0
JerryBaumchen

US TSO - ETSO - CAN TSO

Recommended Posts

So, this means that many new competitors can enter markets where they were not previously allowed, correct? And this should be an immediate change - any retailer can now sell these products in the US, and US mfgs can explore opportunities in other countries?

How might this affect foreign jumpers visiting the US or yanks going abroad. I realize that there were provisions to allow foreign gear to be used in the US for visitors, just wondering how this might change the details of how that works. For instance, a foreign jumper where the repack cycle was 1 year...

Also, do you think that mfgs might prefer getting approval from non-US authorities, as it might be less troublesome in terms of red-tape, or maybe the opposite is true?
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is signed by the EU officials it would solve some major problems regarding certification of new foreign parachute equipment here in Germany.
The so called 'Musterprüfstelle' is out of service since around 2011.

Right now jumping stuff like the valkyrie, Leia and other relatively new things is a bit of a problem insurencewise as they lack german certification.

obviously looking forward to the european approval but please keep the rest of the TTIP bullshit in the US, ok? :PB|

-------------------------------------------------------

To absent friends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe this is probably more geared towards aircraft parts than anything this, at least from the Canadian side of things. In Canada there are no Canadian TSO's for equipment. There was one manufacturer that was producing gear that had a TSO up until recently. The reset of the people that make gear are very small operations that are mainly do it for themselves. There is no worry on any part for parachute equipment at this point to be sold with CAN-TSO. That is not to say that won't change in the future but I doubt it would come anytime soon since a whole program would have to be put in place at Transport Canada. That being said, the FAA rules about FAA riggers packing TSO'd gear being jumped in the US, even if a Canadian is jumping it, would still apply. But considering that CSPA is the authority of Canadian rigger tickets and while knowing that this is the situation is continuing to push their programme as they have not had reports of USPA dropzones or the FAA checking and enforcing FAA regulations. This information is coming from the CSPA BoD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Jim,

Quote

more geared towards aircraft parts



I would expect that to be the case. But since parachutes fall under a TSO, they would have to be included.

Otherwise, you open a can of worms that no one could ever figure out.

It will be interesting to see how this all works out,

Jerry Baumchen

PS) Someone up thread mentioned something about the 1-yr repack cycle in other parts of the world. When it came down on how to pack a canopy in a container, the FAA said to use the container's packing procedures if different than the canopy packing procedures. I am of the opinion that this would be the best way to go. Let's say you have a US-made canopy in a European-certificated container; then use the rules & procedures for the container.

What do you folks out there think about this???????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was aware that the discussions were going on, I'm just shocked that what I previously thought was a big fat slow organization moved so fast.

In the past year there has been some major movement within TC and the FAA that caught me off guard. We have an updated rigger manual. New TSO stuff coming down the pipe. In Canada, new rules about diabetic pilots, list goes on. It's almost like some older folks retired and handed in their pagers.

I also understand there is some new direction being worked on about CSPA and FAA riggers that could allow a CSPA Rigger A1 to operate as an FAA Senior rigger in the USA.

I think it could be worthwhile to compile a good solid list of "conflicts" to look at and provide it to the FAA to see if they might come up with necessary guidance. IE repack cycle, foreign gear, etc etc etc.

-Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Michael ( once again ),

Quote

a big fat slow organization



From the linked FAQ's: 'For many years, industry has requested that FAA, TCCA, EASA each accept the exporting authority's TSO approval and eliminate their approval and issuance step as the importing authority.'

I'm thinking some private industry types went to their congress critters and said that they wanted the FAA to get off of their fat a$$e$ and get this done.

Just my $0.02 on this,

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What do you folks out there think about this???????



The PDR manual specifies one year repack cycle, or whatever the authorities in the country of use call for. I don't recall any other manuals, including container manuals, mentioning anything about repack or inspection times. They all seem to rely on regulations instead.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,
this will change nothing for sport and tandem parachutes because the EASA isn't in charge of these sport and tandem parachutes since 20006 when they denied to have them under their scope....They only care of emmergency parachutes.
Jérôme Bunker
Basik Air Concept
www.basik.fr
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

also understand there is some new direction being worked on about CSPA and FAA riggers that could allow a CSPA Rigger A1 to operate as an FAA Senior rigger in the USA.



The direction with CSPA once they actually found out what the regulations where was to get FAA recognition. They though that Transport Canada regulating CSPA riggers would accomplish this which is why the TSC approach TC without the BoD's approval and asked for regulation. Last year I provided the relevant information to CSPA and their stance has been different now. They believe that their program is superior to the FAA rigger rating. I heard they wanted to try and get recognition for their program but considering that their program is quite a bit different for the criteria I doubt that their will be an equivalency. Even if there is at some point, people will start to realize that the FAA rigger courses are far cheaper and are offend more than the CSPA courses. When people have more options and for cheaper prices, what do you think they will do? It is a no brainer. The new CSPA rigging program is designed to make the rigger instructors money and they have been trying to sell it repeatedly to the military but there isn't a lot of support for it and I doubt there will be for a variety of reasons.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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