturer has used on the same TSO previously, in would be legal.

I have a large number of FAA guys coming to Reno in Feburary.
Talking to them would be a great way to gain some knowledge in this area.

The format would be Exact Repair Standards vs Exceeding Repair Standard.

BS,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[erdnarob 1]

Hello Fredo, would you post a picture of the nice tool you have showed me last weekend (tool for closing a reserve, that Andre had welded for you). That will be very interesting for all riggers.
Thanks

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.