masterrigger1 2 #51 February 6, 2015 Quote masterrigger1 wrote: From 8300.16 . . . 8300.16 deals with aircraft major repair and major alteration approval. See the decision tree in Figure 3-1, which references Parts 21 and 43, both aircraft regulations. Yep and it also the format used for parachutes (appliances). I just used that approval method about two weeks ago. 8300.16 is the old AC 43-210 and old 8300.10 combined. http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac43-210.pdf They both still reference the 337 form, but you do not have to use it 99% of the time. Quote From Legal Clarification dated Sept.24,2001,page 8 Inadequate citation. What legal clarification? Yep I left some stuff out of there. I can't find it right now as I am in the shop and not at home were I was this AM. Quote Finally, with respect to the attachment regarding Mr. Collins' request for legal interpretation, it refers to AC 43-13-2B, which contains some specific FAA-approved alteration procedures for aircraft. Not parachutes. Again, This is also the format that is used for parachute alteration approvals now. In paragraph 13A and B of Chapter 13 (8030.10 - Approval of Parachute Alterations), there is some info for you there. MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skytribe 16 #52 February 6, 2015 You have read the regulations (many of which are out of date and contradictory as you have already agreed) and have formed an opinion. BUT are you a lawyer and understand how these bits are pieced together in a legal manner OR are you just forming a personal opinion based upon your interpretation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #53 February 6, 2015 masterrigger1 liberal For those who are not familiar with US politics, a "liberal" is someone who tries to achieve with government coercion because he or she cannot compete in the marketplace. Oddly enough, that also applies to "conservative." Just depends on whose ox is getting gored. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #54 February 6, 2015 masterrigger1 I hope not either. But if you follow the regs (and not some fairy tale AC) and have conservative instead of possible liberal views of the regs you would be just fine. ....or better yet just get a master's certificate and problem solved. MEL I disagree. A master rigger can be sued just as fast as a senior rigger. And since you have chosen to publicly discredit the Parachute Handbook, Manufacturer's documents, and Poynter for being "flawed" - when you get sued, you will have no "gold standard" to refer back to, to explain to the jury why you repaired something the way you did. And, if a container manufacturer can lose a lawsuit because the reserve stalled after their container successfully opened it, even in a less than ideal situation - you have risk to. My point - it is in my opinion, dangerous for us to discredit the only and best documents we have to follow. FARs are just one of many. More than one lawyer has advised me that when there are two documents published by the same authority, the document that is most specific, as long as it is not in conflict with a newer or higher ranking document, shall prevail. So while 65.111 says: Quote(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 It is not as specific as section 7.1.9 of the Parachute Handbook: QuoteAUTHORIZED REPAIRMEN: FAA Senior or Master Parachute Rigger I believe the FAA is specifically, and with detail, authorizing a senior rigger to perform the steps in section 7.1.9. Now, I understand you believe differently. Just for the record, I don't rig a lot, so personally I hold no skin in the game. I was trained by a Master Rigger to do linesets, and every lineset replacement has been inspected by a Master Rigger just to cover my ass... Do I feel it was necessary? No. Do I have multiple emails from lawyers who are industry aware and master riggers as counter arguments to you I kept on file. Yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #55 February 6, 2015 Quote BUT are you a lawyer and understand how these bits are pieced together in a legal manner OR are you just forming a personal opinion based upon your interpretation. Lawyers have opinions like anyone else. I am not a lawyer, but I do understand how they are pieced together in a legal manner though. Mostly through dealing with AFS-100 which is the FAA Legal department. MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #56 February 6, 2015 masterrigger1 Lawyers have opinions like anyone else. I am not a lawyer, but I do understand how they are pieced together in a legal manner though. Mostly through dealing with AFS-100 which is the FAA Legal department. MEL I am personally not afraid of the FAA. I am afraid of personal injury attorneys. I would spend a lot more time making sure we leverage the documents the FAA gives us to help us in those cases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #57 February 6, 2015 Quote I disagree. A master rigger can be sued just as fast as a senior rigger. Really? Alot of senior riggers will do work that is considered outside of their certificate privileges, at least from what I see. A master rigger will not have that worry. Quote More than one lawyer has advised me that when there are two documents published by the same authority, the document that is most specific, as long as it is not in conflict with a newer or higher ranking document, shall prevail. If the documents hold the same weight yes, you are correct. But in this case the regs outweigh the other stuff everytime. Ask your lawyers about that. MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #58 February 6, 2015 masterrigger1 If the documents hold the same weight yes, you are correct. But in this case the regs outweigh the other stuff everytime. Ask your lawyers about that. MEL I did ;-). Difference in opinions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skytribe 16 #59 February 6, 2015 Quote *** BUT are you a lawyer and understand how these bits are pieced together in a legal manner OR are you just forming a personal opinion based upon your interpretation. Lawyers have opinions like anyone else. I am not a lawyer, but I do understand how they are pieced together in a legal manner though. Mostly through dealing with AFS-100 which is the FAA Legal department. So the answer to the question is NO, you are not a lawyer but are interpreting the matter through your dealings with the FAA legal department. And we have already established the FAA have very little know very little interest or current knowledge of modern skydiving equipment. Your argument appears to center on the legal liabilities aspect of what is permitted in the regulations/documents so perhaps an aviation lawyer may be the person to give a reasonable reasoning. Person Injury lawyers will attempt to sue for anything, even with liability waivers. Perhaps the FAA and the manufacturers should review he information that they are putting out there that is obviously contradictory. If they did that then perhaps this would clarify what is and isn't acceptable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,046 #60 February 6, 2015 Hi tribe, I am 'replying' to your posting only because it is the last in this thread. I have said it before & I will probably say it until I die: We should get the FAA completely out of the business of regulating parachutes. I have no problem with the FAA regulating aviation as to airplanes, etc. The FAA is an agency that is charged with regulating an industry that they have little to no knowledge of. I know of no other federal agency that is similar to this. Jerry Baumchen PS) And I know at least two major rig mfrs that have said that they wished the FAA would just go away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #61 February 6, 2015 Quote So the answer to the question is NO, you are not a lawyer but are interpreting the matter through your dealings with the FAA legal department. QuoteI am not a lawyer, I thought I covered that. Quote Perhaps the FAA and the manufacturers should review he information that they are putting out there that is obviously contradictory. If they did that then perhaps this would clarify what is and isn't acceptable. We are already on it. MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skytribe 16 #62 February 6, 2015 Jerry Completely agree with you more that the FAA is not the agency to regulate parachute equipment. Not in its current form with a complete lack of focus on parachutes. Having some agency with a virtual disinterest allows more free reign on the manufacturers, having some agency that is more interested may result in more focus an attention to what they are doing. Be careful what you wish for.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #63 February 6, 2015 ... like the rather infamous case where Poynter and another skydiver both were expert witnesses in a case where a lady stalled a reserve, known to fly poorly (both the skydiver and reserve brand) and sued the container manufacturer. ......................................................................................... The rigging business is radically different from the legal business. First, during any transaction between a professional rigger and an amateur skydiver, the onus is always on the rigger to keep the transaction honest, legal, etc. OTOH all dealings with lawyers are "caveat emptor." Secondly, no lawyer ever tells more than half the truth in court. Further, he coaches his "expert witnesses" to only tell enough of the truth to support his side of the debate. Finally, lawyers do not care who is a fault/guilty. Lawyers only care who has the deepest pockets. In the aforementioned case, lawyers believed that the container manufacturer had the deeper pockets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hackish 8 #64 February 7, 2015 masterrigger1Quote I disagree. A master rigger can be sued just as fast as a senior rigger. Really? Alot of senior riggers will do work that is considered outside of their certificate privileges, at least from what I see. A master rigger will not have that worry. I think in fact this is the point of this discussion. There are opinions and then there is the list of rules published by the FAA as to what each rigger can do. I find it difficult to reconcile that in the face of very specific language one could still claim that some of these repairs described are outside the ticket. I'm not a lawyer or even a professional rigger. I just maintain and repack gear as a part time gig out of personal enjoyment. I will be happy to pack 100 skydiver rigs this year. I just want to understand the rules to avoid running afoul. -Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #65 February 7, 2015 ***You have read the regulations (many of which are out of date and contradictory as you have already agreed) and have formed an opinion. ..................................................................................... Most of the regulations were written long before (try 1948) long before skydiving was a serious sport. Most of the Federal Air Regulations only mention parachutes as pilot emergency parachutes and most of those FARs were adapted from military parachute standards. Since skydiving represents less than 1 percent of their business, the FAA is just happy that skydivers do not interfere with scheduled airlines. Unfortunately, the FAA is saddled with a bunch of outdated FARs which force them to regulate skydiving equipment. The FAA cares even less about repairs to main parachutes. The bottom line is that the FAA will continue to ignore skydivers as long as skydivers keep the fatality rate low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #66 February 7, 2015 How about the European approach where the government regulates pilot emergency parachutes, but allows national sporting bodies to regulate skydiving equipment? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #67 February 7, 2015 Frankly I don't want USPA anywhere near it. Not that the FAA has done a lot better but at least the inspectors aren't political and trying to please a BOD. I do think the APF and BPA do a good job.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deyan 31 #68 February 7, 2015 Which European countries you are referring to?"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #69 February 7, 2015 DeyanWhich European countries you are referring to?StrikelandFrance maybe ? It is a messscissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deyan 31 #70 February 7, 2015 I think that skydiving gear in France is government regulated. I could be wrong"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #71 February 7, 2015 DeyanI think that skydiving gear in France is government regulated. I could be wrongskydiving gear depends on the federation/ ministry of sports. Bailout rigs depend on ministry of transportationscissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #72 February 8, 2015 masterrigger1Quote negative. It States : Quote: Who can do this work: Qualified Senior Rigger, Master Rigger or Foreign equivalent Thanks, I missed it. So there you have it. Directions from a manufacturer telling a senior rigger that he can legally do master rigger work. No where in Part 65 Rigging) allows a manufacturer to do that. MEL ...................................................................................... I disagree with your interpretation. I read it as the manufacturer saying that the work is simple enough that it can be done by an FAA Senior Rigger. The work can also be done by a (more qualified) FAA Master Rigger or foreign equivalent. They mention "Master Rigger or foreign equivalent" because some bureaucrats get their panties all in a twist if all the "I"s are not dotted and all the "t"s are not crossed. We do agree that it is silly for Senior Riggers to do "Master" level "major repairs" or "alterations" without supervision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcordell 2 #73 February 8, 2015 masterrigger1 Thanks, I missed it. So there you have it. Directions from a manufacturer telling a senior rigger that he can legally do master rigger work. No where in Part 65 Rigging) allows a manufacturer to do that. MEL I also disagree with your assessment. The harness work is all done by the manufacturer and this is an accessory that is being added to the system. The only sewing required is to bind the backpad with E thread after creating the opening for the strap. Otherwise it is just an assembly of factory components. I'm sure you will say this is a modification, however I would disagree with that as well. When they changed the design from the factory and began mandating this retrofit it went from being a modification to an update with factory parts. This is no different than cutting the tip of the stiffener in an older wings and re-sewing the flap which a senior rigger can do. I would say the manufacturer is in a much more competent position to determine what is a major or minor repair on their own system than the FAA that doesn't particularly understand what we do.www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,046 #74 February 8, 2015 Hi Mike, QuoteI would say the manufacturer is in a much more competent position to determine what is a major or minor repair on their own system than the FAA that doesn't particularly understand what we do. And I would say that ONLY the mfr can make this determination. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #75 February 9, 2015 Quote I disagree with your interpretation. But it is not MY interpretation; it is the FAA's by their own definiton. That is the whole point. Here's their definition of a major repair: z. Major Repair. A repair that, if improperly done, might affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness, or is not done by accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that that procedure that I referenced is not elementary... The clencher is the alteration part; The FAA's own definition: B. Any change to the configuration, method of operation, or method of packing the main parachute, up to and including the main canopy attachment links or the male end of the quick release fittings, is a main pack alteration. Any main parachute alteration that affects the strength or operation of the auxiliary parachute, including the harness, must be regarded as an alteration of the auxiliary parachute and handled accordingly I think we can all agree that it is a change to the original configuration. So by the FAA's definition, (not my opinion) the listed procedure is a alteration. So what I was saying is that the manufacturer cannot grant higher certificate privileges to a senior rigger to accomplish this task. To be fair, the manufacturer or the person that wrote the procedure, probably did not know the regs well enough when it was written. MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
