3 ring release handle

[highspeeddirt 0]

does the release handle get TSO'd?

[airgord 1]

No.

[councilman24 36]

But the MARD and RSL are (to make Jerry happy in TSO C23f)

There was a move the PCSC committee to make the cutaway system (main risers, three rings or other release, handle and housing) part of the latest TSO. After all failure of these components have caused deaths and the MARD and RSL are attached to the main risers. But I pointed out that then it would require a rigger to assemble main risers to the harness. And hook up an RSL or MARD connection at the riser. Only a rigger can assemble components and determine compatibility. The rest of the committee realized that while this might not be enforced it was a bad idea to make a rigger necessary legally.

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

[dorbie 0]

councilman24

realized that while this might not be enforced it was a bad idea to make a rigger necessary legally.

Or liable, remember the Sunpath fiasco over the removal of an RSL requiring a Master Rigger after the incident at Whitewright. Sunpath even had to modify their bulletin to allow the jumper to disconnect the snap-shackle and even then under limited circumstances.

On that note with such a TSO change the use of any non-original manufacturer risers would require a master rigger and paperwork right? e.g. canopy rentals on 3rd party risers. But perhaps the whole point was to prevent this mix & match.

You can bet that any lack of enforcement would not prevent a load of opportunistic finger pointing whenever there was an incident involving mismatched gear. With someone thrown under the bus as we saw happen before.

[Dokeman 0]

If Mards, and rsl's are tso'd, why is there no tso stamp on them? Cause ya know reserves, freebag and pc assembly's, and harness's have those....

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Terry,

Quote

But the MARD and RSL are.

As we both know: It depends

Rigs are now available on the open market that are built to a number of TSO standards; 'b' thru 'f'.

In the standard for C23(b) there is no mention of either an RSL or MARD.

As I continue to harp on, we all should be specific about which TSO standard that we are writing/posting about.

Jerry Baumchen

[riggerrob 558]

.. remember the Sunpath fiasco over the removal of an RSL requiring a Master Rigger after the incident at Whitewright. Sunpath even had to modify their bulletin to allow the jumper to disconnect the snap-shackle and even then under limited circumstances.

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

Thread drift .......
What was the original incident (Whitewright) that led to this confusing Service Bulletin?

[councilman24 36]

Dokeman

If Mards, and rsl's are tso'd, why is there no tso stamp on them? Cause ya know reserves, freebag and pc assembly's, and harness's have those....

Anything approved under TSO C23f will have Manuf., P/N, S/N, DOM and Date to be removed from service if applicable on the RSL. See PIA TS 135, the standard for C23f, for the full labeling requirements for each component.

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

[dorbie 0]

riggerrob

Thread drift .......
What was the original incident (Whitewright) that led to this confusing Service Bulletin?

John Appleton's fatal incident. The cause was not initially clear and it took a while to get to the bottom of it. It eventually emerged that a line caught up on a container flap somehow. However in the course of the investigation and ass-covering it was discovered that the RSL had been removed by a rigger (not master rigger) and there was a 3rd party cutaway handle on the rig *. In damage control mode Sunpath stated that the RSL was an essential part of the TSO and could only be removed by a Master Rigger. Some said it was not consistent with their historical handling of RSL removal and it was a huge surprise to everyone at the time.

My main two points are
1) "it would not be enforced" is a really bad approach to rule making that exposes everyone in nasty ways and the above incident with riggers being thrown under the bus is a great illustration of how.
2) With the rule described one consequence would be that hooking up rental gear with 3rd party risers (a common practice) would need documented work by a master rigger not just a rigger and again the same incident and aftermath illustrates why such craziness is not an abstract concern.
2.5) Maybe stopping 3rd party riser use with potentially incompatible gear is the whole point of such a TSO, but it would have been really restrictive.

* the handle also got blamed by Sunpath