hajnalka 0 #1 September 1, 2016 Question: Is an old military rig legal according to FARs as PEP for a pilot in a Cessna 182? My DZ just bought a 182, and this rig came with it. It's a decades-old military back with no DOM or serial #. Obviously no TSO. It has Capewells, cones, and tons of (? pull-the-dot) annoying-as-hell snaps. Also many pack opening bands. I won't work on anything that's not TSO'd, and I don't have the tools to pack this thing anyway. We'll be getting our pilot a better, more current PEP rig. My question is whether this rig would be legal for a 182 pilot according to current FARs. I read through them, but couldn't seem to find an answer. The former 182 owner and his rigger (very nice guys) swear this is legal. Thoughts? I'd be grateful for any input. -D Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mxk 1 #2 September 1, 2016 I'm guessing that this falls under the "personnel-carrying U.S. military parachute" part of the approved parachute definition: QuoteApproved parachute means a parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a Technical Standard Order (C-23 series), or a personnel-carrying U.S. military parachute (other than a high altitude, high speed, or ejection type) identified by a Navy Air Facility, an Army Air Field, and Air Force-Navy drawing number, an Army Air Field order number, or any other military designation or specification number. Sounds like it would still need to have some sort of identification though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #3 September 2, 2016 Why is someone with three years in the sport answering this? But he got it right. It is not TSO'd but the OTHER legal type of parachutes are military contract rigs. Post a photo and all us old farts on here can tell you what is it. IF it's airworthy its legal. And if you have the tools to pack any other PEP you can pack this one. You might not want to but you can. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,050 #4 September 2, 2016 QuoteWhy is someone with three years in the sport answering this? But he got it right. Mighta just been the Rigger Rating coming out.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,047 #5 September 2, 2016 Hi Terry, QuoteWhy is someone with three years in the sport answering this? By the time I had 6 months into the sport, I could tell you ( almost word for word from memory ) what it said in TSO C23(b), along with a number of other FAA documents that I had gotten my hands on. And all before I became a rigger. I found that stuff interesting; still do. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #6 September 2, 2016 Okay, okay. But he did say he was guessing and sounds like he's never seen one. Sorry Max. But I'm still pissed about lots if new senior riggers not being trained on rounds. BTW I had read every issue of Parachutest ever published before my third jump.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,047 #7 September 2, 2016 Hi Terry, QuoteBTW I had read every issue of Parachutest ever published before my third jump. As Dan Poynter once said to me: 'Like minds think alike.' I still think the biggest mistake that Dan ever made was in not publishing all of his Parachuting Poynters in booklet form. Lot of info in those articles. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
