When rigging, please do / do not...

[ChrisClark 0]

I always enter the details of work carried out on the packing card. If the equipment is later split up into separate component parts then I simply photocopy/scan the packing card and make sure each part has the correct documentation to show the gear's history. What would be nice though is a panel of blank Tyvek to record repairs or alterations directly on the gear. PD reserves have the boxes for ticks or crosses at each repack.

[Kevin116 0]

I don't think it has anything to do with "cutting corners". I don't see a required system or guidance to record work done to parachute systems.

After 40+ years as an A&P and lowly senior rigger I just see a hole in the documentation process for work performed.

There are a lot of work a-rounds that have been done by conscientious riggers to try to show work performed but from the far end of the paper trail they aren't predictably traceable.

I don't know if I'd be comfortable with someone else recording work done and siting me as having done it -

(copy all that rig-related record onto the new pack data card)

A conscientious rigger "could" provide copies of work done to be included with the rig. A conscientious owner "could" provide paper to another rigger, showing compliance with S/B's, etc. and include it with sale of equipment.

That's a lot of coulds, none of which are requireds. Aviation works on knowns and requireds. So do the courts. A lot of people are trying to do the "right" thing. Maybe the PIA could address this in the rigging group.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Then the packing data card goes away with the canopy and the work to the rig is undocumented. It should be in your log book but there's no traceability from the gear and no record for the inquiry.

I'm not crazy about regulations but this not good.

As someone mentioned earlier, in that case the rig/canopy owner should make a copy of the data card so that it can continue to be present with both components into the future. It's a simple solution, but one that most people wouldn't think about when splitting up equipment.

[riggerrob 558]

I suspect that this habit is based upon the concept that a reserve (or pilot emergency parachute) canopy will last much longer than a container.
When the harness/container is exposed to sunlight, dirt and a variety of solvents, it is expected to wear out much quicker. If the container has done its job properly, the canopy should be unharmed when the container is retired.

Remember that the FAA exams still default to round canopies packed into PEPs.

[riggerrob 558]

"

Quote

... The old pack data card, having gone with the old reserve, could get a comment written in to indicate the reserve was installed into a different rig from that point forward.

"

......................................................................

I usually write a huge "Z" on the old reserve packing data card,

Then write "see new card January 2012."

Then I start a fresh card with the harness/container , model, serial number, date of manufacture, AAD date of manufacture, reserve size, reserve date of manufacture, ... AAD model, AAD serial number, AAD date of manufacture, date of last factory inspection, date of last battery change, any updates, etc.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I don't know if I'd be comfortable with someone else recording work done and citing me as having done it -

(copy all that rig-related record onto the new pack data card)

Hmmmm...yes, there is that and it's completely understandable, IMO.



...proof of the pudding:
Did you notice I changed the spelling of one word in your quote?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mark 102]

Quote

Then the packing data card goes away with the canopy and the work to the rig is undocumented. It should be in your log book but there's no traceability from the gear and no record for the inquiry.

I'm not crazy about regulations but this not good.

I agree that there needs to be documentation of time/jump/use-limited parts. The maximum time before another inspection/repack is due, for example, or the due date of AAD service if that information is not available from the control head display.

Otherwise, the history of the equipment is irrelevant to the inspection. It doesn't matter who did a repair or how long ago. All that matters is whether the equipment is airworthy when it is packed.

What should a rigger do with knowing the repair history that he wouldn't have done anyway without it?

Mark

[Kevin116 0]

The sort of history I was thinking of would be along the lines of that PC spring bulletin on RI rigs that came out years ago. A record of compliance is good for both the rigger and the customer. It removes doubt about which part is installed without opening the rig.

The good thing about parachute systems is it's pretty hard to have hidden parts or non-inspectable items in them! At repack the knowns are reset to 100 percent.

[baronn 111]

If It's the 1st time you are working on a rig, question EVERYTHING. I recently was working on rigs that had been assembled for several years and discovered all kinds of fun stuff. The most serious being a reserve riser link that had never had the screws properly tightened. It was bent from having a ride on it. The ride happened several years ago and had still been packed. I would have caught the loose screws as part of my checks but, the link looked weird the moment I picked it up. This had been packed by several different riggers including Masters and possibly an I/E. Poor record keeping leaves a mystery here. It was half off the bar and I doubt it would have survived another ride. Spooky stuff for sure.

[billvon 2,396]

>If It's the 1st time you are working on a rig, question EVERYTHING.

Definitely! Just because it's been repacked (or even jumped) does not mean everything is OK. You can find the oddest problems - missing crossports in reserves, brake lines routed outside the guiderings, sliders on upside down - just by being a little paranoid about inspections.

[fcajump 153]

Quote

>If It's the 1st time you are working on a rig, question EVERYTHING.

Definitely! Just because it's been repacked (or even jumped) does not mean everything is OK.

Unfortunately (while very rare) this goes for new rigs just delivered from the factory. Haven't found a total waiting to happen from a factory, but have found errors.

JW

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

[billvon 2,396]

>Unfortunately (while very rare) this goes for new rigs just delivered from the factory.

Also agreed. I've seen missing crossports in reserves, missing grommets in freebags and missing bartacks on line cascades. It's also VERY worthwhile to point out minor problems (like binding tape that doesn't have both rows of stitches through the bound material) to the rig owner so that they can send the rig back, or complain to the manufacturer, or just be aware that they have to watch that part for problems.

Riggers are often the final stage of quality control for rig manufacturers.

[theonlyski 3]

do NOT half ass repairs (non riggers included) I just put a set of risers back to a normal condition after someone (likely a non rigger) cut off pile tape and sewed (with what looks like was a home machine) then hand tacked pockets on the toggles.

If you're going to change it, improve it and do it the right way.

"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

[fcajump 153]

Quote

>Unfortunately (while very rare) this goes for new rigs just delivered from the factory.

Also agreed. I've seen missing crossports in reserves, missing grommets in freebags and missing bartacks on line cascades. It's also VERY worthwhile to point out minor problems (like binding tape that doesn't have both rows of stitches through the bound material) to the rig owner so that they can send the rig back, or complain to the manufacturer, or just be aware that they have to watch that part for problems.

Riggers are often the final stage of quality control for rig manufacturers.

Found bobbin thread missing for ~8" on an inside seam. This is why my inspections are 100% inside/out.

I go with the idea that there is a mistake in the rig. If I can't find it, the owner gets to use it for another 180 days, then I get to try again.

JW

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

[piisfish 135]

found 4 reserve Rapide links which were covered with a silicone tube. I had been taught that this was a bad idea, so I removed them. 3 of them were "pretty tight", but one of the silicone tubes slid up the lines VERY easily.
When removing them I discovered that the 4 links had been overtorqued. A LOT. So i decided to change them. They were very hard to unscrew as they had been bent a little. The inside if the barrel had also been filles with blue Loctite

Also with the inspection on the rig which made me start the thread, I found an almost 1 inch long rip in the reserve PC, a couple of little holes, and the whole top of the fabric was in a really poor condition.

A couple of letters going to the riggers "in charge" of the rigs, plus a reminder to our Federation.

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

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

do write down the repairs you have done

Just an observation:

In places like the US & Canada we have nothing like a Harness/Container logbook, so any mods or repairs to the rig are undocumented. That's not ideal.

Unless I'm mistaken, the rigger is supposed to document all repairs, mods, etc., in the rigger's log. Additionally, there's nothing that precludes the rigger from logging whatever he wants on the packing data card.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

A couple of letters going to the riggers "in charge" of the rigs, plus a reminder to our Federation.

Good on you!

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[councilman24 36]

Thread locker (loctite) used to be required in the PD manual. The current manual has a remnant of that requirement.

"Immediately tighten finger tight, and torque to 20 inch / lbs (1.22927 N.m). To accurately gauge this, place a 5 lb. (2.27 kg) weight on a wrench, 6 inches (15.2 cm) from the link. When the wrench is horizontal and the barrel no longer turns, the link is fully tightened. Do not tighten more than 30 inch / lbs (1.8439 N.m). Clean off any excess thread lock with a clean, dry rag. Do not use water or solvents."

Emphasis added. This is the only mention.

I haven't assembled a PD reserve in a long time. I don't know if the latest manual left out the first part of using it or left in the last part of using it. Email on the way to PD.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

found 4 reserve Rapide links which were covered with a silicone tube. I had been taught that this was a bad idea, so I removed them. 3 of them were "pretty tight", but one of the silicone tubes slid up the lines VERY easily.
When removing them I discovered that the 4 links had been overtorqued. A LOT. So i decided to change them. They were very hard to unscrew as they had been bent a little. The inside if the barrel had also been filles with blue Loctite

Also with the inspection on the rig which made me start the thread, I found an almost 1 inch long rip in the reserve PC, a couple of little holes, and the whole top of the fabric was in a really poor condition.

A couple of letters going to the riggers "in charge" of the rigs, plus a reminder to our Federation.

ouch!

i dont have any experience with this, will there be steps taken from SSD in regards of the riggers in question?

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[piisfish 135]

no, they will most likely remind all rigger not to overtorque barrels of Rapide Links.

They need not know who the riggers were. Everyone can make mistakes. Let's help others not to make the same.

Glad I learnt from Councilman that the Loctite thing WAS standard, and apparently required. The silicone tubes were standard too.

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

[virgin-burner 1]

i've been jumping in the bernese alps on saturday, had a question about packing, rigger helped me out, he looked at something and said: "have you hooked that main up!? dude, that could of killed you!"

whenever i go there, i learn something new. i like that a lot!

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

"tighten finger tight, and torque to 20 inch / lbs. To accurately gauge this, place a 5 lb. weight on a wrench, 6 inches from the link. When the wrench is horizontal and the barrel no longer turns, the link is fully tightened.

Um, shouldn't that be 4-inches from the link? 5 lbs. X 4 inches = 20 inch-lbs, right? 5 X 6 = 30, which is the maximum they say not to exceed. So shouldn't we be shooting for the 20 that is recommended, rather than the maximum? And it's human nature that once you've reached the recommended force setting, to give it just a nudge more for good measure. So if you go to 30 and you nudge it, or if you're off a little, you're likely to exceed the maximum. So I would think that 20 would be the better target, and then a little nudge more doesn't hurt you, because you're still within the acceptable range of 20 to 30.

[councilman24 36]

Tell PD. This was copied from their manual.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[airtwardo 6]

I'm curious, is it possible to tell if they're over torqued when loctite is used? Barring visible damage of course.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[councilman24 36]

Not by me. And I've never seen one bent by tightening. Usually you either break the barrel or break through the thread stop so the barrel moves t far. Not sure what bent ment above.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE