Packers Certificate

[nigel99 150]

In the US, the FAA dictates who can/should pack a parachute. In the UK I believe that there is a packers certificate and an advanced packers certificate. I have no idea how other countries regulate packing.

Looking at the overall model I think there are two categories of main parachute
1) Rental gear (includes tandems and student parachutes)
2) Personal gear

I don't really see why licensed skydivers with their own equipment shouldn't be able to use whoever they like to pack their main. They should be knowledgeable enough to know the consequences of poor packing.

When it comes to 'commercial' gear then I think that it is reasonable to expect some sort of quality control on pack jobs. Student and rental gear gets abuse and may require more thorough inspections at pack time for a start.

I am interested in hearing how various countries operate and peoples opinions on how their local system works. Is it practical, should it be tweaked etc?

Personally I think that the US system should be tweaked to have a class of packer below that of a rigger. The A license is your ticket to pack for yourself. I don't think the direct supervision system works in practise and I think an "advanced packer" or "commercial packer" certificate could fill the gap.

*Note this line of thought was triggered by comments in an incidents thread. But I would rather we don't pull that incident into the discussion as from past experience that quickly turns into either a witch hunt or defence game.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Joellercoaster 6]

Just worth adding that in the UK, B certificate includes your license to pack for yourself (even without a packing cert).

In the US, I think you can pack your own parachute, no matter what. Have I been misinformed?

--
"I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan

"You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

[nigel99 150]

Quote

Just worth adding that in the UK, B certificate includes your license to pack for yourself (even without a packing cert).

In the US, I think you can pack your own parachute, no matter what. Have I been misinformed?

No in the US you could jump your own pack job for your first jump. But for your A license you must know how to pack.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

I don't think the direct supervision system works in practise

I don't generally use a packer. What is the issue with paid packers in the US? It appears to be working just fine at Skydive Dallas. I have never had an issue the few times that I have made use of a packer.

[nigel99 150]

Quote

Quote

I don't think the direct supervision system works in practise

I don't generally use a packer. What is the issue with paid packers in the US? It appears to be working just fine at Skydive Dallas. I have never had an issue the few times that I have made use of a packer.

What do you mean about the issue of paid packers?

I think that "direct supervision" is open to interpretation. It can be anything from the rigger being on site and letting the packer know that they can ask if they have a problem, through to them checking and verifying the work, at defined stages through the packing process.

But I also know that I have had a friend pack for me and I know for certain that there was no rigger supervision, so technically we broke that rule.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[beowulf 1]

Part of the A license is learning to pack. Once you have learned to pack you can then pack for yourself with out any supervison at all.

The supervision of a rigger is for paid packers or "commercial packers" not applicable to any skydiver that packs for himself.

You would be breaking the rules by having someone else pack for you that isn't either a rigger or supervised by a rigger.

I don't see what the issue is with this system? How would adding a packing license make any difference? You could still get your buddy to pack for you if no one at the dropzone noticed or even cared.
Also the A license could viewed as a packing license that allows you to pack for yourself but not for others.

[beowulf 1]

I think the whole supervision of a rigger is there so that there is a rigger that is responsible for the any paid pack jobs whether it was done by the rigger or someone approved by the rigger to pack. I think orginally it was only a FAA certified rigger that could do paid pack jobs. Then it was changed to allow people supervised by a rigger to do paid pack jobs of sport rigs or tandem rigs.

[nigel99 150]

Quote

Part of the A license is learning to pack. Once you have learned to pack you can then pack for yourself with out any supervison at all.

The supervision of a rigger is for paid packers or "commercial packers" not applicable to any skydiver that packs for himself.

You would be breaking the rules by having someone else pack for you that isn't either a rigger or supervised by a rigger.

I don't see what the issue is with this system? How would adding a packing license make any difference? You could still get your buddy to pack for you if no one at the dropzone noticed or even cared.

It just seems that you are able to open yourself up to problems under the current US system. As I said I've had a friend pack for me (breach of the rules). I have also seen other people pack for others because the load was on a short call and they were quicker/more experienced. Those people who did the "favour" could potentially be in trouble if something went wrong.

I can't comment on paid packers and their level of supervision by riggers as I haven't worked at a dz and I have no idea on what structures are in place to monitor the supervision.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I think the whole supervision of a rigger is there so that there is a rigger that is responsible for the any paid pack jobs whether it was done by the rigger or someone approved by the rigger to pack.

Yes, and in the U.S., the issue is that pesky "direct supervision of a rigger".

Quote

I think orginally it was only a FAA certified rigger that could do paid pack jobs. Then it was changed to allow people supervised by a rigger to do paid pack jobs of sport rigs or tandem rigs.

Never heard that before...except as applicable to reserves. Bejeezuz....did I violate some rule when I packed my own T-10 for my second, and subsequent jumps?

Enough on U.S. - it's covered. Any other countries willing to pipe in to help out Nigel?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Part of the A license is learning to pack. Once you have learned to pack you can then pack for yourself with out any supervison at all.

The supervision of a rigger is for paid packers or "commercial packers" not applicable to any skydiver that packs for himself.

You would be breaking the rules by having someone else pack for you that isn't either a rigger or supervised by a rigger.

I don't see what the issue is with this system? How would adding a packing license make any difference? You could still get your buddy to pack for you if no one at the dropzone noticed or even cared.

It just seems that you are able to open yourself up to problems under the current US system. As I said I've had a friend pack for me (breach of the rules). I have also seen other people pack for others because the load was on a short call and they were quicker/more experienced. Those people who did the "favour" could potentially be in trouble if something went wrong.

I can't comment on paid packers and their level of supervision by riggers as I haven't worked at a dz and I have no idea on what structures are in place to monitor the supervision.

How would having a certificate change that?

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

I think that "direct supervision" is open to interpretation.

The definition listed in Part 105 pretty much gets rid of any rogue interpretation with the "observes" verbage.

See below:(from 105)

Direct Supervision means that a certificated rigger personally observes a non-certificated person packing a main parachute to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly, and takes responsibility for that packing.


MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[nigel99 150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Part of the A license is learning to pack. Once you have learned to pack you can then pack for yourself with out any supervison at all.

The supervision of a rigger is for paid packers or "commercial packers" not applicable to any skydiver that packs for himself.

You would be breaking the rules by having someone else pack for you that isn't either a rigger or supervised by a rigger.

I don't see what the issue is with this system? How would adding a packing license make any difference? You could still get your buddy to pack for you if no one at the dropzone noticed or even cared.

It just seems that you are able to open yourself up to problems under the current US system. As I said I've had a friend pack for me (breach of the rules). I have also seen other people pack for others because the load was on a short call and they were quicker/more experienced. Those people who did the "favour" could potentially be in trouble if something went wrong.

I can't comment on paid packers and their level of supervision by riggers as I haven't worked at a dz and I have no idea on what structures are in place to monitor the supervision.

How would having a certificate change that?

It would mean that 'legally' if you hold a packers certificate you could pack for anyone without a riggers supervision, without having to get a riggers rating. Of course you could simply change the rules to state that having an A license allows you to pack a main for anyone.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[demoknite 0]

I am a UK/US jumper and if you go by the FAR, I would say quite a few places break the rule. There are not very many places where the rigger overlords watching the packers. He/she may have vetted them and said they are good to go on the mat or they may pop out and make sure everything is good to go. But for the most part 7 days a week, all day long there is not a rigger supervising. Cue the "not at my DZ posts" but we know the truth.
I think the UK actually does this well. You have a certification thats not a rigger, but someone who has gone through certification and can pack mains for cash.

[beowulf 1]

I wouldn't want that. It's just fuel for the lawyers.

[nigel99 150]

Quote

Quote

I think that "direct supervision" is open to interpretation.

The definition listed in Part 105 pretty much gets rid of any rogue interpretation with the "observes" verbage.

See below:(from 105)

Direct Supervision means that a certificated rigger personally observes a non-certificated person packing a main parachute to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly, and takes responsibility for that packing.

MEL

In that case my feelings that the current system in the US doesn't work in practise are even stronger. I am not sure that I can say with any confidence that the majority of paid pack jobs have had a rigger observing the process in full compliance with that definition.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[nigel99 150]

Quote

I am a UK/US jumper and if you go by the FAR, I would say quite a few places break the rule. There are not very many places where the rigger overlords watching the packers. He/she may have vetted them and said they are good to go on the mat or they may pop out and make sure everything is good to go. But for the most part 7 days a week, all day long there is not a rigger supervising. Cue the "not at my DZ posts" but we know the truth.
I think the UK actually does this well. You have a certification thats not a rigger, but someone who has gone through certification and can pack mains for cash.

I haven't jumped in the UK. I think it makes perfect sense to have a certificate/license to pack without direct supervision. How many UK jumpers get the certificate out of interest, do most up-jumpers have a packing certificate or very few?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[nigel99 150]

Quote

I wouldn't want that. It's just fuel for the lawyers.

Don't you think that the current system is more open to legal abuse?

Here's a hypothetical situation as an example. Lets say that I have just bought my new gear and have just got my A license. The local friendly up jumper who is not on staff but has been jumping for 20 or 30 years helps me out by packing my slippery new ZP main that I am struggling with. For some reason I am have a hard opening that breaks a couple of lines and puts my neck out. I can see that someone "might" have legal recourse and if they are an arse could make life difficult for the friendly up-jumper. I don't know what the legal sanction for breaking an FAR is, but the nice person is technically in the wrong.

I realise that a UK style packing certificate doesn't necessarily fix this example.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I jumped for ages without having one and no one seemed to care. Then, years ago, someone had a moan about no one having a packing cert so I went to the CCI and asked for one. He knew I could pack so he signed me off there and then with no test.

You have to be signed off on each system and on each type of main canopy individually. I just stood and listed for him all the canopies and systems I had packed and he signed them off one by one.

Don't think that would work these days - certainly not with new jumpers and I've personally put new jumpers through a full packing test before signing them off on the system they were packing. If you rocked up with hundreds of jumps though the CCI is probably likely to just sign you off no questions asked.

Not sure in the point of specifying each main seperately - they're all basically the same and any differences in packing by and large only affect opening characteristics rather than overall safety - and hell, you should be packing a big nav just as carefully to avoid a spinning mal as you do a highly loaded cross-braced IMO anyway.

I can see the point in knowing about different container systems as there are subtle differences which can potentially cause serious issues like a bag lock but if you're an exp jumper you ought to be able to work it out or at least know where your knowledge stops... in theory.

I don't pay that much attention at kit and docs checks but I think they check your packing cert - I always did, at least that they had one, whenever I used to do kit and docs checks - but no one really pays much attention to it and there's absolutely no regulation in packing - ie, if my mate comes to me and wants a pack job, there's no mechanism for checking that I'm authorised to pack that main into that container. You just get on and do it and no one's there to object. That may be different for DZ packers mind... though I don't get the impression anyone cares so wouldn't be surprised if they're just left to get on and pack any old thing irrespective of what's on their certificate.

I wouldn't like to think what would happen if someone went in with a potetially packing induced mal and they (or more problematically, the packer) weren't signed off on that kit. A lawyer could make that point go a long way, (and it would in all liklihood come out at the inquest - indeed the coroner may well stick his oar in and write to the BPA if that occured, reminding them of the need to ensure people are properly trained/certificated (in fact, that was probably what caused the crack down 6-7 years ago, though I have no direct knowledge of that)).

[beowulf 1]

No, but I think having a piece of paper pointing to someone saying they are responsible would open it up to legal abuse.

Bottom line it's your ass that will be under canopy so look after it. You pay a packer to pack a parachute, not for the opening or anything else. If you don't trust them don't use them.

[virgin-burner 1]

come jump in switzerland, except for boogies, no packers around!

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[nigel99 150]

Quote

come jump in switzerland, except for boogies, no packers around!

So who packs your student, rental and tandem rigs? What are the Swiss regulations about packing?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

come jump in switzerland, except for boogies, no packers around!

So who packs your student, rental and tandem rigs? What are the Swiss regulations about packing?

well, at my dz, at the end of AFF you have a packing-test; before, you will have to show certain steps. not many rentals around i suppose, if there are, usually the jumper that would jump it packs. tandems, from all the places i've been to, are being packed by the TI..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[pchapman 262]

Quote

See below:(from 105)

Direct Supervision means that a certificated rigger personally observes a non-certificated person packing a main parachute to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly, and takes responsibility for that packing.

MEL

Good to have that quote as a reminder from AC105.

One reads "direct supervision" -- that's very clear.

But then one reads "to the extent necessary" -- which could mean zero percent direct supervision at any given time if the rigger thinks they've got things under control.

(E.g., a trained team, clearly defined roles, training logged & documented, occasional spot checks, incident reporting, recurrency training -- some of that being direct supervision, at certain times!)

I'm not arguing for either a very loose or strict interpretation, just saying that even "direct supervision" isn't as clear as it initially seems.

[JerryBaumchen 1,068]

Hi nigel,

Quote

Is it practical, should it be tweaked etc?

IMO the system in the USA is simply not working.

I, personally, consider it a failure of the PIA Rigging Committee to not have brought this issue up and then have the PIA petition the FAA to change it to what is really going on in the real world.

Additionally, I have read every response here and notice that none of them are from the FAA. Everyone posting, including me, can only offer their opinions as to what the FAA regs/rules mean; I don't care how many discussions they have had with the FAA.

In the USA, if you want the official word, go to the horse's mouth; that would be the FAA. And make sure that they respond in writing. Otherwise, it is just hearsay; from my experience the FAA is real good at denying that they said what they said. Again, IMO they try real hard to avoid putting things in writing.

Just my thoughts, yours may vary,

JerryBaumchen

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

IMO the system in the USA is simply not working.

Jerry,
I do not think many would disagree with that statement, but why it is not working is the question at hand.
I would have to say in this case (packing of mains)it is:
(a) failure to know the regs
(b) failure to follow the regs
(c) or all the above

Quote

I, personally, consider it a failure of the PIA Rigging Committee to not have brought this issue up and then have the PIA petition the FAA to change it to what is really going on in the real world.

Agreed!
But the PIA rigging committee and USPA are mostly responsible for the situation that we are faced with now.

In case you are not aware, the PIA and USPA pushed hard for this AC-105-2D to pass.

They pushed so hard in fact that someone, inside the chain of the FAA, "forgot" to run the document (AC-105-2D) through the full spectrum of the legal department before publication.

This, among other things, resulted it being pulled from publication which means it can not be used at this very moment for anything legally. This means training, testing of rigger applicants, reference material,etc...

The PIA and USPA are also trying to push airworthy, supervised reserve pack jobs through the AC.

That alone is a problem.
1. An AC cannot change the Regulations. In order to change to airworthy, supervised reserve pack jobs, a NPRM has to be presented and published.

2. The people that are trying to push it through with just the AC either do not have a clue or they are just try to skirt around the NPRM, or both.

3. The FAA is aware that we are not generally complying with the regs setforth for mains.
So why in the world would they ever consider supervised reserve repacks "for Use"?

Quote

Additionally, I have read every response here and notice that none of them are from the FAA. Everyone posting, including me, can only offer their opinions as to what the FAA regs/rules mean; I don't care how many discussions they have had with the FAA.

I am assuming that is pointed directly at me!

Yes, I may not be from the FAA but I can assure you that what is posted here is pretty much from the horse's mouth. (once removed anyway)

Cheers,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com