New FAA Parachute Rigger Handbook FAA-H-8083-17A

[councilman24 36]

Being a DPRE doesn't get you any extra information. I just found the NEW revision of the FAA Parachute Rigger Handbook, dated August 2015, on line!

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/media/faa-h-8083-17.pdf

At one time, about 5 years ago, I was subcontracted to help write this. The principle contractor was a pain to work with so I cancelled our contract. Not sure ended up authoring this one. Anyone want to claim it? MEL, did you end up working on it or not? Mark? Everyone else I talked to either wasn't asked or refused like me.

It's already a three years out of date. It doesn't include TSO C23 f issued 9/2012.

Haven't looked at it in detail yet but at least one mistake seems to have been taken forward from the original.

Some old photos, lot of new ones. Interestingly it doesn't mention any electronic bartacker like a Juki 1900,A,or B. Only mechanical ones.

Let the reviews begin.

BTW it includes a couple of tools I've never seen before, a version of a ratchet closing tool I haven't seen (not Allen's, MEL's, or any other I've seen), and a VERY interesting discussion and flow chart of Major and Minor repair determination. Given this I don't think MEL wrote it, or mark.

in part
"...So, the person performing the maintenance as applies to
parachutes in the view of the FAA is the one who decides
if the repair or alteration is major or minor, and that person
could be a rigger, a repairman (who must be employed by
a manufacturer), or a person under the direct supervision
of an appropriately-rated and qualified rigger (person with
appropriate facilities, machines, tools, and materials).

The manufacturer can determine if a repair is major or minor
and delegate authority to rated riggers or lofts in the field
to perform repairs to their required standards and approved
data. The FAA or their representative can also determine
what category the task may be. Often, these authorizations
considered by manufacturers are a one-time only allowance
or limited to a specific certificated or an approved TSO piece
or type of equipment...."

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

[mark 102]

I wasn't asked; this is new to me.

-Mark

[councilman24 36]

We talked about this a few years ago. I knew you weren't in the first group approached. Didn't know if you ended up working on it after some of us dropped out because of the primary contractor. Johnny Malone let the contract at least 5 years ago.

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

[skytribe 16]

Looking at the changes in Pictures thee seems to be a lot more pictures of a Racer in there than I remember and a lot of additional pictures with Nancy in there, so I would probably suggest contacting her or John at Parachute Labs. they probably would be able to tell you a bit more about who was working on this.

[councilman24 36]

I noticed the same thing.

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Terry,

Quote

"...So, the person performing the maintenance as applies to parachutes in the view of the FAA is the one who decides if the repair or alteration is major or minor

If this is the case, then why have Senior and/or Master ratings?

Back in the day, the local FAA-guys felt that the major work of a Master Rigger was in training new riggers. Now that can be performed by a Senior Rigger.

Jerry Baumchen

[Unstable 8]

I found a lot of contradicting information in the last handbook - I thought it was funny how it stated time and time again to choose machines for your loft with reverse capability, but hardly any of the 'recommended' machines had reverse!

I agree, the Singer 269 series and Pfaff 3334-era machines need to go by the wayside, and more information regarding bartac dimensions would be appreciated. I see the 42stitch center-stop 2mx19mm appears to be a good starting point.

=========Shaun ==========

[RiggerLee 61]

Parachute labs is credited at the beginning of the book. Just glancing through it I see numerous places where Sherman has clearly inserted his opinions. It might be fun to start a game to see how many sherman issims we can pull out of it. I may have to print off a copy and go through it with a high lighter and see if I can mark all the things John inserted into the text. It's like a code. Read only the highlighted lines and it spells out a secret message... "BUY A RACER OR YOU WILL DIE...", "ONLY RACERS ARE SAFE..." I wonder what it will say if you read the unhighlighted, non Sherman, passages. Seriously, I think I'll start a thread of "Shermans". Now where's my high lighter...

For years now we've had the book of Sandy as the holy text. Are we really going to have to go through the next ten years under the book of Sherman?

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[jbscout2002 1]

I haven't seen previous versions of the Riggers Handbook, but I downloaded the August 2015 version and read it cover to cover. I was then going through the Senior Rigger study guide and noticed a couple small contradictions.

The one I can remember off the top of my head is cleaning petroleum based stains off of a container. The handbook says to use mild soap and water, whereas the right answer on the study guide is to apply an approved solvent. On that same question, the mild soap and water answer is one of the choices, but is not the correct answer.

[jbscout2002 1]

Page 6-6, hand tools: T-handle bodkin- used primarily for closing container systems that have external pilot chutes, such as the Jump Shack Racer. A minimum of two is needed for the tool kit.

[Unstable 8]

Quote

For years now we've had the book of Sandy as the holy text. Are we really going to have to go through the next ten years under the book of Sherman?

Good point! Now it has John Sherman inserted into the Sandy Reid Holy Text, maybe next revision we can get Bill Booth-isms. Then Pat Thomas can have a stab at it. Then By that point we may have a balanced text!

=========Shaun ==========

[riggerrob 558]

jbscout2002

Page 6-6, hand tools: T-handle bodkin- used primarily for closing container systems that have external pilot chutes, such as the Jump Shack Racer. A minimum of two is needed for the tool kit.

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

Steel, T-handled bodkins are obsolete if an electronic AAD is installed.

Far simpler (lower tool-count) to use Ghost-Loops ... available from Jump Shack or you can make your own with Cypres cord. I prefer to add a lump of scrap-iron (e.g. ring off a riser) to make my Ghost-Loops compatible with single-pin Pop-Tops (Reflex and Teardrop).

I also finger-trap my pull-up cords to the Ghost-Loop, again to
reduce parts count.

[Unstable 8]

Quote

Far simpler (lower tool-count) to use Ghost-Loops ... available from Jump Shack or you can make your own with Cypres cord. I prefer to add a lump of scrap-iron (e.g. ring off a riser) to make my Ghost-Loops compatible with single-pin Pop-Tops (Reflex and Teardrop).

What?! I think T-handles are great tools - I use them with my ghostloops to make closing a racer easier. I use those for all sorts of things. If you throw them in the scrap pile, send 'em my way!

=========Shaun ==========

[dpreguy 14]

The major/minor quoted section is just "wordsmithing".
Bunch of words that go nowhere. I didn't recall the major/minor discussion being in the first edition, but even if it is/was, it's appearance in a handbook is kind of gratuitous; as that issue is best left to the FAA's Advisory Circular process. '105 2E' etc.

[skytribe 16]

Perhaps if for each of the repairs - each of the major manufacturers state - major/minor/alteration then it would give a definitive answer on who can perform the repair.

Each manufacturer would therefore be able to clearly express their view on each repair on their equipment. This may avoid some of the individual rigger opinions.

For orphaned equipment it may be easy to justify a repair - if every other manufacturer stated "minor".

[councilman24 36]

They are not obsolete in packing Strong pilot rigs, or fishing a pull up cord back through a packed vector bag.

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

[councilman24 36]

dpreguy

The major/minor quoted section is just "wordsmithing".
Bunch of words that go nowhere. I didn't recall the major/minor discussion being in the first edition, but even if it is/was, it's appearance in a handbook is kind of gratuitous; as that issue is best left to the FAA's Advisory Circular process. '105 2E' etc.

One man for the most part wrote the rigging portion of AC105, a different man wrote section 7 of the new FAA rigger handbook. The discussion quoted above come crom the AC referenced and the language and clow chart come from the mechanics world. In the old version major and minor were major largely addressed in the RI SOP's included, again one author.

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

[skytribe 16]

Is this not a tiring discussion people keep stating its xxxx opinion on this document. The FAA are publishing this, do we really think no one in the FAA has looked at this and this is bad information and contradictory to FAA regulations.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi skytribe,

Quote

contradictory to FAA regulations.

I've been reading FAA documents since I started jumping, early '64. You would crap your pants if you ( or me ) actually knew how many FAA documents are contradictory. It is truly an agency wherein the left hand has no clue as to what the right hand is doing.



Jerry Baumchen

PS) And it is just not documents. Have a talk with two different FAA employees a couple of months apart and you will quite often find that you will get two completely different answers. It is just about the nuttiest federal agency that I have ever dealt with; and I worked for the feds for 30 yrs.

[councilman24 36]

skytribe

Is this not a tiring discussion people keep stating its xxxx opinion on this document. The FAA are publishing this, do we really think no one in the FAA has looked at this and this is bad information and contradictory to FAA regulations.

Yes!, no one at the FAA that deals with this is a rigger. At least when the contract was let. Some inspectors are senior backs from the forest service. A few have more ratings.

In 2011, last time I talked to them, no one at the FAA that wrote OR approved the rigger written test questions was a rigger.or had any experience with parachutes!

They contract for a manual, the contractor hires sub contractor subject matter experts. It does not go through FAA legal or any of the review processes.

I had long discussion today with.an FAA inspector about the things in order 8900.1, the instructions on how they are to do their job from FAA Washington, that directly contradict the FARs.

My inspector and I found several errors in the rating process in a few minutes.

Best example of not being reviewed? It doesn't include TSO C 23f even though it issuesd THREE years ago.

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

[skytribe 16]

So what's the real world solution to come up with regulations and documents that are not questionable.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi skytribe,

Quote

So what's the real world solution to come up with regulations and documents that are not questionable.

Oh, now you did it.

IMO get the FAA completely out of regulating parachutes.

OK, sorry; I know it is not 'the real world solution.' But, one can hope.

Jerry Baumchen

[skytribe 16]

Hi Jerry

I ask this as a legitimate question as we are constantly seeing people express difference of interpretation about what something means and who can do it.

Even when the manufacturer answers the question, people still argue that they can't make that determination. I see people disputing things because of who wrote the document.

At the end of the day, rather than being hyper critical of what someone has done - how about suggestion solutions that could be implemented.

Is this something that PIA could take responsibility for ? Or would the same arguments take place irrespective of who writes the rules.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi skytribe,

Quote

how about suggestion solutions that could be implemented.

1. The first would be training. I have been working with FAA personnel since the mid-60's. I have found that most simply do not understand parachutes; and they do not care to understand them. The problem is compounded because they try to bluff their way through the issue(s) at hand.

2. Change the culture. Most FAA people that I have had a chance to get to know admit that being involved with parachutes is a black mark on their resume'. It is not a path to career advancement. On this isssue, I cannot blame them.

3. Have a single office developed and issue all documents. By having these documents come from different offices is ( IMO ) how we get conflicting documents.

I have been fortunate to ( on occasion ) have worked with some very nice people employed by the FAA. When you can get them to take off their FAA hat and have a discussion, I have found that almost all of them really do not want anything to do with parachutes. A few have actually told me that they wish the FAA would get out of regulating parachutes.

For a few years ( before his retirement ), a guy named Don Riggin was the head of the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office. Don was probably the nicest FAA person I have ever met. He even told me once, in a letter, that they do not understand parachutes. And he apologized for that.

I could go on but I think this might be enough to start a discussion.

Jerry Baumchen

[Deyan 31]

JerryBaumchen

I could go on but I think this might be enough to start a discussion.
Jerry Baumchen

Just imagine how much easier the life would be if the feds step out of regulating the parachuting in the US

"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen