Least expensive way to get canopy relined

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

It is not as clear to me as it is to you that a main canopy manufactured without regard to airworthiness standards can have its airworthiness affected by a repair.

Mark,
You need to be in the relining business then.
I see/repair a lot of canopies come though here that have ill repairs done to them. These "repairs" makes them not safe to jump.

Quote

"Airworthiness" is not a property of main canopies.

I beg to differ....

Well I guess one first needs to know the definition of "airworthiness". This is general definition that both the FAA and Military use. Also remember that all of the civilian parachuting regulations were basically brought over from the military when Part 65 was administered.

"The ability of an aircraft or other airborne equipment or system to operate without significant hazard to aircrew, ground crew, passengers (where relevant) or to the general public over which such airborne systems are flown
This definition applies equally to civil and military aircraft."


So when you inspect a main, set of main risers, or pilot chute what are you doing?

I find it very hard to believe that in all of your years of rigging, that you have not found some main that was not airworthy and thus grounded it or at least advised the owner that it was not airworthy.


MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

When someone can publish 'something' on a technical standard for a main canopy then I might change my mind.

So, I will ask you also.
You ever see a main that you advised someone not to jump???

...and if you did, what standard did you use?

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[likestojump 3]

masterrigger1

Quote

all you need to do is :

measure (with great precision)
fingertrap (cascades, and line ends)
bartack

a square 9 cell canopy has 40 main (A/B/C/D) line attachments and 8 upper steering lines. That translates into :

steering lines :
8 upper (12 bartacks, 12 fingertraps) (assuming it's a continuous line that's trapped into itself
2 lower (4 bartacks, 4 fingertraps)
2 toggle lines (2 or 2 bartacks and 2 or 4 fingertraps)

main lines :
10 A + 10 B fingertrapped (30 bartacks, 40 fingertraps)
10 C + 10 D fingertrapped (30 bartacks, 40 fingertraps)
4 more bartacks per side at the stabilizers (8 total)

that's a total of 48 lines that need to be made, 108 or 106 bartacks that need to be made and 98 to 100 fingertraps

quite involved, huh ?

You guys are still missing one thing....
Either you need to hold a Master Rigger's certificate or be under the direct supervision of one for doing major repairs like replacing lines.

Cheers,
MEL

Hypocrisy :
Screaming that linework is to be done by Master Riggers only, yes selling anyone you want a chip with factory bartack patterns to do the said line work.

I love the chip you sold me, but should I be sending it back for a refund ?!? Or does money trump principle ?

[voilsb 1]

masterrigger1

Quote

Does that apply on a non-certificated canopy?

Absolutely.
There are just two types or repairs according to the FAA regulations; Major and Minor.

I asked that specifically because I know Master Riggers and DPREs who would answer that question both ways. It seems to be in dispute.

Quote

So do you think following the FAA regulations would be a good reason?
MEL

Are those regulations being followed if a Master Rigger signs off on his work?

Brian

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Mark,

Quote

You ever see a main that you advised someone not to jump???

Probably; but no specific incident/canopy comes to mind.

Quote

...and if you did, what standard did you use?

My own opinion. If they wanted to continue to jump it, I have no authority to stop them.

I, as a licensed rigger, have no authority to ground a non-certificated item.

You have your opinions and I have mine. And until some judge makes a decision, that is how it will remain.

JerryBaumchen

[Sky_doggy 0]

Quote

You guys are still missing one thing....
Either you need to hold a Master Rigger's certificate or be under the direct supervision of one for doing major repairs like replacing lines.

Hi, having trolled through FAR's part 91, 121 and 135 from time to time I certainly appreciate the difficulty in interpreting them.

Could you point me towards the FAR that would direct us that a Master Rigger can only perform work on a non TSO'd item.

BTW, I am not winding anyone up here, I am genuinely curious as to how FAA rules are applied in Skydiving.

Thanks

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Hypocrisy :
Screaming that linework is to be done by Master Riggers only, yes selling anyone you want a chip with factory bartack patterns to do the said line work.

Selling sewing machines and associated parts to someone is one thing; them using the same said products either within their certificate privileges or outside is another.

It is just like PD selling anyone line sets to just anyone....

Also, I thought you where working under Moe.

Quote

I love the chip you sold me, but should I be sending it back for a refund ?!? Or does money trump principle ?

I think my principal stands!
If you want to send it back, go ahead.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[pchapman 261]

Sky_doggy

Could you point me towards the FAR that would direct us that a Master Rigger can only perform work on a non TSO'd item.

Of course you mean something different -- after all this argument does depend on the precise meaning of sentences!

There were a few interesting big debates on the topic in recent years on dz.com, which have included some of the riggers in this thread. But how best to search for the threads, I don't know...

It still comes out to the current language suggesting that a rigger is required to do any work on mains that affects airworthiness. That's the simple answer. But as you've seen here, it can then be argued whether that term is intended to be applied to non-certified equipment.

[Sky_doggy 0]

Quote

It still comes out to the current language suggesting that a rigger is required to do any work on mains that affects airworthiness. That's the simple answer. But as you've seen here, it can then be argued whether that term is intended to be applied to non-certified equipment.

Well my curiosity led me to FAR Part 65 Sec. "65.111 — Certificate required."


(c) No person may maintain or alter any main parachute of a dual-parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping in connection with civil aircraft of the United States unless that person—

(1) Has an appropriate current certificate issued under this subpart; or

(2) Is under the supervision of a current certificated parachute rigger;


I do not have any legal expertise but the words "maintain or alter" would lead to me to conclude that work on a main parachute needs to be done by an appropriately certified rigger.

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Well my curiosity led me to FAR Part 65 Sec. "65.111 — Certificate required."


(c) No person may maintain or alter any main parachute of a dual-parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping in connection with civil aircraft of the United States unless that person—

(1) Has an appropriate current certificate issued under this subpart; or

(2) Is under the supervision of a current certificated parachute rigger;


I do not have any legal expertise but the words "maintain or alter" would lead to me to conclude that work on a main parachute needs to be done by an appropriately certified rigger.

If you download Part 65 from the FAA website, you will note that the language that you posted has been removed.

On May 09, 2001, the regulations had some changes made to them.
This was to allow:
1. Tandem instructors to pack the main parachute for both themselves and the tandem passenger.

2. Riggers to supervise main pack jobs for anyone. Before this change,the rule was that the main had to be packed by the person jumping it next or a certified rigger

The language of the rule got skewed and the result was that it took a long time to get it fixed. The word "alter" was removed along with a couple of other little changes.

The attached document is the addendum Pre-Amble to 65.111.
It basically reads that:

1.You need to be a rigger to maintain parachutes

2.You need to be appropriated rated to do the work at hand.
(Senior for minor repairs, Master for both minor and major repairs, alterations, and modifications as per Part 65)


....and (for Jerry), it did come though the federal legal system.


Cheers,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[DiverMike 5]

Thanks for finding that. It certainly makes the FAA position clear as stated in the last paragraph:

Quote

This rule clarifies that the FAA requires that a person must hold an appropriate current parachute rigger certificate or be under the supervision of an appropriate current certificated rigger to maintain or alter main parachutes.

We can argue all day about what 'airworthy' means, but I don't think anyone can take the stance that replacing worn out lines is not a maintenance function.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[mark 102]

DiverMike

Thanks for finding that. It certainly makes the FAA position clear as stated in the last paragraph:

Quote

This rule clarifies that the FAA requires that a person must hold an appropriate current parachute rigger certificate or be under the supervision of an appropriate current certificated rigger to maintain or alter main parachutes.

We can argue all day about what 'airworthy' means, but I don't think anyone can take the stance that replacing worn out lines is not a maintenance function.

The revision of 65.111 puts it in conflict with 65.125(c) which specifically exempts riggers from the requirement to be current when working on main parachutes. We can argue about whether currency is a good thing, but we should be alarmed when the FAA substantively changes a regulation without going through the normal rule-making process.

Mark

[uberchris 0]

Sky_doggy

Quote

Every fingertrap, bartack, and cut is a chance to screw up the line because fingertraps have a way of stretching as the line tightens, and bartacks have a way of shrinking the line as you ley them down. Even if you're only off by the slightest fraction of an inch, multiply that by 250 and have a pretty fucked up line set.

I send my canopy in to PD. I have yet to have a line related problem and I'm on my 4th lineset on my Velo with 400-500 jump in between changes. It's less than a buck-a-jump, and that includes an inspection and factory repairs on any problems they find.

Dave,

I have watched all of the PD video's on line types and I am slightly smarter on this topic than I used to be. As I understand it, high performance and /or highly loaded canopies have little margin for error, LeBlanc talks about less than 1/4".

For stuff that I fly my guess is that I could mess it up a bit and it would be fine, although if I assign a value to my time to make a line set then paying the professionals $300 would be cheaper every time.
For me, if I was ever to do this it would be to learn something new and I guess its hard to assign a value to knowledge.

As a general question, if I wanted to how to make finger traps, is this 6 pack or beer and couple of hours with a rigger, or is there other sources of documentation?

Cheers

http://books.google.com/books?id=LtpdPY9ZUXUC&pg=SA7-PA33&lpg=SA7-PA33&dq=how+to+finger+trap+a+line&source=bl&ots=GdP8002bfR&sig=HHWNKzo2eS4qx7BG7z7R3LVB_XA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=opqWUfO5I6eAiwLB04HADA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=how%20to%20finger%20trap%20a%20line&f=false

also youtube. its super easy to fingertrap. i made my own tool and fingertrap lots of shit for BASE, ie closing loops, tailgates etc.

this whole discussion has me OBSESSED with taking this on as a test project. i am going to work directly with my rigger and make a lineset from scratch and see how well i do........

gravity brings me down.........

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

The revision of 65.111 puts it in conflict with 65.125(c) which specifically exempts riggers from the requirement to be current when working on main parachutes.

I looked at it closely and see no conflict.

Quote

We can argue about whether currency is a good thing, but we should be alarmed when the FAA substantively changes a regulation without going through the normal rule-making process.

It was not a rule change; it was a correction.
The original rule (before May 09,2001) reflected the same intent as the now current version. They simply corrected the mistake of the language in the 2001 version.


MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[mark 102]

masterrigger1

Quote

The revision of 65.111 puts it in conflict with 65.125(c) which specifically exempts riggers from the requirement to be current when working on main parachutes.

I looked at it closely and see no conflict.

Here's my reasoning:

First, 65.125(c). "A certificated parachute rigger need not comply with Secs. 65.127 through 65.133 (relating to facilities, equipment, performance standards, records, recent experience, and seal) in packing, maintaining, or altering (if authorized) the main parachute of a dual parachute pack to be used for intentional jumping."

The performance standards a rigger need not comply with are in 65.129. One of those performance standards is currency, 65.129(f). In other words, a rigger need not be current to pack, supervise packing, or maintain a main parachute.

At least that was the case until Thursday 3 June 2010 when 65.111 was changed to purportedly require a rigger to be current when working on main parachutes.. No previous version of 65.111 included the word "current."

Quote

***We can argue about whether currency is a good thing, but we should be alarmed when the FAA substantively changes a regulation without going through the normal rule-making process.

It was not a rule change; it was a correction.
The original rule (before May 09,2001) reflected the same intent as the now current version. They simply corrected the mistake of the language in the 2001 version.

MEL

The mistake that was appropriately corrected was one that allowed the next user to maintain and alter a main parachute.

As I point out above, there was also a de facto rule change as well.

Mark

[BigMark 1]

You guys could have relined my canopy by now!

[Quagmirian 40]

As far as I am concerned, the main canopy is not a TSO'd item, so as long as you do a good enough job to fool people at your DZ into thinking a proper rigger did the reline, it's 'airworthy'.

[billvon 2,379]

>No, what you actually have is 250 chances to screw it up (at a minimum). Every
>fingertrap, bartack, and cut is a chance to screw up the line because fingertraps
>have a way of stretching as the line tightens, and bartacks have a way of
>shrinking the line as you ley them down. Even if you're only off by the slightest
>fraction of an inch, multiply that by 250 and have a pretty fucked up line set.

That's true of commercial line sets as well. You have to fingertrap and bartack ~30 lines. In general if you are good enough to do that reliably you're good enough to do 250 reliably.

(Of course if you can't do that reliably you probably shouldn't be doing relines at all, kit or no.)

[gowlerk 1,901]

There's nothing quite like reading a guy who's screen name is Masterrigger telling everyone that the regs say only he can do something that quite obviously anyone can do. Even as other highly qualified riggers try to tell him he is wrong. A little like having Pat Robertson interpret the Bible for you.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[theonlyski 3]

voilsb

Quote

So do you think following the FAA regulations would be a good reason?
MEL

Are those regulations being followed if a Master Rigger signs off on his work?

Where exactly would the master rigger 'sign off' the work?

For what it's worth, re-lining canopies isn't rocket surgery, neither are simple repairs. I'm not saying everyone should be replacing ribs in their mains, but realistically, who would know?

"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

[masterrigger1 2]

There's nothing quite like reading a guy who's screen name is Masterrigger telling everyone that the regs say only he can do something that quite obviously anyone can do. Even as other highly qualified riggers try to tell him he is wrong. A little like having Pat Robertson interpret the Bible for you.
***

Ken,
First is it is not something only I can do.

Second, the other "qualified" riggers ar the ones that are wrong.
Obviously you can't read!

Third, you are Canadian and your vote doesn't really count

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[gowlerk 1,901]

Quote

Third, you are Canadian and your vote doesn't really count

Ok, you got me there. Also I must admit that DPREs debating the meaning of the Regs is so dry that I haven't really read the thread and for all I know you could be correct. So could Pat Robertson as far as I know. I've never read the bible either.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[dpreguy 14]

Mel is right

[Dutton 0]

Let's say I was a jumpsuit manufacturer who realized that I had all the equipment and skill necessary to sew up a main parachute, but I wasn't a rigger. I could legally build them and sell them.

But the user would not be able to get them relined by anyone other than a Master Parachute Rigger certificate holder.

I, the manufacturer, couldn't even repair my own product.


I wonder if that ever happened.

[gowlerk 1,901]

Quote

But the user would not be able to get them relined by anyone other than a Master Parachute Rigger certificate holder.

After reading some more this is not quite correct. As a jumpsuit/canopy manufacturer you would need only a senior rigger rating to maintain your product. And that makes perfect sense. (not)

In reality it does make sense that people maintaining canopies have qualifications. What does not make sense is that main parachutes sold to the public don't need to meet any standards of design, manufacture, or testing. Instead we rely on the reputation of the product in the open marketplace. If you sell Novas you will need to change your name to recover your business.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.