0
acho

Riger needed to help completing project

Recommended Posts

Again a pissing match


Quote

You would be wrong. This is why AC-105-2E (Which was NOT written by the FAA) is to being resolved with the regulatory issues as we speak.In other words it is in re-write mode.




I would be wrong in your opinion. As far as advice from the Orlando, Seattle and Chicago FSDO's and at least two DPRE's I would not be wrong.

The first page on the AC105-2e document right at the top says Federal Aviation Administration and is published by the aforementioned agency's own their own web site. I would say that's pretty well indicating that its their document. Stating that its not written by the FAA is being economical with the facts. It is published by the FAA. Agencies don't write documents - people do. If the FAA decides to contract this work out to someone else to write the document I'm OK with that. Someone at the agency approved publication of this document. (If someone didn't then I would advocate that you petition the FAA to remove these documents, but that's a different matter) AC105-2E is a document that is referred to commonly by FAA Inspectors, Riggers and potential riggers. My opinion is that it is an official document.

The regulations do break down repairs quite clearly - into minor or major. The determination of the whether its a minor or major repair is what is in dispute and again AC105-2E provides additional clarification. Although you chose to disregard the information contained in this document and say its just wrong or irrelevant. Continuing to focus on the regulations as the only document worth reading, which are not particularly clear in places and hence required the AC105 document to be written in the first place and with multiple iterations. If the regulations were that clear then these revisions of AC105 wouldn't be required. But guess what - they aren't clear and this document IS REQUIRED and its published by the FAA.

I feel I do know the current regulations (Please don't try to state I don't know the regulations because I have a different opinion to you - I've stated I have spoken to multiple DPRE and FSDO's and am happy with the information provided and feel that these discussions have resulted in consistent information which appears to be in contradiction of your opinion). Because your opinion and interpretation is different doesnt mean mine is wrong.

You on the otherhand are sticking with your opinion that yours is the only right answer and continue to want to justify this by discounting other documents published by the FAA or manufacturers whether by saying they are irrelevant.

These later FAA published documents are highly relevant. They are providing guidance and clarification on how the rules apply. If you feel they are irrelevant then I think you should be advocating the FAA to withdraw any of their documents other than the rules regarding parachuting. Because that appears to be the only document you feel is worth anything.

Please do not twist the argument to jumpers doing there own rigging. I'm not advocating jumpers should just do their own rigging. Merely that riggers are able to do tasks that are detailed by the FAA in their own documents or documents which the use as reference.
Assembling components is a rigger task - nowhere have I stated otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I would be wrong in your opinion. As far as advice from the Orlando, Seattle and Chicago FSDO's and at least two DPRE's I would not be wrong.



I find it hard to believe that a FSDO would state that a a non-regulatory document would supersedes regulation.

With regard to the two DPREs, ( if it is the two I think it is) would not be hard to believe.

A quick call to AFS-100 (FAA Legal Department) will clarify my statement that if there is a conflict , the Regulations trump.

Talk to:

Mark W. Bury
Office of the Chief Counsel
800 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20591
(202) 267-3222


Quote


The first page on the AC105-2e document right at the top says Federal Aviation Administration and is published by the aforementioned agency's own their own web site. I would say that's pretty well indicating that its their document. Stating that its not written by the FAA is being economical with the facts. It is published by the FAA. Agencies don't write documents - people do. If the FAA decides to contract this work out to someone else to write the document I'm OK with that. Someone at the agency approved publication of this document. (If someone didn't then I would advocate that you petition the FAA to remove these documents, but that's a different matter) AC105-2E is a document that is referred to commonly by FAA Inspectors, Riggers and potential riggers. My opinion is that it is an official document.



You correct it is,... but with errors. Errors that have both been well noted and subjected to change because if followed, will violate regulation.

That is the whole point.

Quote


I feel I do know the current regulations (Please don't try to state I don't know the regulations because I have a different opinion to you - I've stated I have spoken to multiple DPRE and FSDO's and am happy with the information provided and feel that these discussions have resulted in consistent information which appears to be in contradiction of your opinion). Because your opinion and interpretation is different doesnt mean mine is wrong.

You on the otherhand are sticking with your opinion that yours is the only right answer and continue to want to justify this by discounting other documents published by the FAA or manufacturers whether by saying they are irrelevant.



The reason that I am sticking with my opinion is because I have been involved for many years dealing with the regulations in depth. I actually was involved with helping with the preamble writing of the document that I posted.

Quote


These later FAA published documents are highly relevant. They are providing guidance and clarification on how the rules apply. If you feel they are irrelevant then I think you should be advocating the FAA to withdraw any of their documents other than the rules regarding parachuting. Because that appears to be the only document you feel is worth anything.



You must have missed where I pointed out that the current AC is now under a re-write status.

MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I find it hard to believe that a FSDO would state that a non-regulatory document would supersedes regulation.

With regard to the two DPREs, ( if it is the two I think it is) would not be hard to believe.



Believe it, Its not that the non-regulatory document supersedes the regulation - its that the document clarifies the intent of the regulation. If the regulations were clear then their would be no need for the AC document.

The DPRE's are appointed by the FAA - it sounds like you think these DPRE's are mis-informed or doing a bad job in not correctly interpreting the regulations. Maybe you should bring this to the FAA's attention then.

Quote

You must have missed where I pointed out that the current AC is now under a re-write status.



I hadn't and based upon your own statements - the AC is not an FAA document. So who's writing this document ? and further

Quote

"the AC is not regulatory; only the regulations are."


So what's the point then of rewriting the document, If there's something you don't like or agree with you'll use the same argument. Perhaps you ought to be requesting the FAA rewrite the regulations more clearly so as not to need the AC document in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


uote:
I find it hard to believe that a FSDO would state that a non-regulatory document would supersedes regulation.

With regard to the two DPREs, ( if it is the two I think it is) would not be hard to believe.

Believe it, Its not that the non-regulatory document supersedes the regulation - its that the document clarifies the intent of the regulation. If the regulations were clear then their would be no need for the AC document.

The DPRE's are appointed by the FAA - it sounds like you think these DPRE's are mis-informed or doing a bad job in not correctly interpreting the regulations. Maybe you should bring this to the FAA's attention then.



This has been done....

Quote


I hadn't and based upon your own statements - the AC is not an FAA document. So who's writing this document ? and further

Quote:
"the AC is not regulatory; only the regulations are."

So what's the point then of rewriting the document, If there's something you don't like or agree with you'll use the same argument. Perhaps you ought to be requesting the FAA rewrite the regulations more clearly so as not to need the AC document in the first place.



The AC has some good points to it.Thy are not all bad.

The problem is this.
The regulations state and intend that only a master rigger can do major repairs, alterations, and modifications to parachute gear.

The AC tries to create a whole new world of classes of repairs where it divides parachute equipment into two classes that would allow a senior rigger to alter, modify, and complete major repairs to mains.

This is a direct conflict with the regulations that (again, in the document I previously posted) tells you differently.


MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Folks,

This is very interesting discussion but with all my respect I would like to point back to the original subject :)

In resume: i developed small, stand alone tracker for cut away canopy which does nor relay on any third party network, it dictates the gps coordinates with voice so for "base stantion" a off the shelf /cheep/ walkie talkie is used. It weights about 1oz and the range is about 2 miles. I need help to find a good way to mount it to the canopy /deployment bag.

I am looking dor qualified rigger who is willing to help with that.

Thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acho

Folks,

This is very interesting discussion but with all my respect I would like to point back to the original subject :)

In resume: i developed small, stand alone tracker for cut away canopy which does nor relay on any third party network, it dictates the gps coordinates with voice so for "base stantion" a off the shelf /cheep/ walkie talkie is used. It weights about 1oz and the range is about 2 miles. I need help to find a good way to mount it to the canopy /deployment bag.

I am looking dor qualified rigger who is willing to help with that.

Thanks :)



Let me see if I am following you. You have developed a glorious prototype of a product that is already available in all shapes and sizes and can cost anywhere between $10 and $1200.

Now you want to revolutionize the skydiving industry by attaching it to a parachute, which has been done many times with devices of varying complexity and while seeing minimal results.

Several people show you example of where this is being or has already been tried, and pointed out all the reasons why it is just no necessary or feasible.

You have also witnessed possible conflicts with the legality of modifying equipment for experimental projects.

Then your approach was to start a new thread on it and see if they had changed their minds? Or were you just hoping for a different audience this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RopeaDope

***Folks,

This is very interesting discussion but with all my respect I would like to point back to the original subject :)

In resume: i developed small, stand alone tracker for cut away canopy which does nor relay on any third party network, it dictates the gps coordinates with voice so for "base stantion" a off the shelf /cheep/ walkie talkie is used. It weights about 1oz and the range is about 2 miles. I need help to find a good way to mount it to the canopy /deployment bag.

I am looking dor qualified rigger who is willing to help with that.

Thanks :)



Let me see if I am following you. You have developed a glorious prototype of a product that is already available in all shapes and sizes and can cost anywhere between $10 and $1200.

Now you want to revolutionize the skydiving industry by attaching it to a parachute, which has been done many times with devices of varying complexity and while seeing minimal results.

Several people show you example of where this is being or has already been tried, and pointed out all the reasons why it is just no necessary or feasible.

You have also witnessed possible conflicts with the legality of modifying equipment for experimental projects.

Then your approach was to start a new thread on it and see if they had changed their minds? Or were you just hoping for a different audience this time?

RopeaDope,

Your post above looks interesting but to answer your question - no, you are not following me.

Let me clear myself a bit. I did not mention the price of the device since it is not for sale at this moment.
I never intended to revolutionize anything - I am simply not that smart. What I did is I had an idea which was challenge at first to build something that my work for the purpose. It is not another attempt to adapt existing device to work - it was built for this.
Several people you are talking about was trying to convince me that it is better to look after cut away with RC aircraft. It may not be necessary or feasible for them but for me this is my project and I always try to finish my projects.
I never witnessed "possible conflicts with the legality of modifying equipment for experimental projects" but somewhere in the back of my head I am aware that such conflicts may exist at some point. This is the main reason to start new thread on the subject - to ask people with more knowledge, experience and most important qualification on the subject. Please note that if I was so ignorant as you describe me the post most likely was going to be something like: "Dudes, I invented the hot water and the wheel all together which is going to change the skydiving industry forever and attached my device to my rig and jumped it"
And to answer your last question - I am not looking for audience. I am grown person who has job and family, not 18 years old who has not personal life outside the Internet.

I hope I answered all your questions about my project.

And to clear up some future questions - English is not my first language which is the reason that I may sound funny.

P.S.In this post I did not intended to show even grain of disrespect to RopeaDope or anyone. If anything in my post sounds offensive to anyone I would like to apologize.

Regards,
Stan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Attaching your device is most likely a very simple project consisting of sewing an elastic pocket to the d-bag, or putting it on a main riser with a simple little pocket of sleeve.

I personally do not consider myself qualified to mess with it. For me, it is a matter of "if in doubt, pass it up to a master rigger."

This subject has popped up several times, usually by someone with no skydiving experience, and occasionally with well known and respected riggers. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in it.

There is already a standard operating procedure for cut aways. You deal with you emergency situation, your buddies chase your main and reserve PC and free bag. The pilot spots them on the next load and someone drives out to get you. Then you owe beer beer beer, which is convenient because at the end of the day, everyone wants to get drunk and hear about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RopeaDope

Attaching your device is most likely a very simple project consisting of sewing an elastic pocket to the d-bag, or putting it on a main riser with a simple little pocket of sleeve.

I personally do not consider myself qualified to mess with it. For me, it is a matter of "if in doubt, pass it up to a master rigger."

This subject has popped up several times, usually by someone with no skydiving experience, and occasionally with well known and respected riggers. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in it.

There is already a standard operating procedure for cut aways. You deal with you emergency situation, your buddies chase your main and reserve PC and free bag. The pilot spots them on the next load and someone drives out to get you. Then you owe beer beer beer, which is convenient because at the end of the day, everyone wants to get drunk and hear about it.



You got me wrong - I am not trying to gain interest on it - just want to complete the project.

I am not trying to convince anyone that this is great idea and everyone should have such device.

Regarding the "standard operating procedure for cut aways" - I don't feel good about some one chasing my cut away risking to get injured or worst by landing in not so landing friendly area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are really this worried about your chopped main floating off into the sunset, just stick with student/rental gear.

If you already have a rig with 9 jumps, good for you. Secure it to the back side of your front riser (main canopy risers) with a couple wraps of duct tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RopeaDope

If you are really this worried about your chopped main floating off into the sunset, just stick with student/rental gear.

If you already have a rig with 9 jumps, good for you. Secure it to the back side of your front riser (main canopy risers) with a couple wraps of duct tape.



I realy don't care much about mi chopped main as long as nobody is injured.

I don't know why you are you looking for confrontation with me. I am not looking for that.

Just be safe and don't worry about me.

Again, if I offended you please accept mu apology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I should have known this was going to stir a hornets next.

I've said many times before that we can use AC105 on how to interpret the regs. If you got hauled into court and you explained that you interpreted the regs in a certain way consistent with AC105 which is also the FAA's position I think you are on solid ground.

I don't necessarily agree with the amount of latitude it gives the Sr. Rigger in the liberal and AC105 interpretation but until the FAA clarifies it in a different way it's all we have.

Back on the topic of adding a tracker to the rig, the OP should take into consideration the legal complexities of adding such a thing to a rig before asking for someone to help doing it.

Hey, I want to add a rocket to my wingsuit. First you must determine if it's going to be allowed on the airplane, otherwise there is no point in trying to figure out the stitching for it.

-Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hackish

I should have known this was going to stir a hornets next.

I've said many times before that we can use AC105 on how to interpret the regs. If you got hauled into court and you explained that you interpreted the regs in a certain way consistent with AC105 which is also the FAA's position I think you are on solid ground.

I don't necessarily agree with the amount of latitude it gives the Sr. Rigger in the liberal and AC105 interpretation but until the FAA clarifies it in a different way it's all we have.

Back on the topic of adding a tracker to the rig, the OP should take into consideration the legal complexities of adding such a thing to a rig before asking for someone to help doing it.

Hey, I want to add a rocket to my wingsuit. First you must determine if it's going to be allowed on the airplane, otherwise there is no point in trying to figure out the stitching for it.

-Michael



Hi Michael,

I was left with impression that adding such a thing to a rig is fine since you stated that you are going to install bluetooth trackers to all your rigs in the spring

Quote

An open discussion here would probably be most helpful. Don't worry, your idea probably isn't anything new and nobody is going to steal it and get rich.

We're planning to install bluetooth trackers in all of our rigs this spring so it's going to be one of many. Also, there is a thread about putting a GPS dog tracker in a rig as well.

Depending on the size and weight of your idea the deployment bag is probably the best place for it.

-Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hackish

The reason I haven't yet is that I've got a design for the pocket made and I want approval from the manufacturers. I'm going to be taking the prototype to our symposium in a few weeks to solicit comments then.

-Michael



Michael,

Thank you for the information!

just out of curiosity - what is the range of the bluetooth device you are planning to install to your rigs?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can get about 100'. Makes searching much easier but doesn't exactly give you a homing beacon anywhere in the world. With a special antenna I get about 400-500'. The biggest thing for me was a $20 price tag and a battery that will last all season. It only has to save 1 canopy to pay for the cost of putting them in 20 rigs.

-Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been working with Acho on his tracker unit and I’ve got to say I’m impressed The unit is small and easy to install on the main deployment bag and should be within the capabilities of a senior rigger with a sewing machine.

Testing was done in April in Snohomish, Washington including two intentional cutaways using the tracking device. The results proved very positive.

The first test involved just ensuring that we could locate a bag/pilot chute combination (no canopy) deployed on a windy, grey overcast day. This meant that the material visible on the ground would be minimal and difficult to follow in the sky as no brightly-colored canopy was involved. It drifted further than anticipated, just under a mile, but we received a strong signal and had recovered the items within fifteen minutes. Most of that time was spent just traveling to the location.

The subsequent tests were two intentional cutaways initiated at 4000 ft. With both, we located the gear within five minutes. The first cutaway we had recovered the canopy and freebag immediately. On the second test we located the equipment again within five minutes, but it landed in the tall trees and took most of the day to get it down. It was a successful test as we still received good reception even when the canopy was in the foilage. On both cutaways the freebag was found within 20 yards of the canopy.
For these tests, we planned on the canopies landing on airport property which is relatively open. In real life circumstances and usage, equipment could drift to surrounding properties close by and having accurate location would be helpful in quick recovery, especially when if the canopy goes into a corn field/trees.

Further extensive testing for distance revealed positive signal reception between .4 - 1.2 miles from receiver and accuracy down to around 8 feet. Range may increase or decrease with terrain but will almost certainly increase if receiver is taken aloft. Also knowing a vague direction where the cutaway occurred allows simply moving closer to get better reception for positioning. We also did tests with multiple receivers by simulating two cutaways on same jump and we were able to locate both items just a quick.

The unit is active as soon as the main canopy is deployment (not just on a cutaway) and should last for an entire weekend of jumping without need to recharge.
I am using a prototype device but the new design will include simple USB charging port and visible indicators of locator state.

All in all, the tracking device has been a really positive experience. Results are of good performance with no on-going subscription costs and can be easily retrofitted onto most deployment bags/containers.

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.

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