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

[JerryBaumchen 1,068]

Hi Deyan,

Quote

if the feds step out of regulating the parachuting in the US

I suppose that depends upon how one defines 'parachuting?'

'Parachuting' to me is quite similar to flying. I do want them to continue to regulate the actual act of jumping; as chaos would reign down ( no pun intended ).

I just would prefer that they not regulate parachutes.

Actually, IMO they do not really regulate parachutes; they just muddy up the waters. It is difficult to regulate something that you do not understand.

Jerry Baumchen

[riggerrob 561]

ALL HANDS TO PANC STATIONS111

Figure 2-4 is incorrectly captioned. The caption should red "Locking eye has ben pulled below the steering guide ring."

Hah!
Hah!

Seriously folks, much of the above argument sound trivial. Both Sandy Reid and Eric Fradet asked me to proof-read their manuals before they published. If any of you have the patience to proof a 600-paggge manual - in French - I will take your criticisms more seriously.

As for manufacturers defining minor versus major repairs .... they sewed the parachute to begin with and know more about stitch patterns and manufacturing tolerances than the next hundred field riggers. Not all of those tolerances are apparent at first glance.

Page 7-8 starts with a simple quote from the FARS, then John Sherman muddied the waters.

May I suggest an alternative: invented in Canada?
Non-riggers can anything they want with mains, but most POPS are bright enough to limit their "assembly" procedures to assembling main components (pilot-chute, d-bag, etc.). The brighter POPS then ask a rigger to "look it over" before they jump it.

Canadian Rigger As are allowed to assemble components up to the screw-driver level and do simple hand-stitching (e.g. replacing hand-tacking on ripcord housings).

The CSPA Rigger A1 course introduces riggers to sewing machines and simple canopy patches.

The Rigger A2 course teaches more complex repairs.

Rigger Bs are qualified to the same level of major repairs as American Master Riggers. Only Rigger Bs are allowed to repair harnesses.

[riggerrob 561]

Gerry,

Would you be happier if the FAA adopted Transport Canada's attitude?
TC closely regulates all the commercial airplanes that haul skydivers in Canada.
TC issues "Special Operating Certificates" to commercial skydiving operations.
TC totally ignores the parachutes because they trust CSPA-rated riggers to maintain them well enough that the fatality rate remains low.
Nav Canada sells air traffic control services to Canadian jump planes. NC defines when and where people can jump in Canadian airspace.

[councilman24 36]

riggerrob

ALL HANDS TO PANC STATIONS111

Figure 2-4 is incorrectly captioned. The caption should red "Locking eye has ben pulled below the steering guide ring."

Hah!
Hah!

Seriously folks, much of the above argument sound trivial. Both Sandy Reid and Eric Fradet asked me to proof-read their manuals before they published. If any of you have the patience to proof a 600-paggge manual - in French - I will take your criticisms more seriously.

As for manufacturers defining minor versus major repairs .... they sewed the parachute to begin with and know more about stitch patterns and manufacturing tolerances than the next hundred field riggers. Not all of those tolerances are apparent at first glance.

Page 7-8 starts with a simple quote from the FARS, then John Sherman muddied the waters.

May I suggest an alternative: invented in Canada?
Non-riggers can anything they want with mains, but most POPS are bright enough to limit their "assembly" procedures to assembling main components (pilot-chute, d-bag, etc.). The brighter POPS then ask a rigger to "look it over" before they jump it.

Canadian Rigger As are allowed to assemble components up to the screw-driver level and do simple hand-stitching (e.g. replacing hand-tacking on ripcord housings).

The CSPA Rigger A1 course introduces riggers to sewing machines and simple canopy patches.

The Rigger A2 course teaches more complex repairs.

Rigger Bs are qualified to the same level of major repairs as American Master Riggers. Only Rigger Bs are allowed to repair harnesses.

Rob, where is Eric's manual available' Yes I know.it's in French.

Remind me how many people.can teach.the rigging.courses in canada?

I tried to have rigging.committee write an.alternative rigger.certification.system.to be ready when.the FAA is ready.to change, as well as be a model.for coutries that needed one. When I lost the chairman ship that effort ended.

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

[skytribe 16]

Canada or the UK are better approaches than what is in place at the moment in the US. We can all point out the flaws in the system but its much more difficult to come up with solutions.

I don't think the USPA would be much better for riggers. Sure they know a bit about parachutes but they rarely do any enforcement for instructor or BSR violations and would start charging you an annual fee for nothing.

Perhaps PIA would be a better route for parachute rigger certification ? but who would want to establish the regulations and have to deal with much of the politics that seem to go on.

[JerryBaumchen 1,068]

Hi Terry,

Quote

I tried to have rigging.committee write an.alternative rigger.certification.system.to be ready when.the FAA is ready.to change

I, for sure, know that we are all busy, but have you considered forming an Ad Hoc committee outside of PIA to develop this? It could then be submitted to the FAA as a proposal. Alternately, you could try to have your CongressCritter and/or two US Senators submit it to the FAA. These things have been done in the past; albeit with limited success.

I have reached the conclusion that the only way we will ever get any changes will be through some grass roots effort; the FAA ( IMO ) sees no need to change much of anything.

Just some thoughts,

Jerry Baumchen

[pchapman 262]

councilman24

Rob, where is Eric's manual available' Yes I know.it's in French.

I found it again easily by googling 'eric fradet rigging manual' and picking the first frenchy result.

Which happens to be
http://www.ffp.asso.fr/materiel/manuel-du-materiel/


Half a dozen pdfs are available there.

(He even took some stuff off dropzone.com!)

[mark 104]

councilman24

I tried to have rigging committee write an alternative rigger certification system to be ready when the FAA is ready to change, as well as be a model for countries that needed one. When I lost the chairmanship that effort ended.

Not exactly. There were at least two meetings where we discussed possible models, but there was not a consensus on content. There was at least one complete proposal brought forward, and I can revive it again at the next meeting.

There are several issues that need to be resolved:

1. Do we want a universal rigger certification system that would be accepted in the US as well as other countries? Is the FAA likely to accept such a system, and if not, would other countries adopt FAA standards? Who would be responsible for oversight? I think this is the most difficult issue, since even within the EU there is no standardization.

2. Do we want to add another certificate, "Rigger", to rank just below a Senior Rigger, and authorized just to pack mains without supervision (or, Canadian-style, to also pack reserves and do repairs not requiring a sewing machine)? What is the likelihood the FAA will be willing to develop the certification standards and tests required for such a rating? What is the likelihood the FAA would allow USPA or PIA to administer a national or local program, and where would the funds come from?

3. What should the ratings be? Currently, the ratings are: back, seat, chest, and lap. Should there be no ratings? A rating for ram-air and a different rating for round? A rating for sport and a different rating for pilot emergency rigs? If a sport rating, should there be a separate rating for tandem? Should there be a requirement for type-specific training, so, for example, if all you've packed is Vectors you'd need supplemental training to pack a Javelin?

4. What provision, if any, should be made for periodic recertification?

5. Should the FAA ditch the whole rigger certification business altogether? If the FAA is not in the rigger business, then it is even less in the skydiving business, which means we would fall further outside the FAA's mandate to promote aviation. What happens to airport and airspace access and other benefits of having the FAA on our side?

Right now we have an imperfect system, funded mostly by Other People's Money, Other People being mostly the non-skydiving, non-rigging public.

-Mark

[councilman24 36]

Mark, things happened before you became active in PIA.

The former APF rigging head in australia whose name escapes (Dave Smith I believe) be was working on this as a subcommittee years ago. When he couldn't make it I ran the discussion. We had a working outline for the first part and were doing it as a committee with world wide participation at the PIA meeting before the symposium. I don't recall you being at these meetings where we were working on it.

This is before the events your referring to.

We were NOT trying to propose something to the FAA. We were writing a generic model for other countries to use INSTEAD of the FAA's model. Then when and if the FAA became interested it would be ready.

Your right, there is no consensus and probably not work trying to form one for the U.S. at this time. No one has the resources to take on rigger certification, IMHO.

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

[councilman24 36]

I googled the same thing and got nothing. But you were googling from Canada I expect.

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

[riggerrob 561]

.....
1. Do we want a universal rigger certification system that would be accepted in the US as well as other countries? Is the FAA likely to accept such a system, and if not, would other countries adopt FAA standards? Who would be responsible for oversight? I think this is the most difficult issue, since even within the EU there is no standardization.
.......................................................................

Sadly, the FAA is unlikely to accept any system not invented in the USA. For example, look at (CSPA past president) Harro Trempaneau's attempt (circa 2000) the standardize sport parachuting licenses. CSPA adopted Harro's suggestions straight up, but USPA made just enough changes to confuse skydiving tourists. I saw those petty changes as old men (USPA Board of Directors)protecting their privileges.

The EU tried to find common ground for rigger ratings, but "too many old men jealously guarded their privileges." Eric Fradet told me that, but we must understand that Eric is a far better parachutist than politician.
On a similar note, I clashed with CSPA's old technical committee because I was tired of teaching to an old exam that was more about memorizing obscure numbers than modern rigging practices.
CSPA responded by nominating a new (TC) chair who dragged the Canadian rigger training program into this century. The new program is faaaaaaar more logical.

-Mark

[riggerrob 561]

......

There are several issues that need to be resolved:.........

2. Do we want to add another certificate, "Rigger", to rank just below a Senior Rigger, and authorized just to pack mains without supervision (or, Canadian-style, to also pack reserves and do repairs not requiring a sewing machine)? What is the likelihood the FAA will be willing to develop the certification standards and tests required for such a rating? ......

3. What should the ratings be? Currently, the ratings are: back, seat, chest, and lap. Should there be no ratings? A rating for ram-air and a different rating for round? A rating for sport and a different rating for pilot emergency rigs? If a sport rating, should there be a separate rating for tandem? Should there be a requirement for type-specific training, so, for example, if all you've packed is Vectors you'd need supplemental training to pack a Javelin?
...............................................................

5. Should the FAA ditch the whole rigger certification business altogether? .....

Right now we have an imperfect system .......

-Mark

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

Dear Mark,
Your suggestions mirror Canadian experiences.

2. CSPA currently issues "main packing endorsement", Rigger A, Rigger A1, Rigger and Rigger B (Master) ratings.
"Main packing endorsement" is a pre-level to earning a A Certificate of Proficiency (similar to USPA A License).
Rigger A can do most simple rigging tasks (e.g. Assemble, inspect and pack reserve) short of sewing machines.
The Canadian Rigger A1 course includes introduction to sewing machines and simple patches.

3. The original reason for issuing separate back, seat, chest and lap ratings was because of all the complex hand-tacking required on military-surplus seat packs. Thankfully, modern seat packs (Butler, Softie and Strong) have replaced 90 percent of those hand-tacks with Velcro.

Back around the turn of the century, CSPA revised its system by dividing equipment into the following categories: round canopy, square canopy, 1-pin sport container, 2-pin sport, Pop-Top, chest and pilot emergency parachute containers.
The chest category was retained primarily for historical interest because chest packs are so rare .....

5. Transport Canada has never regulated parachute riggers. Pre-skydiving, all Canadian riggers were trained by the military. As skydiving increased in popularity, sport riggers gained skills far faster than gov't bureaucrats could keep up, so that today skydiving fatality rates are so low that TC can cheerfully ignore parachutes.
Sounds like the FAA would cheerfully drop regulating parachute riggers if it did require an act of Congress.

[riggerrob 561]

Remind me how many people.can teach.the rigging.courses in Canada?

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

CSPA's website only lists 4 current rigger instructors, but at least one of them is fully-employed teaching riggers how to maintain parachutes built by Airborne Systems, so he has not taught a sport rigger in years.

[riggerrob 561]

You nit-pickerswill be happy to know that I found a typographical error on page 2-15.
Page 2-15 talks about free-bag bridles "2 feet wide."

I suspect that John Sherman meant to say "2 or 3 INCHES wide."
Tee!
Hee!

Please resume the flaming .....

[councilman24 36]

Sherman's latest innovation!

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