0
linestretch

reline a reserve?

Recommended Posts

Well I'm not getting anywhere on this. PD's response is they'll send it back to me with a big ass stamp on it saying it's unairworthy...or pay up and get new lines. I'm still baffled by all of this as well. 3/8" is a very small amount; depending on much you pull on the line or other lines you could get just about any number you want to see.

On the flip side, I do see PD trying to cover their ass on this as with any reserve they get back.

I'm still back at square one....relining a reserve?
my pics & stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>still back at square one

Then consider this:

You said you were a rigger so I assume you exercise your privileges and pack for others and then charge them. Why do people bring you their gear....because you have the Knowledge, Skill, Equipment and Certification to do what they cannot. And they trust you. And sometimes you need to make the difficult call and tell them it's going to cost money to bring something back to an airworthy condition. Why do you do that.......because you are concerned about their safety and your reputation.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and you are throwing the issue up for a public vote. I don't get it. As I mentioned earlier, be happy they gave you a choice. It's better than no choice at all. They have every right to stamp it Unairworthy, cut the lines off, use it to stoke the bonfire at night, whatever. You sent it to the most qualified and Highly Certificated entity around to make an airworthiness call. You should respect it. Just as you would want and expect your own customers to do the same for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a thought: Maybe the issue is not so much that 3/8" is a big deal right now. Maybe they are concerned about how far out of trim the canopy will become in the next 17.5 years (you did say the re-certification would cover 35 repacks, right?) if left unfixed. If it's 3/8" now, will it turn into 3/4", 1", or 2" or more just when it is needed the most and the jumper is unconscious (or insert your worst case scenario)? From what I understand, nylon degrades over time. Not that it would necessarily break, but maybe it would deform more easily with age? I could be way off. Again, just a thought ... or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I packed a VR360 that ended up several inches out of trim laterally after it was deployed in a terminal side spin.



yup. I saw this on a sport reserve once after a single unstable terminal deployment (first repack, even, and less than a week after assembly) - the lines on the left side were literally an inch or two shorter than the lines on the right. Before that, I'd never heard of such a thing, so I asked a far more experienced rigger than I, wtf was going on. I was afraid I'd somehow missed the length discrepancy on assembly, and I was very relieved to learn that jacked up trim after terminal reserve deployment is not really all that uncommon. It is definitely a bummer for you though, OP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's 3/8" "out" of trim, 0,95cm. That's close to nothing on a main and perfectly normal for untreated lines that where used in terminal, fast reserve deployments. what's the fuzz about?!



Precisely - on a main that's acceptable. However PD seem to think that on a reserve its grounds for a reline.

To think this is handling/deployments - in such a short amount of handling /usage sounds a bit of a reach.

When I'm packing reserves I wouldn't think I applied a significant amount of force to stretch the lines, especially on one side. And if handling is the cause then I would think there are a lot of out of trim reserves out in the field.

If its deployments then they should seriously re-evaluate the number of deployments before being returned for recertification.

If its a change in the trim spec from when it was originally built to the latest standard or that the tolerances are now more stringent then why not just say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi tribe,

Quote


If its a change in the trim spec from when it was originally built to the latest standard or that the tolerances are now more stringent then why not just say so.



Disclaimer: I do not speak for the FAA.

They might not be able to do this. Remember how some mfrs tried to impose the 20-yr life on gear?

They could impose the stricter standard via a Minor Change, but that would not invalidate the previous
standard(s). If a mfr makes a Minor Change that does not invalidate any previous versions of the same product.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rmarshall234

>still back at square one

Then consider this:

You said you were a rigger so I assume you exercise your privileges and pack for others and then charge them. Why do people bring you their gear....because you have the Knowledge, Skill, Equipment and Certification to do what they cannot. And they trust you. And sometimes you need to make the difficult call and tell them it's going to cost money to bring something back to an airworthy condition. Why do you do that.......because you are concerned about their safety and your reputation.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and you are throwing the issue up for a public vote. I don't get it. As I mentioned earlier, be happy they gave you a choice. It's better than no choice at all. They have every right to stamp it Unairworthy, cut the lines off, use it to stoke the bonfire at night, whatever. You sent it to the most qualified and Highly Certificated entity around to make an airworthiness call. You should respect it. Just as you would want and expect your own customers to do the same for you.



You're exactly right with this...I don't have a leg to stand on. And someone already argued this to me as well.

But with that said...if I told someone they needed this work done and they called bullshit on it they have every right to investigate right? That's all I'm doing since I had never heard of it. Not saying it isn't possible or isn't ever done...I've just never heard of it. I like what I'm seeing from everyone...arguments going both ways.
my pics & stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plenty of opinions possible on this issue.

I note that an older PD reserve manual says that after 40 repacks / 25 deployments, the canopy must be sent in for "permeability testing", and "Subsequent to passing this testing, an additional label is affixed and the canopy is then returned into service." That's all that's listed that I noticed.

So if I sent a canopy in I would tell them they are only authorized to conduct such mandatory testing, as was stated in the manual the canopy came with. They are NOT to assess its airworthiness in any other way.

However, for informational purposes and their long term data collection, I would allow them to check trim, inspect the canopy, and report back to me.

If the trim is out 3/8" and they can show me some test reports on how poorly such a canopy would open, yikes, I'll ground it myself.

At the moment, however, most riggers probably haven't discussed small trim variations on reserves and the industry hasn't exactly made it an issue before. PD could be right... but I bet this is a pretty new issue for most skydivers & jumpers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pchapman

I note that an older PD reserve manual says that after 40 repacks / 25 deployments, the canopy must be sent in for "permeability testing", and "Subsequent to passing this testing, an additional label is affixed and the canopy is then returned into service." That's all that's listed that I noticed.



Exactly! That was my thinking too and I had no issues with that. When I was told it needs a new line set I kinda felt like a bait & switch was pulled.
my pics & stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


With an untreated microline, the lines get out of trim merely by pulling and tugging through the repacking process and since it does have five jumps on it, even more so with this line set.



"Pulling and Tugging" during the packing process will not usually affect the line trim. It is the openings that do it. Also if the canopy was left in a high heat environment will also do it.

Spectra will start shrinking around 170-190 degrees fahrenheit. I have seen canopies left in a hot trunk in the summer, have line dimension changes that never had a jump on them.


MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Did you ask them about you doing the reline? You might save a buck or two doing it yourself.



Jerry,
He is only a senior rigger which cannot do major repairs unless under the supervision of a master rigger.
Also a manufacturer cannot increase a rigger's certificate privileges with a " it's OK by us" which is believed to be true by a couple of people out there in rigger world.

Just saying...

MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd really like for the FAA to come up with a list of repairs and whether they are major minor. If the repair is on a main - minor, if its on a reserve its major. To avoid the ambiguities or riggers interpretation.

This week I had two items - another rigger had opened my pack job put an AAD and then reclosed it and sealed it. When I came to do next pack job I looked at what was written on the card and when I opened it up it was in the same state I had put it in. No other packjob had been marked on the data panel.

The second one was a shoddy legstrap replacement - legstrap not legpad that was done by a senior rigger. I know who it was, although it was not marked on the data card. I consulted with another rigger and both are of the opinion it was substandard- didnt meet the same tolerances as manufacturer or even the same stitch patterns.

Being the nice guys - it will be repaired properly before returning it and I'll gladly record my repair work on card as I'm qualified to do it and am proud of my work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To some degree the manufacturers make determinations as to what they consider to be minor and major repairs on their equipment and who the authorize to perform them. So in a since they are determining the privileges of the certificate. Just saying it's in some of their manuals and SB.

Lee
Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I'd really like for the FAA to come up with a list of repairs and whether they are major minor. If the repair is on a main - minor, if its on a reserve its major. To avoid the ambiguities or riggers interpretation.



It all goes back to their definition of a major repair.
That definition is basically that a major repair is that done wrong that could affect airworthiness or the ability to properly maintain flight.

For years, line work has been noted by the FAA as a major repair as an example.

Quote


This week I had two items - another rigger had opened my pack job put an AAD and then reclosed it and sealed it. When I came to do next pack job I looked at what was written on the card and when I opened it up it was in the same state I had put it in. No other packjob had been marked on the data panel.



It was illegal for that rigger to reseal that parachute without repacking it.

Quote


The second one was a shoddy legstrap replacement - legstrap not legpad that was done by a senior rigger. I know who it was, although it was not marked on the data card. I consulted with another rigger and both are of the opinion it was substandard- didnt meet the same tolerances as manufacturer or even the same stitch patterns.



This rigger was also working outside of his privileges illegally unless he was working under a master rigger who should have recorded the repair in his own logbook.

BTW, that repair is not required to be noted on the PACK data card.
65.131(c) is where the data card required and it only pertains to the packing of the parachute; not any repairs. The data card is intended to show that 105.43 has been complied with.

MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


To some degree the manufacturers make determinations as to what they consider to be minor and major repairs on their equipment and who the authorize to perform them. So in a since they are determining the privileges of the certificate. Just saying it's in some of their manuals and SB.



Exactly my point.
The manufacturers will sometimes produce a document that leads senior riggers to believe that they can do the work legally when in fact it would be illegal for them to do so.
Sometimes it is intentional and sometimes it is not.....

The onus lies with the rigger to understand his or her certificate limitations and not rely on a manufacturer who may or may not understand the FAR's correctly.

For example, Parachute Systems just released a SB for a modification. It only spells out what equipment is required and that you should have the required certificate in the country that you are living in to do the work.
It does not state that a master rigger is required here in the US. The riggers here should have enough knowledge to understand that this is a modification and only master riggers have that privilege.

They wrote it to fit many countries, not just the USA.

Now with the "it's all about me and I can do anything I want" attitude of some senior riggers out there; I am willing to bet that some have already completed this modification illegally. Their excuse will be that it did not spell out that it had to be a master rigger, when in fact they should know and respect/honor their certificate limitations.

Riggers are tested on certificate limitations during the written test for a reason.

MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you reconcile that with AC105-E? (I know, I know, an Advisory Circular isn't the reg. But if you can't rely on an AC to help interpret the regulations, you might as well not read them and the FAA might as well not publish them).

Quote


c. Major or Minor Repair Determination. When there is a question about whether a particular repair is major or minor, follow the manufacturer’s instructions. In the absence of the manufacturer’s instructions, riggers should use the FAA’s Parachute Rigger Handbook (FAA-H-8083-17) and Poynter’s Parachute Manual Volume I and II as guides. If the procedure calls for a master rigger, it should be considered a major repair. If the procedure allows for a senior rigger, it should be considered a minor repair.

(1) The same kind of repair may be classed as major or minor depending on size or proximity to key structural components. For example, a basic patch may be a minor repair if it is small and away from seams, but may be a major repair if it is large or adjacent to a seam.

(2) The same kind of repair may be classed as major or minor depending on whether it is done to an approved or unapproved component. For example, replacement of a suspension line on a reserve canopy is usually a major repair, while replacement of a suspension line on a main canopy is generally considered a minor repair (even if the identical technique is required for both replacements).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


How do you reconcile that with AC105-E? (I know, I know, an Advisory Circular isn't the reg. But if you can't rely on an AC to help interpret the regulations, you might as well not read them and the FAA might as well not publish them).



Since AC-105 2E is scheduled for a re-write for that exact reason (or at least just one of them...); I do not recommend my students to actually use that document for reference. You will have the incorrect answer to test questions on the written if you follow the guidance in AC-105-2E.
There are a few some good things in it like seat belts though....

The regulations in 1937 started addressing line replacement as a major repair. Since that time it has repeatedly been addressed in the written test questions and also in previous AC's.

Unlike AC-105-2E, the previous AC's were written by the FAA; not some liberal people with an agenda, lack of knowledge, or both.

I have attached a page from the regs in 1937 for you.

MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are saying;

-The manufacturers do not understand the FAR's.

-The FAA publishes incorrect and/or conflicting information.

But Riggers should be able wade through all the manufacturer's instructions and guidance as well as the FAR's, AC's, etc., and get it right when the FAA and the manufacturer do not.

Not a realistic expectation.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


So you are saying;

-The manufacturers do not understand the FAR's.



Sometimes. Especially with regulations pertaining to riggers outside of their facility.

Quote


-The FAA publishes incorrect and/or conflicting information.



Yes again. 65.111 was a prime example when it came out with changes in 2001. It took 11 years to get it straight again as you well know.

Quote


But Riggers should be able wade through all the manufacturer's instructions and guidance as well as the FAR's, AC's, etc., and get it right when the FAA and the manufacturer do not.



Yes again.
It is the rigger's responsibility to understand the regulations pertaining to rigging regulations. Read regulations here; not SBs or manufacturer's instructions.

Quote


Not a realistic expectation.



Maybe in your eyes, not mine.

MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is the rigger's responsibility to understand the regulations pertaining to rigging regulations.



The conflicting and vague regulations the FAA and manufacturers cannot figure out.

If the FAA and manufacturers cannot get it right, how can a rigger be expected to outperform the experts?

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


:
Quote:
It is the rigger's responsibility to understand the regulations pertaining to rigging regulations.

The conflicting and vague regulations the FAA and manufacturers cannot figure out.

If the FAA and manufacturers cannot get it right, how can a rigger be expected to outperform the experts?



They may be experts with regards to their gear, but not the regulations.

Hopefully the rigger retains the required regulation knowledge acquired during the written exam.

If he uses that knowledge going forward, he or she should be able to determine for themselves if the work required is within their limitations or not.

MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't answer how a rigger is supposed to figure out the FAR's when the FAA can't get it right.

Quote

Hopefully the rigger retains the required regulation knowledge acquired during the written exam.



How is a rigger supposed to know to use the written test as a guide instead of the FAR's? Is there a copy of the test with the correct answers riggers can use instead of the FAR's? Is this the guidance from the FAA, use the test in place of the FAR's and AC's? What would happen if a rigger was questioned by the FAA and their answer was they used the test instead of the FAR's? Would the FAA accept that answer?

Quote

They may be experts with regards to their gear, but not the regulations.



So a gear manufacturer that has been in the business for 30+ years cannot be expected to get the FAR' right, but a rigger with 2-weeks of experience can?

This is completely unrealistic.

Derek V

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