mark 102 #126 February 4, 2011 QuoteThe written test had issues because the PRH was used for some of the test questions as their basis. Are you referring the questions based on TS-100? Manley Butler wrote that back in the 80's, and most of it is included in Poynter Volume 2. Those problem questions could just have easily referenced the TS-100 directly, or Poynter. It's not the fault of the PRH that the FAA developed trivia questions. What were the specific problem questions caused by incorrect material in the PRH? Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 261 #127 February 4, 2011 On behalf of the possibly silent majority who are reading but staying out of the fight, keep the interesting debate going, but remember that if there's an enemy, it's the FAA, and not each other! Mel and Mark (and Paul too) would make good co-hosts of a rigging TV show, always keeping it interesting by disagreeing and picking apart each others' arguments... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #128 February 4, 2011 QuoteI do not see it that way, nor do several other people monitoring the thread. This again is just your opinion. If they have time to monitor why do they not post? QuoteUsually an applicant writes in his logbook the exact information that he would write on the data card. Therefore if AIR is missing there, proper recording is not adhered to. Also if they write I&R when if fact they assembled the parachute, failure is also justified. See attached. “Usually” is an assumption on your part and failure because of assumption is wrong. The "attached" contains nothing that would justify failure because of what is you personal opinion/interpretation of 65.131. Again to fail a candidate because of personal opinion is a breech of your responsibilities as a DPRE and just plain wrong. QuoteStating that I have violated my duty as a DPRE is very offensive ,unjust, and basically defamation of character as I see it. The test standards provide guidance to actually test in that area BTW. If you in fact test in the manner you yourself have described it would not be defamation but fact. While FFA-S-8081-25 does call for you to test in this area it does allow for you to make up your own answers. QuoteI have been dealing with issues with this book for three years or better. Why do you feel it is you responsibility to “dealing with issues” with this book. It appears that you have a personal issue with the author. The fact remains that while PIA sat around and discussed the project Sandy went ahead and did it. Rather than publicly attack the work why not find a constructive was of adding you experience and knowledge to improve it? You have put yourself in an indefensible position and by continuing to try and defend it reflects poorly on what in my opinion has always be a stellar reputation. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #129 February 4, 2011 Quote Quote I do not see it that way, nor do several other people monitoring the thread. This again is just your opinion. If they have time to monitor why do they not post? as a younger rigger, I would try to minimize polluting the thread and watch and learn from the masters in their debating duels scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #130 February 4, 2011 Quote This again is just your opinion. If they have time to monitor why do they not post? *** most would rather read and not get involved. *** “Usually” is an assumption on your part and failure because of assumption is wrong. The "attached" contains nothing that would justify failure because of what is you personal opinion/interpretation of 65.131. Again to fail a candidate because of personal opinion is a breech of your responsibilities as a DPRE and just plain wrong. That is your opinion. My test plan was reviewed and approved by no less than two FAA inspectors of which both hold back and chest ratings. One is an active everyday rigger type. Quote If you in fact test in the manner you yourself have described it would not be defamation but fact. While FFA-S-8081-25 does call for you to test in this area it does allow for you to make up your own answers. Again, an approved plan. I actually talked to three different FAA types yesterday to see if I was in line, all three responded as affirmative. Quote Why do you feel it is you responsibility to “dealing with issues” with this book. It appears that you have a personal issue with the author. The fact remains that while PIA sat around and discussed the project Sandy went ahead and did it. Rather than publicly attack the work why not find a constructive was of adding you experience and knowledge to improve it? The first year that is was used as basis for the written test, the median test score dropped to some unbelieveable number. In order to pass the the test, we have had to teach our students "wrong" answers for certain questions. ...and still do to some extent. i.e., What is the federal standard for stitches per inch used in canopy repair? old, still standard answer in most federal parachute drawings 7-11. ....new answer 8-12 from PRH So with that said, the more we dug into it the more we found and somehow I got to be the pivot man. The biggest issue of all was the lack of peer review. I and several other riggers responded to the very first request from Sandy to help review it as it progressed. I never heard back from him! In regards to trying to improve it, we had a meeting with AFS-630 which included Terry Urban with exactly that in mind. About two months later I get a call saying that they are going ahead and replace it. Quote You have put yourself in an indefensible position and by continuing to try and defend it reflects poorly on what in my opinion has always be a stellar reputation. I did not start this post. But when Skybitch stated that "it should be on every riggers shelf", I felt compelled to point out that it had some issues. Cheers, MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #131 February 4, 2011 Quote There are no airworthiness standards for main parachutes. The preamble of 65.111 vividly states that a certificated approprately rated rigger shall be required for repairs, maintenance, and alterations with regards to main parachutes. That is a FAA airworthiness and safety standard. The 'required" certificated rigger is also bound by airworthiness regulation in Part 65. We can discuss this right after the DPRE seminar. The right people will be there to answer our questions basically on the spot. See ya next week. MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parachutist 1 #132 February 4, 2011 Quote The first year that is was used as basis for the written test, the median test score dropped to some unbelieveable number. I believe a major reason for this sudden drop in scores was that previous test questions and answers had been readily available for students to study and ace. All one needed to do was memorize the list of questions and regurgitate the answers. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #133 February 4, 2011 Quote I believe a major reason for this sudden drop in scores was that previous test questions and answers had been readily available for students to study and ace. All one needed to do was memorize the list of questions and regurgitate the answers. Agreed to some extent. But at least the questions and answers were correct in their meaning and definition. Most of the issues brought up had no merit, changed definitions, or just personal opinion. I will after to end it here. ....Testing a new applicant this AM and then trying to ready for the PIA. then I gotta build a mini canopy to bring to PIA because of somone that I know!!! Yes, Terry that would be you. Cheers, MEL See some of you guys there!Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mailed_Fist 0 #134 February 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou are, based on opinion, knowingly violating your duties as DPREQuoteStating that I have violated my duty as a DPRE is very offensive ,unjust, and basically defamation of character as I see it. I see that I didn't say "It appears you are" and I meant to, so I apologize for that. But it is not unjust or unfounded to say that you are not upholding your duty as a DPRE when testing. You yourself said you fail applicants on this count, which count you know and should have known is incorrect, based on FAR 65.131. In Post 53 you said QuoteSo tell me why you think I and R needs to be on the data card and not the airing requirement? I can tell you this, in a practical exam, failure to list all work performed , results in a failure here in my region. I have that in my test plan. From Post 98 (Sparky): QuoteTo put these things in your "Test Plan" and fail a candidate for not complying with what amounts to your opinion of what is needed is just wrong. That's where confusing starts and standardization gets lost. You replied: QuoteMy test plane is subitted and reviewed by the FAA before use. So they must agree with it. MEL That means you are evaluating and failing based on opinion not FARs. An FAA approval of your test plan doesn't indicate the approval of your test questions and answers. I think if you submit that question to the FAA and ask them for the correct answer they will direct you to 65.131 and say, There is the answer. You brought your understanding of FAR 65 into doubt yourself and have spent a large part of this thread defending an incorrect position. That might be OK for Joe Rigger, but for a DPRE to be clearly unaware of the recordation regulations found in FAR 65.131 is astounding. In Post 109 you admitted to not knowing the basic recordation regulation QuoteI thought ( with error) that the PDC was to reflect the same information that is required in the rigger's logbook. Ditto Post 117 QuoteIn this case I was wrong about the PDC, but right about having to include Air in the logbook. In Post 32 you said QuoteFor now, let's just stick to the basics of what the regs do tell you to do. and in Posts 66 and 105 you said to theonlyski QuoteSo ...you just got your rigging certificate and already you know more than the rest of us right? and QuoteSon, You need to catch up on your reading. Well, regardless of time in rigging, he sure as hell knows the recordation regulation where you don't. Who needs to catch up on his reading? Not only were you wrong about a basic rigging regulation, a shameful fact for a DPRE, but you chastised this rigger in public. One wonders if there is there an apology forthcoming? And as far as sticking to the basics, it looks like the young rigger is doing so and the DPRE doesn't even know the regulation! Your defensiveness, inability to openly admit to being mistaken, and flagrant arrogance are what the observers of this post are seeing. continuing: In Post 48 you said QuoteBoth the parachute record and the parachute rigger should contain the same info! Not according to 65.131 and in Post 87 you said QuoteParachute Record/Data Card The question here is do we mirror/transpose what is in the rigger's logbook in the remarks column. Until now I would have( and did) say absolutely! The regulations (65.131) clearly indicate recordation requirements. A master rigger and DPRE should be an expert on Part 65, not ignorant of a basic rigger regulation. How can you staunchly defend yourself in this? I don't understand your inability to simply say, "I was wrong. I'll correct this." In Post 63 you said Quote1. The manufacturer's Name is on the card 2.The FAA reqires you to follow the manufacturer's instructions. . 3.The manufacturer's manuals usually state that you should log the work on the data card. But in Post 69 you said QuoteAgain, a manufacturer cannot diminish the "standards" set forth by the FAA. "Should log the work" is neither a regulation nor a manufacturers instruction. Regardless, please direct us to the manufacturers' manuals that state this. Within this thread you were called out many times to back up your strong assertions about what must be entered onto the PDC, and was several times shown FAR 65.131, which indicates what is required. You responded in Post 108 with QuoteMove away from the PDC and focus just on the riggers logbook. There all work done must be recorded. So - we're supposed to move away from a Rigger 101 topic that a DPRE has been wrong about and has been hammering away at the field riggers, trying to correct them on something they are right about in the first place?!! That sounds a lot like, "Let's just ignore the fact that a DPRE doesn't understand a basic regulation of the trade and focus on something else that does require all the information I've been going on and on about." This is where we have a divide: I think a DPRE damn well ought to know FAR 65 front to back. It's understandable to make a small mistake about an FAR, I suppose, because we all make mistakes and errors. But we're not all DPREs who go through the thread 'loudly' defending a clearly incorrect position and failing to simply own up and demonstrate a true cornerstone of good rigging: the ability to recognize one's limits and know how to accept help or correction. It is the work, not the worker, that matters. For a DPRE to be repeatedly and vehemently wrong about a Rigging 101 item, repeatedly defend that wrong position when repeatedly presented with fact, and fail to openly apologize and stand corrected is egregious and does the offending, unjusting and coloring of character in and of itself. OK, you were wrong about something. I know it's hard to be on the hot seat, MEL, but you sat there and just turned up the heat. You should just openly stand corrected; it is my opinion that your failure to do so is causing you to feel the pressure your defensiveness indicates, and to do so shows the community that even our best can err, and know and show how to roll with the punches. Again, I don't have a dog in this fight but I do have an interest, as a rigger, that the reference materials are accurate and that FAA appointed Rigger Examiners know what they are doing, what they should be doing, what their privileges and duties are, and that they effect those duties with the knowlege, respect and humility said appointment demands. In my opinion, rigging is not an Ivory Tower enterprise. Lastly, I don't get your expressed interest in what riggers are logging on PDCs and in their logbooks. It's your job to teach aspiring riggers what and how, but it's not your job to worry about or inspect what practicing riggers put on their PDCs or in their logbooks. That's the FAA's job. Mailed Fist Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mark 102 #135 February 4, 2011 QuoteThe first year that it [the PRH] was used as basis for the written test, the median test score dropped to some unbelievable number. . . . The biggest issue of all was the lack of peer review. It is true that the median test score dropped a lot when questions based on the PRH appeared. However, the vast majority of the problem questions were from TS-100, Standardized Nomenclature for Ram-Air Parachutes." TS-100 was written by Manley Butler, not Sandy Reid, and has been around for 25 years. With respect to the TS-100 questions, the problem was that the questions were not relevant to rigger practice, not that the questions or answers were false or incorrect. You know that no peer review of the PRH would have prevented the FAA from basing questions on TS-100. QuoteIn order to pass the the test, we have had to teach our students "wrong" answers for certain questions. ...and still do to some extent. i.e., What is the federal standard for stitches per inch used in canopy repair? old, still standard answer in most federal parachute drawings 7-11. ....new answer 8-12 from PRH PRH p7-5, Canopy seam restitching. Machines: 301 straight stitch - light duty 7-11 SPI PRH p7-7, Canopy ripstop tape repair. Machines: 301 straight stitch - medium duty 7-11 SPI (Optional) PRH p7-9, Round and square canopy - basic patch Machines: 301 straight stitch - light duty 7-11 SPI PRH p7-13, Round canopy - panel replacement Machines: 301 straight stitch - light duty 7-11 SPI PRH, p7-15, Square canopy - partial panel replacement Machines: 301 straight stitch - light duty 7-11 SPI PRH, p7-19, Square canopy - rib repair Machines: 301 straight stitch - medium duty 7-11 SPI PRH p7-23, Square canopy - pilot chute attachment repair Machines: 301 straight stitch - medium duty 7-11 SPI PRH 7-35, Square canopy - crossport repair Machines: 301 straight stitch - medium duty 7-11 SPI Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #136 February 4, 2011 Quote ....new answer 8-12 from PRH MEL, I wonder if you maybe had an earlier, pre-publication version of the PRH when you saw this. I just used my PDF reader to search the PRH. I first searched for "12". There were hundreds of "12" in the document - page numbers, "12" inside other numbers, etc, etc. But none was part of anything that said "8 - 12 SPI". As a double-check, I searched for "SPI". Again, there were many occurrences that were not just the "SPI" meaning "Stitches Per Inch". But in all the occurrences where "SPI" meant "Stitched Per Inch", not one of them mentioned "8 - 12". So, in a nutshell, I couldn't find a single instance where the PRH said "8 - 12 SPI" for anything. (Yes, I know - too much time on my hands.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites councilman24 36 #137 February 4, 2011 Do we have your application for PIA yet? Still willing to call your wife and sic her on you.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #138 February 4, 2011 QuoteIn order to pass the the test, we have had to teach our students "wrong" answers for certain questions. Which is exactly what you are doing with your test plan and I quote “I can tell you this, in a practical exam, failure to list all work performed , results in a failure here in my region. I have that in my test plan.” And as I have said before, that is just plain wrong regardless who signed off on it.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites piisfish 135 #139 February 25, 2011 Concerning the A+I+R or I+R (which is a detail), is there then a reason why in the Parachute Rigging Logbook, there are only 2 boxes, which are I+R (for Inspection + Repack) and A+P (Assembly + pack) ?scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #140 February 27, 2011 QuoteConcerning the A+I+R or I+R (which is a detail), is there then a reason why in the Parachute Rigging Logbook, there are only 2 boxes, which are I+R (for Inspection + Repack) and A+P (Assembly + pack) ? The Parachute Riggers Logbook is a whole nother animal from the Data card. Even at that I have never seen a standard required format for the log book. As long as it allows for the required data it should be fine. Mine does not have the boxes you mentioned. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 6 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mark 102 #135 February 4, 2011 QuoteThe first year that it [the PRH] was used as basis for the written test, the median test score dropped to some unbelievable number. . . . The biggest issue of all was the lack of peer review. It is true that the median test score dropped a lot when questions based on the PRH appeared. However, the vast majority of the problem questions were from TS-100, Standardized Nomenclature for Ram-Air Parachutes." TS-100 was written by Manley Butler, not Sandy Reid, and has been around for 25 years. With respect to the TS-100 questions, the problem was that the questions were not relevant to rigger practice, not that the questions or answers were false or incorrect. You know that no peer review of the PRH would have prevented the FAA from basing questions on TS-100. QuoteIn order to pass the the test, we have had to teach our students "wrong" answers for certain questions. ...and still do to some extent. i.e., What is the federal standard for stitches per inch used in canopy repair? old, still standard answer in most federal parachute drawings 7-11. ....new answer 8-12 from PRH PRH p7-5, Canopy seam restitching. Machines: 301 straight stitch - light duty 7-11 SPI PRH p7-7, Canopy ripstop tape repair. Machines: 301 straight stitch - medium duty 7-11 SPI (Optional) PRH p7-9, Round and square canopy - basic patch Machines: 301 straight stitch - light duty 7-11 SPI PRH p7-13, Round canopy - panel replacement Machines: 301 straight stitch - light duty 7-11 SPI PRH, p7-15, Square canopy - partial panel replacement Machines: 301 straight stitch - light duty 7-11 SPI PRH, p7-19, Square canopy - rib repair Machines: 301 straight stitch - medium duty 7-11 SPI PRH p7-23, Square canopy - pilot chute attachment repair Machines: 301 straight stitch - medium duty 7-11 SPI PRH 7-35, Square canopy - crossport repair Machines: 301 straight stitch - medium duty 7-11 SPI Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #136 February 4, 2011 Quote ....new answer 8-12 from PRH MEL, I wonder if you maybe had an earlier, pre-publication version of the PRH when you saw this. I just used my PDF reader to search the PRH. I first searched for "12". There were hundreds of "12" in the document - page numbers, "12" inside other numbers, etc, etc. But none was part of anything that said "8 - 12 SPI". As a double-check, I searched for "SPI". Again, there were many occurrences that were not just the "SPI" meaning "Stitches Per Inch". But in all the occurrences where "SPI" meant "Stitched Per Inch", not one of them mentioned "8 - 12". So, in a nutshell, I couldn't find a single instance where the PRH said "8 - 12 SPI" for anything. (Yes, I know - too much time on my hands.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #137 February 4, 2011 Do we have your application for PIA yet? Still willing to call your wife and sic her on you.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #138 February 4, 2011 QuoteIn order to pass the the test, we have had to teach our students "wrong" answers for certain questions. Which is exactly what you are doing with your test plan and I quote “I can tell you this, in a practical exam, failure to list all work performed , results in a failure here in my region. I have that in my test plan.” And as I have said before, that is just plain wrong regardless who signed off on it.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #139 February 25, 2011 Concerning the A+I+R or I+R (which is a detail), is there then a reason why in the Parachute Rigging Logbook, there are only 2 boxes, which are I+R (for Inspection + Repack) and A+P (Assembly + pack) ?scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #140 February 27, 2011 QuoteConcerning the A+I+R or I+R (which is a detail), is there then a reason why in the Parachute Rigging Logbook, there are only 2 boxes, which are I+R (for Inspection + Repack) and A+P (Assembly + pack) ? The Parachute Riggers Logbook is a whole nother animal from the Data card. Even at that I have never seen a standard required format for the log book. As long as it allows for the required data it should be fine. Mine does not have the boxes you mentioned. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
