tsalnukt 1 #1 September 7, 2011 I did a half assed search and found nothing..... Airtec keeps sending me letters with every Cypress I have gotten back from service stating that you can only use Cypress loops and washer with Cypress and no other AAD's. I don't see very many Vigil's so I haven't had to deal with this yet but I'm sure the time is coming where I will have to tell someone, yet again, that I can't pack their AAD into their rig. If I am interpreting this wrong please let me know. I have tried contactin Vigil with no response, yet. Just curious to see what other riggers are doing. Is there a Vigil loop and washer system that I don't know about ? Is Vigil working on a solution and how long will it take?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 1 #2 September 7, 2011 Vigil is now distributing their own washers at a nominal cost. Contact: [email protected]"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
indyz 1 #3 September 7, 2011 At the risk of starting yet another FAR/TSO/AC-105 fight: Don't worry about what Airtec says. If Vigil says Cypres loops and discs are ok, then use them if you want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firemedic 7 #4 September 8, 2011 I have no problem using the cypres loop material and washer in conjunction with a vigil. Vigil says it's ok to do so. AADs aren't TSO'd and the only requirement of AC105 is that the AAD not interfere with the normal operation of the reserve. I say, with no harsh intent, it doesn't matter what Airtec says. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,047 #5 September 8, 2011 Hi medic, Quoteit doesn't matter what Airtec says. What matters is what the container mfr says. They hold the TSO-authorization; everyone else is just a pretender to the throne. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #6 September 8, 2011 QuoteWe will have our own disc in the future but we have no objection that you use the Cypres disc. There is also no influence of it to the used AAD and is completely independent of it. We stay at your entire disposal for any further information you may require Best regards Edwin Bollaerts Project Manager AAD nv/sa 193, Bld A.Reyers 1030 Brussels - BELGIUM T: +32 (0)2 732 65 52 F: +32 (0)2 736 06 27 [email protected] www.vigil.aero QuoteLike mentioned in our manual (page 9) we have also no objection to use Dyneema, Spectra or Cypres loops. Best regards Edwin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #7 September 8, 2011 Bill, I agree with you completely, but as it stands right now there isn't a current, published AC-105 to speak of. They are working on it though! I do wonder why USPA or the PIA is not speaking of this! Terry, can you clue us in on that point? BS, MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #8 September 8, 2011 Quote[A]s it stands right now there isn't a current, published AC-105 to speak of. AC 105-2D dtd 5/28/2011 has not been withdrawn. It is still "current." Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #9 September 8, 2011 Quote AC 105-2D dtd 5/28/2011 has not been withdrawn. It is still "current." Mark, I never stated that it was withdrawn as it wll be re-written and replaced as AC-105-2D. It is just not published and it needs to be "published "(available to the general public and the FAA personel) to be used. Which it is not at this time. MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firemedic 7 #10 September 8, 2011 QuoteHi medic, Quoteit doesn't matter what Airtec says. What matters is what the container mfr says. They hold the TSO-authorization; everyone else is just a pretender to the throne. ETA: Pretenders? Don't you mean court jesters? JerryBaumchen That is quite true and if any H/C MFGr were to publish instructions to the effect "Do not use Cypres loop on any other brands of AADs in our container", I would comply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #11 September 9, 2011 http://www.pia.com/piapubs/AC_105-2D_RGL.pdf Quote13. PARACHUTE EQUIPMENT RULES. d. AAD Installation. The FAA approves the installation (addition of pockets, channels, guides, etc., required for the AAD to be assembled in the parachute container) of each make/model AAD as part of the paperwork that is submitted by the parachute manufacturer during the TSO approval. Complete installation in consultation with, and with the approval of, the AAD manufacturer. The retrofit installation, or installation of a make or model AAD other than those specifically approved for a particular TSO or Military Specifications (MIL-SPEC)-approved parachute, constitutes an alteration to that parachute (see paragraph 16). 14. PARACHUTE PACKING. a. Reserve Parachutes. (4) AADs must be maintained in accordance with the AAD manufacturer’s instructions and service requirements. Since when a rigger packs a reserve parachute the rigger is only certifying that it meets all safety requirements on the day it is packed, riggers should note any maintenance or battery replacement due date(s) on the packing data card so that users are able to determine AAD airworthiness and ensure conformance to the regulations. (See §§ 105.43(c) and 105.45(b)(3).) AADs are to be installed as per the parachute manufacturer’s instructions.(5) Only the rigger who did the packing, and whose seal is removed to permit scheduled or unscheduled maintenance or repairs to the reserve container, may open, re-close, and re-seal it (for example, AAD service or closing loop adjustment) within the 180-day or 60-day period in subparagraph 14a(3). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #12 September 9, 2011 Quote What matters is what the container mfr says. They hold the TSO-authorization; everyone else is just a pretender to the throne. Jerry. I had replied (at least I thought I had) yesterday to this post! Anyway, I agree with you also. That is IF the H/C manufacturer has the installation written into their program and also has some kind of receipt/inspection program for the AADs. The last time I checked, there was not one H/C manufacturer in compliance with this fully. Take for example, Mirage Systems. They actually have a document that states in public, that they do not take responsibilty for the AAD, only the provisions for the AADs (pockets, channels,etc). This would be like Cessna Aircraft Co,stating that they approve the bolts and flanges for a propeller to fit on, but do not approve or want to have anything to do with the propeller. ....Then the intended prop is then made by "ACME PROP CO" which holds no type of certification or TSO for their prop. I believe everyone would agree that the prop, if installed, would not be legal, Cessna would not have the right to give out instructions for the props maintenance or care, and ACME could not dictate to Cessna instructions for installation or care either. AADs are no different in this case. Both the H/C manufacturers and the AAD manufacturers want to rule the throne, but fail to step up to the plate and make the installations completely legal by writting them into compliance or obtaining a certification of sorts. Right now, what probably needs to happen is for someone to come up with an approved STC or field approval for AAD installation to make them completely legal. What's funny is that if someone did that, they could make the service life and maintenance schedules of the AADs whatever is agreed upon with the FAA in their written program. That could bring back a lot of outdated Cypres'....Legally! Cheers, MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
