reline a reserve?

[gowlerk 1,912]

FAA will should be out of regulating rigging. No one there cares anyway. Americans have too much government regulation.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[mark 102]

gowlerk

FAA will should be out of regulating rigging. No one there cares anyway. Americans have too much government regulation.

In exchange for the government regulation we don't like, we get government recognition of skydiving as an aviation activity. Without that recognition, airspace would be hard to come by.

-Mark

[gowlerk 1,912]

mark

***FAA will should be out of regulating rigging. No one there cares anyway. Americans have too much government regulation.

In exchange for the government regulation we don't like, we get government recognition of skydiving as an aviation activity. Without that recognition, airspace would be hard to come by.

-Mark

That's not the situation in Canada. We do not have regulation, other than demos. But we do have access and recognition as a legitimate air activity at appropriate airfields. Only our aircraft operations are commercially regulated.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

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?

Now you are mixing apples and oranges...

I quoted the AC-1052E as being incorrect, not the FAR's.
I also said that the knowledge gained by studying the FAR's as method to successfully pass the written test, not the other way around.

Quote

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?

Not really.
The two week old rigger just studied his brains out to pass the written.

The 30 year manufacturer does not care to remember anything about rigging except what pertains to his product.

Heck ask anyone of them if a main is regulated and see what answer you get.
I promise you that 95% of them will get it wrong...

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

I'm being told it's out of trim and needs a relign (3/8")!

Back to the original point of this thread...
3/8" is nothing for a Spectra lined canopy. Their manufacturing tolerances has to be around 1/4". So ask them to provide you with the out of tolerance specs as PeterC suggested.

I could see the need of a reline if the lines are picked badly by the Velcro, but just 3/8" out is not a problem as I see it.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[linestretch 0]

Here's what I was given.

my pics & stuff!

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Mark,

Quote

The regulations in 1937 started addressing line replacement as a major repair.

Your linked document says: "25.44 - Major Repairs - Repairs such as the replacement of canopies, panels, shroud lines and harness shall be made only by the manufacturer of the parachute involved, or by another manufacturer of parachutes deemed competent by the Secretary to make such repairs."

I seriously doubt that any court in this country would consider that a controlling document. It is sort of outdated.

Jerry Baumchen

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Your linked document says: "25.44 - Major Repairs - Repairs such as the replacement of canopies, panels, shroud lines and harness shall be made only by the manufacturer of the parachute involved, or by another manufacturer of parachutes deemed competent by the Secretary to make such repairs."

I seriously doubt that any court in this country would consider that a controlling document. It is sort of outdated.

Jerry,
That document just shows the time line of it all.
It started defining Major and Minor repairs. Ever since that time, I have documentation to show that was the intent, definition, and examples of major repairs of parachutes through the years.It continues all the way up to now, except in the current AC.


...and it has already been determined as good documentation by Legal, hence the re-write.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[mark 102]

Are we citing old references now? How about 8 Federal Register (Feb 2, 1943) page 1333:

"25.601 Senior parachute rigger. A senior parachute rigger shall not make any major repairs to parachutes except to those types for which he is rated . . ."

Which means there was a time when senior parachute riggers could do major repairs.

Mark

[mark 102]

masterrigger1

It continues all the way up to now, except in the current AC.

And except in Poynter's Parachute Manual, of course.

Mark

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Are we citing old references now? How about 8 Federal Register (Feb 2, 1943) page 1333:

"25.601 Senior parachute rigger. A senior parachute rigger shall not make any major repairs to parachutes except to those types for which he is rated . . ."

Which means there was a time when senior parachute riggers could do major repairs.

Yep, That is when they had three classifications of riggers. It went from one to three. In
In the document that I previously posted, you had only "rigger" and the manufacturers did all of the major repairs.

They went to three and what was the Senior then is our Master now.


§ 25.00 Classification o1 parachute
technicians. P a r a c hut e technicians
shall be classified in the following
ascending grades:
(a) Parachute rigger;
(b) Senior parachute rigger;
(c) Master of parachute maintenance.


MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

And except in Poynter's Parachute Manual, of course.

It is in Poynter's Vol I..Just saw it again this week while conducting a riggers course.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[gowlerk 1,912]

It must be winter. MEL has time to post about rigging regulations!

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

It must be winter. MEL has time to post about rigging regulations!

Well someone has to keep you guys educated!!

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[Quagmirian 40]

masterrigger1

The 30 year manufacturer does not care to remember anything about rigging except what pertains to his product.

Heck ask anyone of them if a main is regulated and see what answer you get.
I promise you that 95% of them will get it wrong...

MEL

You've got me interested now. What's the correct answer and why?

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Heck ask anyone of them if a main is regulated and see what answer you get.
I promise you that 95% of them will get it wrong...

You've got me interested now. What's the correct answer and why?

A main is regulated as it requires a certificated rigger to assemble it or perform work on it. It also has the same regulated pack cycle as the reserve; 180 days..

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[skytribe 16]

But there is a problem in riggers doing stuff they are clearly not supposed to be doing and simply being ignored with them using excuses of ambiguity in documents. Even things that are clearly documented such as AAD install is ignored, despite being very clearly stated in AC105 and jumpers assembling mains which we often witness later thru incorrect assembly. But what to do ? Ignore, talking to them often achieves nothing and I wasn't aware of any formal reporting procedure to FAA. Who seem to be rather clueless with there own documentation.

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Here's what I was given.

Looking at the measurements, it looks like the only suspension line that really stands out as being "of concern" is the Right A-4. That is the A line at the Stab on the right. It is -1 inch.

What disturbs me is the fact that they have a -1" measurement of that line, but the attached B4 is +5/8". The A &C lines usually shrink because of heat from friction of the slider and most of that heat will be absorbed below the cascades.

With that said, the B4 also should have been shorter than the other cascade measurements because the attached A line is supposedly shorter. If you look, the A4-B4 measurements fall in line with the other A-B measurements.

Ask them to check it again for this purpose.

The lower control line are showing -2 3/8" which is probably correct. Just have them replace those.


MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

But there is a problem in riggers doing stuff they are clearly not supposed to be doing and simply being ignored with them using excuses of ambiguity in documents. Even things that are clearly documented such as AAD install is ignored, despite being very clearly stated in AC105 and jumpers assembling mains which we often witness later thru incorrect assembly. But what to do ? Ignore, talking to them often achieves nothing and I wasn't aware of any formal reporting procedure to FAA. Who seem to be rather clueless with there own documentation.

Here's what I would do.
I would try to talk to them face to face.If not, use the phone and advise them of the situation.If they continue to do work outside of their limitations after that, call your local FSDO. Also send them an email to document the same. By law they have to look into it and get back to you with a response or resolution.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[pchapman 261]

masterrigger1

Quote

Here's what I was given.

Looking at the measurements, it looks like the only suspension line that really stands out as being "of concern" is the Right A-4. That is the A line at the Stab on the right. It is -1 inch.

What disturbs me is the fact that they have a -1" measurement of that line, but the attached B4 is +5/8".

I may be totally confused about their relative measurements like A4-B4, but the way I see things, the number are really weird:

So the the A shrunk by 1", and the difference between the A and B is now 5/8" too high (relative to the A since it is A4-B4). The B in relative terms would be +1" now if nothing happened to it, but instead is +5/8 relative to A, which means it shrunk by only 3/8.

If B for example didn't shrink at all above the cascade, then all that 3/8 is in the common A/B line below the cascade. But that means A shrunk by 3/8 below the cascade, and a whole 5/8 above??

The A4-B4 measurements seem a bit odd, but what about A3-B3, where the increase in the B number is more than how much the A shrank:

A3 shrunk by 3/8" (at least compared to spec) but A3-B3 is +7/8". So +3/8 of that is just because "A moved away from B", meaning that B3 stretched by 5/8?

And if some of A's loss was below the cascade, where A & B would shorten together, then B would have to stretch above the cascade even more to make up for it!

Is there a lot more variation in construction standards and measurement of lines than one might suppose, that makes these numbers a mess to try to interpret?


I'm still a little miffed that PD has never (that I know) mentioned this line trim issue. Some of us are used to the idea that a Spectra lined canopy will go seriously out of trim (enough to ground it!) in hundreds of jumps, but not suspecting that a handful* of jumps is enough to do it.


* the OP reported 5 jumps on the 1993 PD 126. Skimming the thread, I'm not sure if it was always his since new or not. Still, one isn't going to have hundreds of jumps on the canopy.

[linestretch 0]

I bought it used but it had sat on the shelf (packed) in the rigging loft for several years before I got it in 2001. All 5 rides were by me. I can't verify this but I would guess that half the pack jobs or more were penciled (only a theory...don't take me to court). So the argument that 'pulling' the lines does it just doesn't make sense.

And I agree...the line trim chart is very cryptic...I can't understand it at all. It passed the porosity and pull check which honestly I thought was the biggest thing PD would be doing.

my pics & stuff!

[skytribe 16]

Quote

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.

Perhaps this is part of the problem. The rigger who did the repair or perhaps it was just someone with a sewing machine. As to who did the major repair - their is no record on the container. The only indication is who last packed the reserve.

So the last rigger could just deny they did it - and simply say the missed the obvious bad repair on their inspection if, and then remove the page from their logbook. Yes they were operating outside of the privileges but its easy to remove any evidence.

Other countries have separate documents for each component. The fact that you say the pack data card is simply to comply with 105.43 - I don't have documents for the main to show compliance and the amount of entries I've seen on card for AAD install / removal which is not required for 105.43 - but we still see them entered on the pack data card.

So the next rigger, after such a shoddy repair ( which was immediately obvious by different color legstraps - which led to further investigation of incorrect stitches / materials and tolerances) with zero evidence of who carried out the work only who last repacked it.

See the problem.... Who does the rigger go back discuss shitty repairs when there is no record ? And there is part of the problem.

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

See the problem.... Who does the rigger go back discuss shitty repairs when there is no record ? And there is part of the problem.

Yes sir, I do.
While there is no requirement to log H/C repairs on a pack data card, there is the requirement to log it in his or her own logbook which is to be kept for record for at least two years.

Usually the customer that brought you the shoddy repaired equipment in the first place can point the finger as to what rigger did the previous repair. If they have a receipt for the previous work, it is in the bag so to speak.


MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[skytribe 16]

Perhaps - I've seen other shoddy work come through that was on used gear purchased that the owner had no knowledge of prior work and hence did I really want to be the private investigator and trace all the prior work that had been done.

Perhaps the idea that a single packing card is sufficient is out of date and we need more than just repacks logged.