0
Mbo5128

Hard openings

Recommended Posts

I agree with you. The fast deployment can be generated by the fact the slider is not put against the stoppers at the bagging time. Just before bagging the folded canopy, it's a good idea to "comb" the lines toward the canopy again just in case the slider has moved.
Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithbar

damn I've been misled all these years always heard the old s*** you can make your own main canopy duct tape garbage bags and dental floss if you want. :P as long as the reserve was packed and inspected by a rigger



You can.... Just you can't pay someone else to do it for you. You personally can jump with a garbage bag or bedsheet for a main, if you install it and jump it yourself. That's the catch.
I was that kid jumping out if his tree house with a bed sheet. My dad wouldn't let me use the ladder to try the roof...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexg3265

***damn I've been misled all these years always heard the old s*** you can make your own main canopy duct tape garbage bags and dental floss if you want. :P as long as the reserve was packed and inspected by a rigger



You can.... Just you can't pay someone else to do it for you. You personally can jump with a garbage bag or bedsheet for a main, if you install it and jump it yourself. That's the catch.

I don't think that's correct. As far as I know there are no FAR's regulating the manufacture and sale of main canopies.

Hey regulation hawks, is that correct?
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuckakers

As far as I know there are no FAR's regulating the manufacture and sale of main canopies.

. . . Is that correct?



Yes, you're right. Anyone can be a manufacturer of main canopies, main deployment bags, main pilot chutes, etc.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark

***As far as I know there are no FAR's regulating the manufacture and sale of main canopies.

. . . Is that correct?



Yes, you're right. Anyone can be a manufacturer of main canopies, main deployment bags, main pilot chutes, etc.

Mark
correct...you just can't modify it if someone else made it :S
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcordell

. . .you just can't modify it if someone else made it :S



We are lucky there is no 51% rule for parachutes the way there is for homebuilt aircraft. Nothing prevents you from manufacturing your own canopy from available subassemblies. You could, for example, manufacture a McOrdell-150 out of Stiletto-150 fabric (pre-sewn by PD) and a MEL line set.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark

***. . .you just can't modify it if someone else made it :S



We are lucky there is no 51% rule for parachutes the way there is for homebuilt aircraft. Nothing prevents you from manufacturing your own canopy from available subassemblies. You could, for example, manufacture a McOrdell-150 out of Stiletto-150 fabric (pre-sewn by PD) and a MEL line set.

Mark

Even better is the record requirements don't apply to modifications made to non certificated canopies, which means there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove that the work was done by a master rigger. "I can't remember his name now. He was recommended to me by a visiting jumper from Oregon. I spoke with him by phone and shipped the canopy to him but now I can't remember who he was."
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Nothing prevents you from manufacturing your own canopy from available subassemblies. You could, for example, manufacture a McOrdell-150 out of Stiletto-150 fabric (pre-sewn by PD) and a MEL line set.



Mark,
Can you enlighten us to exactly where you got that information?

I, on the hand hand, can show you that only a rigger can work on parachute equipment (main and reserve) and a non- rated owner can only do simply assembly necessary for transporting the equipment to and fro.

See attached.

Also, here is a previous thread.http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3876375;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

It really concerns me that you are one of our newer DPRE's and this information has been given to you several times before.

With that said,you are still preaching/teaching the opposite of the regulations that you are supposed to be testing an applicant with.......

MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterrigger1

Quote


Nothing prevents you from manufacturing your own canopy from available subassemblies. You could, for example, manufacture a McOrdell-150 out of Stiletto-150 fabric (pre-sewn by PD) and a MEL line set.



Mark,
Can you enlighten us to exactly where you got that information?

I, on the hand hand, can show you that only a rigger can work on parachute equipment (main and reserve) and a non- rated owner can only do simply assembly necessary for transporting the equipment to and fro.

See attached.

Also, here is a previous thread.http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3876375;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

It really concerns me that you are one of our newer DPRE's and this information has been given to you several times before.

With that said,you are still preaching/teaching the opposite of the regulations that you are supposed to be testing an applicant with.......

MEL



The manufacturer of a parachute is free to do what he likes to his product.

Is there a regulation preventing me from calling myself the manufacturer of my modified parachute?

What is a manufacturer? How does one become a manufacturer?

The document you linked says nothing about what a manufacturer can do, or what a manufacture is.

Mark doesn't contradict the document you linked. Mark is saying I can become the manufacturer, and then I can do what I want.

Are there any regs about becoming a manufacturer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This argument has been around forever. I might point out that there are some presidents for sub contractors.

As I recall Aerodyne used to have some of the sewing on their main canopies, original triathlons, AR-7, AR-11, done in south Africa. My understanding is that they had the envelope cut and sewn by PISA and completed the assembly of the canopy, building line sets, etc. here in the states. It was an Aerodyne canopy. Bill Hazlet and Aerodyne were the manufacturer not PISA. There are a number of manufacturers that subcontract components like risers. At times container manufacturers have subcontracted reserve pilot chutes. And that's TSO'd. Same with handles. I think Paraflite also did some subcontracting in south Africa again on their reserves. Again Paraflite was considered the manufacturer. Vertigo subcontracted PD, then Strong and later Precision to part of the work on their canopies and then "finished" the construction, ie. they sewed on logos and tail pockets and vertigo was considered the manufacturer not PD or strong or precision. How about the guy that sold kits so you could build your own nine cell canopy by taking your seven cell and using it as a base to sew two more cells onto.

So since there there is no certification, approval or authorization to build a main canopy What stops some one from building their own main and calling them selves the manufacturer? For that matter what stops some one from taking a subassembly like an envelope and building their own line set and "manufacturing" a main just like aerodyne did. But it's not a sabre any more it's a "Bob Special".

And then their is the argument that there are no airworthiness standards for mains. A major repair is some thing that could affect the airworthiness but since their is no standard there is no such thing as a major repair on a main. And if there were a standard then 80% of the mains are absolutely unairworthy. How many meet the requirements for decent rate and total speed. You want to talk about some of the malfunctions on mains? How about opening times? Structural? I saw a canopy open hard and blow half the HMA lines off the bottom of it.

In the end all of this is neither here nor there. It may have been a "miss print" as they say but it was really a better standard when the "Rules" were interpreted as saying that the FAA was keeping it's hands off the mains. To do other wise cripples the development of the sport.

And what business do they have in it? How bout this. My "main" is a part 103 unpowered ultralite vehicle. It meets all the requirements. And I can launch it any way I choose. I can ground launch it off a hill. I can aero tow it. And I say that I can fall out of an airplane and deploy it. You know by that logic we should be able to cut the labels off our tso'd gear and fly all of it under part 103. And there are presidents for things like that. As an example a hot air balloon is a certified aircraft. But you can decertify it and fly it tethered. They legally drop base jumpers that way. FAA has signed off on it.

Lee
Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The manufacturer of a parachute is free to do what he likes to his product.



Agreed; as long as it performs safely and was the work was done by an appropriately rated rigger or one under the direct supervision of same.

Quote


Is there a regulation preventing me from calling myself the manufacturer of my modified parachute?



Probably so since you did not manufacture it. But if you modified it, you need to be or be supervised by a Master Rigger while doing it.


Quote


The document you linked says nothing about what a manufacturer can do, or what a manufacture is.



It does state that you need to be a rigger to work on a parachute and at the same time have the appropriate rating for the type work being done.

Quote


Mark doesn't contradict the document you linked. Mark is saying I can become the manufacturer, and then I can do what I want.



First, let Mark speak for himself.
Also, if you are a master rigger then absolutely that statement would be true.
It would be false otherwise.
There is some mention (I am looking for the document...) that a manufacturer has to have a prototype plus 3 working,proven models in order to be considered a manufacturer.

Quote


Are there any regs about becoming a manufacturer?



That depends if you are talking TSO'd or Non-TSO'd.

TSO'd equipent has regulations in place.

Non-TSO'd equipment has a Order, but an Order is not a regulation just like an AC is not regulation.


MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterrigger1

Non-TSO'd equipment has a Order, but an Order is not a regulation just like an AC is not regulation.



Is it the "Order" that has this requirement?: "a manufacturer has to have a prototype plus 3 working, proven models in order to be considered a manufacturer."

If so, it would seem that a non-regulatory document provides a definition (of a manufacturer), which is then used in a regulatory document (FAR) specifying who can modify a non-TSOed parachute.

This is all rather confusing. Fortunately I have not been in the position where I had to interpret it that closely. But hey, we all hang out here to argue and then learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Mark,

OK, this old argument once again.

Under any TSO we have quantifiable performance standards, i.e., must open with three seconds. These are measurable & repeatable.

Quote

it performs safely



What does 'performs safely' mean? Is it quantifiable & measurable. I really doubt it.

And if Joe Jumper does do work on his own main and does not record it ( hey, he is not a rigger ), then who is to know. I have yet to meet any FAA employee who could tell me what was what when I showed them a B-12 snap & a ripcord handle. Apologies to John Mitchell.

And I accept that you & I disagree on this. And that is OK with me.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) IMO very strong opinion, this is where the PIA is doing everyone in this country a disservice. They should be petitioning the FAA to keep their hands/oversight off of non-certificated equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FAA did a ramp check at my DZ once, they really don't have any idea what to look for. They did ask for my reserve repack card, and then they only looked at the reserve repack card. The FAA never bother to check for rigger seal, nor to see if repack card matches the gear that I used on that jump.
Bernie Sanders for President 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

And if Joe Jumper does do work on his own main and does not record it ( hey, he is not a rigger ), then who is to know.



That's the thing that stands out to me most though is that even a master rigger is not required to maintain a record on what major repairs or alterations they do to a main so since the burden is on the FAA to prove it was done by someone who was not certificated and appropriately rated it truly is unenforceable...unless someone admitted to doing the modification directly to the FAA.
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RiggerLee: You mentioned in your post a guy that sold a kit to make a 9 cell out of a 7 cell. Did that actually happen? I was away from the sport for several years (32) and never heard of it. I had thought about that for my StratoStar several times after gaining a little extra ballast. Just curious. Thanks.

Jim D-4501
If you know how many guns you have - you don't have enough!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spooky52

RiggerLee: You mentioned in your post a guy that sold a kit to make a 9 cell out of a 7 cell. Did that actually happen? I was away from the sport for several years (32) and never heard of it. I had thought about that for my StratoStar several times after gaining a little extra ballast. Just curious. Thanks. Jim D-4501



I started jumping in 1981, and shortly after heard of people doing this, alhough I do not recall if it was a kit. I think it was the StratoStar that it was being done to, but I'm not sure. It was referred to as the "Added Attraction", as in, adding cells. As far as I know, it worked reasonably well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Gary,

Quote

I think it was the StratoStar that it was being done to



If my memory is still working OK, it was the StratoFlyer that he first developed this 'rework' for. The 'rework' for the StratoStar came later.

I don't know where he was located but a guy I knew had it done to a StratoFlyer; it 'sorta' helped. [:/]

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spooky52

RiggerLee: You mentioned in your post a guy that sold a kit to make a 9 cell out of a 7 cell. Did that actually happen? I was away from the sport for several years (32) and never heard of it. I had thought about that for my StratoStar several times after gaining a little extra ballast. Just curious. Thanks.

Jim D-4501



I converted a Strato-Star to 7 cells in the early 80s. The cost of the materials was about the same as a used Strato-Cloud, and the result packed and flew like a Strato-Cloud.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary,
Quote


Is it the "Order" that has this requirement?: "a manufacturer has to have a prototype plus 3 working, proven models in order to be considered a manufacturer."



No.
The Order is a National Policy (read guidelines here) that the FAA is using to allow Non-TSO'd products use instead of TSO'd and PMA parts and appliances.


MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Jerry,
Quote


OK, this old argument once again.



I saying it is not really an argument, but rather a misunderstanding by some and not wanting to come to terms with the rule by others.

The Preamble is pretty self explanatory and the rule is the rule so there is no argument on my side of things.

Quote


Under any TSO we have quantifiable performance standards, i.e., must open with three seconds. These are measurable & repeatable.

Quote:
it performs safely

What does 'performs safely' mean? Is it quantifiable & measurable. I really doubt it.



If you care to investigate this, I think you will find the words "No harm to the general public" in most of the FAA definitions.
That would be measurable and quantifiable would it not?

Of course that differs from my perspective or definition which is not going to the hospital or morgue after using said item.
I would venture to say that these are also measurable, quantifiable, and hopefully repeatable.

Quote


And if Joe Jumper does do work on his own main and does not record it ( hey, he is not a rigger ), then who is to know.



Hopefully not a jury.....
Seriously though, I dislike people that circumvent established rules for the most part.
IMHO, this sport does not need liberals or liberal-like rigging practices.
Concise and verbatim rigging practices are what we need to follow.

Quote


PS) IMO very strong opinion, this is where the PIA is doing everyone in this country a disservice. They should be petitioning the FAA to keep their hands/oversight off of non-certificated equipment.



IMO, PIA needs to worry more about the shotty equipment some of their members are putting into the field that are causing fatalities rather than politics.

...But then again politics is exactly why they are not doing anything about these things....

MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stayhigh

FAA did a ramp check at my DZ once, they really don't have any idea what to look for. They did ask for my reserve repack card, and then they only looked at the reserve repack card. The FAA never bother to check for rigger seal, nor to see if repack card matches the gear that I used on that jump.



My operation was ramp checked several times. In our case the fed knew exactly what he needed to see and was pretty well-versed in skydiving ops. Always checked a handful of cards and seals, and then focused on the pilot, the plane, and documents.

Our feds always enjoyed a ride in the right seat too.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
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.

0