NovaTTT 1 #1 October 8, 2011 Just wondering how other riggers feel about separate FAA classifications for round parachute ratings and ram-air parachute ratings. For non-US riggers: Does your Authority have separate ratings classifications based on parachute type? Do you think they should?"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
piisfish 135 #2 October 8, 2011 As a FAA rigger, my back rating authorizes me to pack rounds and squares in a back type rig. As a Swiss rigger with round and square ratings, I can pack both in the kind of rig I want. I could even pack a lap rig if I had one.scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #3 October 8, 2011 I really think that it should be required to demonstrate packing a round AND a square during our O/P's. With my back/seat ratings, I can pack squares and rounds in two types of containers (not that I've ever seen a seat rig with a square). Sure, packing a round is easy, but if someone isn't trained on it, and does it anyway, they might not know what the hell to do with it. I packed one of each (square back and round seat) during my practical, it was only a little longer (I think my patch took the longest, ) but it should be something that you should demonstrate for the rating, and it wouldn't take much to change the wording to require it. "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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 561 #4 October 8, 2011 I am backing the Swiss guy. My FAA Master Rigger rating allows me to pack any reserve canopy (round or square) into a back, seat or chest type container. Meanwhile, my CSPA Rigger Examiner rating includes separate type-ratings for packing round or square canopies into five different types of containers. CSPA divides containers into: 1-pin sport, 2-pin sport, Pop-Top, chest and pilot emergency parachute. The majority of young riggers are only interested in getting approval to pack square reserves into 1-pin sport containers. Consequently, the Rigger A Course is being revised to only include square canopies. Up-and-coming CSPA riggers must get signed off for all the other types, before they can test for the PEP rating. Rob Warner FAA Master Rigger: back,s eat and chest. CSPA Rigger Examiner for all types. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #5 October 8, 2011 QuoteCSPA divides containers into: 1-pin sport, 2-pin sport, Pop-Top, chest and pilot emergency parachute. Just curious if you think the 1 and 2 pin sport being separate from each other is really necessary? Do the 'sport' types include tandems?"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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 262 #6 October 9, 2011 The divisions Riggerrob mentioned for the CSPA have been in place, I don't know, 10 years or more. Back in the early 90s though, there was no division by rig type. I started rigging in that era. Since I chose to apprentice doing both rounds and squares, I was therefore qualified to pack both. But there was nothing on paper and I don't know for sure what the rules were. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 561 #7 October 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteCSPA divides containers into: 1-pin sport, 2-pin sport, Pop-Top, chest and pilot emergency parachute. Just curious if you think the 1 and 2 pin sport being separate from each other is really necessary? ... ........................................................................... CSPA changed their type-rating system about a decade ago and few people have complained about the difference between 1-pin sport and 2-pin sport. Hint: if a CSPA Rigger A is already approved to pack square reserves into 1-pin sport containers, he only has to pack a handful - (of square reserves into 2-pin sport containers) under the supervision of a CSPA Rigger rated on the "new" type. Then the supervising rigger signs his type-rating endorsement card and the younger rigger can pack his little heart out. The type-rating card is glued into the rigger's logbook. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 561 #8 October 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteCSPA divides containers into: 1-pin sport, 2-pin sport, Pop-Top, chest and pilot emergency parachute. ... Do the 'sport' types include tandems? .......................................................................... Yes. "Sport" is really to differentiate civilian skydiving equipment from military surplus equipment. Military surplus parachutes have not been sold - intact - in Canada for over 30 years. CSPA does not distinguish between "sport" and tandem equipment. If a CSPA Rigger wants to pack Sigma reserves, he must demonstrate competence at packing square reserves into 1-pin sport containers. If a CSPA Rigger wants to pack Strong Tandem reserves, he must demonstrate competence at packing square reserves into 2-pin sport containers. If a CSPA Rigger wants to pack Racer Tandem reserves, he must demonstrate competence at packing square reserves into Pop-Top containers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RIGGER 0 #9 October 9, 2011 We have here the same FAA 4 ratings system regardless to the parachute shape type. I think more changes should be made to FAR's & to the Rigging Trianing system. Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #10 October 9, 2011 More about ongoing efforts later but there are a number of folks in PIA that want no type ratings. DiscussI'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,071 #11 October 9, 2011 Hi Terry, QuoteMore about ongoing efforts later but there are a number of folks in PIA that want no type ratings. Given my personal experiences with the FAA ( over the last 46 yrs of being a rigger and 31 yrs of being a mfr ), and considering what could be accomplished, I would support this. In a perfect world ( will never exist ) I would prefer something along the lines of the CSPA system. You did say 'discuss,' JerryBaumchen PS) I would think that some people might feel that I take a rather hard line with the FAA; and that is true. Some of the FAA people that I have worked with are the most unethical people that I have ever met; and a few are very nice. YMMV Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnSherman 1 #12 October 9, 2011 Seeing as I was part of the original discussions back in the day I might be able to shed some light on the thinking back then. What most people miss is; what is the function of the rigger? The rigger is an inspector, primarily. His job is to inspect the equipment, make repairs as necessary and certify it for use. It is not a repack cycle it is an inspection cycle. All parachutes with which I have become familure, orient the same way for packing. This seems to be world wide though there is no formal standard. All packing instructions are written with the same orientation. By following the packing instructions to completion, what difference does it make where it hangs or what shape canopy is in it? Seat, Back Chest & Lap are unnecessary. When a rigger is trained they are trained to read manuals and to follow instructions. They are taught about materials and construction and how to test if necessary. They are field techs. They have limitations based on the possible effect on airworthiness. Rigging is a documented process and as such requires the use of manuals, and the completion of forms. It provides a paper trail. It has requirements for currency. If you haven’t packed a square lately, or never, it is your duty to get current. There is more difference between a Soviet D5 (mass tact military rig) (which incidentally has a triangle reserve) and a T-10, both round, than there is between a round and a square. Therefore in consideration of codifying characteristics for parachutes we should write regulations which are procedural in nature and which can accommodate all current and future designs. All we need is “Senior” and “Master”. Master handles airworthy stuff and Senior handles non-airworthy stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 561 #13 October 11, 2011 "Quote... All we need is “Senior” and “Master”. Master handles airworthy stuff and Senior handles non-airworthy stuff." ........................................................................... I disagree for two reasons: First, the terms "senior" and "master" confuse the average American skydiver. Secondly, they do not translate well into other languages. I prefer an alpha-numerical system that defines repair limits. CSPA's system is good, but not perfect. Instead, I propose an expanded version of CSPA's rigger rating system: A- reserve repack endorsement (obsolete in Canada, but still used in Australia, Britain, etc.) B- reserve repack, plus repairs limited to screw-driver or hand-sewing (Current CSPA Rigger A). C - reserve repack plus simple machine-sewn patches (current FAA Senior Rigger) D - all or the above plus complex machine-sewn repairs (current FAA Master Rigger) E- Rigger Examiner F- ? I - Rigger Instructor Yes, I know that "E" and "I" are out of sequence, but they translate easily. Rob Warner FAA Master Rigger (back, seat and chest) CSPA Rigger Examiner (all types) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hackish 8 #14 October 13, 2011 I agree with separate round and square ratings. The ink dried on my rating and I have become confident with squares. Round and square would have probably been too much to do at the same time. Only a small subset of riggers will ever need to do a round so under the FAA system I think all you have is a bunch of people who are "certified" but not competent. If you invest the time in getting the round endorsement then I think you're far more likely to also invest the time to stay in practise. -Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 561 #15 October 13, 2011 Quote We have here the same FAA 4 ratings system regardless to the parachute shape type. Cheers ......................................................................... FARs were written long before square canopies were invented ... rogallo canopies were invented ... long before LeMoigne canopies were invented ... ergo, FAA exams default to round canopies. There is no incentive - to update FARs - as long as the fatality rate remains low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnSherman 1 #16 October 13, 2011 Rob, QuoteFARs were written long before square canopies were invented ... ergo, FAA exams default to round canopies. Xxx Xxxxxxx (name withheld 'cause they probably don't want to discuss the Q or A with anyone) has been working with the FAA updating the Rigger Written for years. It has a bunch of questions about squares. Some of which the answer is debatable based on different experiences. I believe the total field of questions is some 4 or 5 complete exams. You can access this field of questions (with some research). Most of the study guides have all of them. However, that is no guarantee that you won't get a question not covered in the study guide as the Rigger Written might be more up to date than the study guide. I have seen it happen! I actually had it happen when I had to take the Rigger Written for the DPRE Appointment. I got a question wrong about frequency of skin damage between bottom and top. My 15 years of, canopy design and manufacturing, experience was different from the test answer John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 104 #17 October 13, 2011 QuoteI got a question wrong about frequency of skin damage between bottom and top. My 15 years of, canopy design and manufacturing, experience was different from the test answer John Top skin is the answer we know from our experience. Bottom skin is the answer the FAA expects, and they reference Poynter's Vol 2. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybill 19 #18 October 13, 2011 Quote Just wondering how other riggers feel about separate FAA classifications for round parachute ratings and ram-air parachute ratings. For non-US riggers: Does your Authority have separate ratings classifications based on parachute type? Do you think they should? Hi N-T, Thanks for discovering a really great"NON-PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!"Next, re-read what John Sherman said. Got that?!!?? As for the "Round/Square" thing, I again refer you to what John said!! 'Made my first hop in '64, Navy Rigger '67-70, FAA senior rigger '71, Master '75 and throw in a couple of ejection seats and a few Aero-Space chutes to boot. From Rounds to squares, been there-done that, got the T-shirt and wore it out!!!! For your edification, there "WAS" a "Special training requirement" for Ram-airs back when they first came out as "Reserves" ala the "Safety-Flyer!!' and USPA took on the certification program in the beginning. (Got my card signed off by Sandy Reed back at Perris some eons ago!!) Then Ram air reserves started popping up like spring time daisys!! The cert. is no longer required and USPA dropped it many years ago. FYI just wonder if you remember the "Hobbit 7-cell Ram Air Reserve" by B. Gargano & Company, Inc.?? 'Am looking at a copy of the proceedure, the cover shot is of the late Paul "Wog" Stromberg under a Hobbit in brakes getting ready to step down at Perris. The year was 1981, (were you born yet??) The manual was authored by Joe Morgan D-1544, SCS-10. I will leave you with the first pargraph of the "Rigger Qualifications" from the "Assembly instructions." [be advised that Joe and I mean no disrespect to our "guys in Green"] "We strongly recommend that the rigger packing the Hobbit Reseve be completely familiar with ram air gliding type parachutes. Although we are requiring no special rating, the owner/jumper should be sure that the rigger does understand, (and by this we mean jump) a ram air parachute. In other words, a non-jumping military rigger with hundreds of round reserve repacks and who has seen two Golden Knight demos does not qualify and should not learn on your reserve."SCR-2034, SCS-680 III%, Deli-out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 561 #19 October 13, 2011 QuoteThe divisions Riggerrob mentioned for the CSPA have been in place, I don't know, 10 years or more. Back in the early 90s though, there was no division by rig type. I started rigging in that era. Since I chose to apprentice doing both rounds and squares, I was therefore qualified to pack both. But there was nothing on paper and I don't know for sure what the rules were. ....................................................................... Back in "the good old days" (1984) CSPA only issued Rigger A and Rigger B ratings. A freshly-minted Rigger A could repack a round reserve canopy into any sport, military-surplus, back, seat, chest or PEP parachute container. Since square reserves were brand-new (only one Swift in all the Maritime Provinces of Canada), there was a separate rating for packing square reserves. Para-Flite started teaching the ram-air rating, but eventually the teaching was taken over by CSPA and USPA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #20 October 14, 2011 Quote For your edification, there "WAS" a "Special training requirement" for Ram-airs back when they first came out as "Reserves" ala the "Safety-Flyer!!' And this was the way they packed a ram air into a molar bag. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #21 October 14, 2011 Quote Quote For your edification, there "WAS" a "Special training requirement" for Ram-airs back when they first came out as "Reserves" ala the "Safety-Flyer!!' And this was the way they packed a ram air into a molar bag. Sparky cool, thanks for that. Very interesting. Guess that canopies WANT to open anyways scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 1 #22 October 14, 2011 Bill, I respect your years in sport and opinions and I enjoy your posts - more than you know! I started jumping at West Wind, Jeff Saunder's place in Atlanta. I got to know some terrific people and then one Saturday Cowboy came out with his Caravan. I was in my first month in the sport on that sad day. And no, I wasn't 4 years old! Quote "We strongly recommend that the rigger packing the Hobbit Reseve be completely familiar with ram air gliding type parachutes." This is the heart of the matter, in terms of the conversation that led to this thread and the postings herein. Skydivers and upcoming riggers today are not exposed to rounds. Instruction in round parachute inspection and packing is fading or faded. In America it's essentially only pilots who wear rounds. So let's say: "We strongly recommend that the rigger packing the ROUND Reseve be completely familiar with ROUND, NON-gliding type parachutes." I'm not sure how there's any difference in that from what you supported above. I appreciate the replies in this thread - I'm glad there's discussion. Not that I think it matters or anything in the US will change, but I happen to think there are some changes that would improve the rigger rating system. I see the square-round differential as a starting point and I want to know other's opinions and thoughts on this - yours too! "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
piisfish 135 #23 October 14, 2011 when I got my rigger rating, I thought that learning to pack rounds would be of little utility for me, and that it would remain a "nice to know" thing. Actually half of my "live" packjobs are rounds scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 561 #24 October 14, 2011 QuoteQuote For your edification, there "WAS" a "Special training requirement" for Ram-airs back when they first came out as "Reserves" ala the "Safety-Flyer!!' And this was the way they packed a ram air into a molar bag. Sparky ....................................................................... That was the fashion before we started PRO-packing reserves. Cypres drove the change in fashion (circa 1994), because now we need a "divot" for the AAD battery box. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,071 #25 October 14, 2011 Hi sparky, QuoteAnd this was the way they packed a ram air into a molar bag. Those instructions look like they are from an older Vector Owner's Manual. That packing method was originally developed by Troy Loney (RIP) for his Centaurus rig; the first modern 1-pin container. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
