Packers Certificate

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Hi nigel,

Quote

Is it practical, should it be tweaked etc?

IMO the system in the USA is simply not working.

Jerry,

In your opinion what is not working about the USA system?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Mark,

This comment: I don't care how many discussions they have had with the FAA.

Is for anyone who wants to say what the FAA says; only the FAA can speak for what a reg/rule means.

The rest of us just give our opinion of the reg/rule; and that includes me.

JerryBaumchen

[masterrigger1 2]

Jerry,
Roger that!

BS,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Southern,

Quote

In your opinion what is not working about the USA system?

Remember, this is just my opinion.

Forever in this sport parachute thingy of ours we have had 'whoever' pack mains; and without any rigger being nearby.

The FAA says that it has to be a rigger or the person who will be jumping the canopy; or under 'direct' supervision of a rigger. Whatever in the actual H*** that 'direct' supervision of a rigger really means. And, please no comments about this, I've read this argument way too much.

What I would propose, and I have, is that the PIA begin the process of getting a rule change so that anyone, and I mean anyone, can pack a non-certificated parachute. IMO this is what is actually going on all over the US of A.

I am not talking about reserves here and I would prefer that we not get distracted into that arena; that is a different can of worms.

Does this explain my thinking?

JerryBaumchen

[mark 102]

Quote

What I would propose, and I have, is that the PIA begin the process of getting a rule change so that anyone, and I mean anyone, can pack a non-certificated parachute. IMO this is what is actually going on all over the US of A.

I would support such a change applied to owner-jumped mains. I figure an owner is smart enough to appreciate the risks involved in having a stranger pack his rig.

I'm not so sure about student or tandem equipment, though. Should equipment "for hire" require a higher standard of care?

Mark

[Southern_Man 0]

Hi Jerry,

Yes, that is a very clear answer.

Quote

Hi Southern,

Quote

In your opinion what is not working about the USA system?

Remember, this is just my opinion.

Forever in this sport parachute thingy of ours we have had 'whoever' pack mains; and without any rigger being nearby.

The FAA says that it has to be a rigger or the person who will be jumping the canopy; or under 'direct' supervision of a rigger. Whatever in the actual H*** that 'direct' supervision of a rigger really means. And, please no comments about this, I've read this argument way too much.

What I would propose, and I have, is that the PIA begin the process of getting a rule change so that anyone, and I mean anyone, can pack a non-certificated parachute. IMO this is what is actually going on all over the US of A.

I am not talking about reserves here and I would prefer that we not get distracted into that arena; that is a different can of worms.

Does this explain my thinking?

JerryBaumchen

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

What I would propose, and I have, is that the PIA begin the process of getting a rule change so that anyone, and I mean anyone, can pack a non-certificated parachute. IMO this is what is actually going on all over the US of A.

I would support such a change applied to owner-jumped mains. I figure an owner is smart enough to appreciate the risks involved in having a stranger pack his rig.

I'm not so sure about student or tandem equipment, though. Should equipment "for hire" require a higher standard of care?

Mark

Personally, I'd go for the packing certificate idea.

And yes, I agree that student and tandem packing should be held to a much higher standard....say an endorsement on the certificate or some such.

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

[nigel99 143]

Quote

Quote

What I would propose, and I have, is that the PIA begin the process of getting a rule change so that anyone, and I mean anyone, can pack a non-certificated parachute. IMO this is what is actually going on all over the US of A.

I would support such a change applied to owner-jumped mains. I figure an owner is smart enough to appreciate the risks involved in having a stranger pack his rig.

I'm not so sure about student or tandem equipment, though. Should equipment "for hire" require a higher standard of care?

Mark

That sums up my view of the most workable system. Personal equipment is down to the owner, equipment for hire should be packed by a "trained professional". I don't think that it is necessary that the person is a rigger though, so I see an advantage in a separate packing certificate/rating.

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

[PhoenixPhive 0]

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.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
una vita vivenda - One life, live it.

when i enquired about packing my own, i was told that i couldn't pack my own on my first jump; i told them i wanted to get to know the equipment i would be using (as i have done in every other hobby i have). I was told there was a packing course, but no mention was made of getting a packer's certificate. I would much rather get a packers certificate first, if only for the ability to pack my own chute, that way, if i fuck it up, its my own fault, no one else's(also, given my tendancy to be a lightening rod, i want to make sure no one walks to the packer and slips him a twenty to twist my lines).

[PhoenixPhive 0]

That sums up my view of the most workable system. Personal equipment is down to the owner, equipment for hire should be packed by a "trained professional".

But at that point you are discriminating against people who can't afford their own equipment at the get go: a certificate should be plenty for me to pack any gear i use, reagardless whether it is mine or the dz's (where i have already signed a waiver)

[virgin-burner 1]

i packed myself for my very first jump!

“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 143]

Quote

when i enquired about packing my own, i was told that i couldn't pack my own on my first jump; i told them i wanted to get to know the equipment i would be using (as i have done in every other hobby i have). I was told there was a packing course, but no mention was made of getting a packer's certificate. I would much rather get a packers certificate first, if only for the ability to pack my own chute, that way, if i fuck it up, its my own fault, no one else's(also, given my tendancy to be a lightening rod, i want to make sure no one walks to the packer and slips him a twenty to twist my lines).

To be clear in the US there is no "packers certificate".

Hopefully an instructor will chip in with their opinion, but when you are being taught AFF time is limited and they need to focus on the important stuff. My experience of dropzones is that if you hang out on the packing floor and ask questions you can learn to pack even as a non-jumper. If you go that route it is all about building relationships at the dz and that takes time. It is probably 20 or 30 years since your first jump course included packing. Some of the older jumpers here had to learn to pack for their first jump course (from memory Airtwardo and Wendy have mentioned something along these lines).

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

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

To be clear in the US there is no "packers certificate".

Hopefully an instructor will chip in with their opinion, but when you are being taught AFF time is limited and they need to focus on the important stuff. My experience of dropzones is that if you hang out on the packing floor and ask questions you can learn to pack even as a non-jumper. If you go that route it is all about building relationships at the dz and that takes time. It is probably 20 or 30 years since your first jump course included packing. Some of the older jumpers here had to learn to pack for their first jump course (from memory Airtwardo and Wendy have mentioned something along these lines).

Yes, we have had a couple of packers learn to jump at my DZ, they were already working on the floor before first jump course. If you showed up to your first jump course and said you wanted to pack your own before you jumped, they would tell you no (or maybe go learn to pack and take the first jump course after you already know how).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[nigel99 143]

Quote

That sums up my view of the most workable system. Personal equipment is down to the owner, equipment for hire should be packed by a "trained professional".

But at that point you are discriminating against people who can't afford their own equipment at the get go: a certificate should be plenty for me to pack any gear i use, reagardless whether it is mine or the dz's (where i have already signed a waiver)

Rental gear can be a problem. In practise on a dz if you rent gear and are not an AFF student, on a busy day you will probably find that AFF students get priority on equipment. This means that if you have packed rental gear and the equipment is re-allocated then to be compliant it must be repacked (under current US rules).

I agree that the introduction of a packing certificate could help in the circumstance you describe. Of course a certificate costs money though as it means that somebody is taking the time to teach you. So then we are discriminating against people who can't afford the packing course.

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

[PhoenixPhive 0]

Of course a certificate costs money though as it means that somebody is taking the time to teach you. So then we are discriminating against people who can't afford the packing course

Of course i pay for instruction and time, and gear rental, that goes without saying. i am just saying that i should not have to own $7,000.00 in gear before i should be able to pack the chute that is on my own back.... getting a second job in theis economy is non existent and i would happily do it. However, as i have been bitten by this bug called skydiving i would like to be able to service my new additiction without having to sell a kidney

[PhoenixPhive 0]

maybe go learn to pack and take the first jump course after you already know how.

that is what i wanted to do, but was told that instruction wasn't given on the weekends

[Southern_Man 0]

At my DZ packing is uaually taught on a weekday. The riggers and packers are way to busy on a weekend to be teaching somebody. (taking time off work is a cost you may have to endure as well)

People who rent gear are able to pack for themselves at my DZ, but a packer has to do it before a student can jump it or before it goes back on the shelf (i.e. we would not allow the next renter to jump your pack job).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[PhoenixPhive 0]

cool, thanks. not a problem: have some vacation days- i wouldn't want to pack someone else's rig: i am just coming at it from a strictly selfish point of view: i only trust myself

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the response. And thanks to all of you who have responded to Nigel's thread.

If you want this changed ( and I am very open to 'what changes' ), well there is a guy who posts on here as Councilman-24; he is Terry Urban and he is the Chairman of the PIA Rigging Committee. Start sending him messages that you/we want the PIA to be proactive in getting the rules changed.

We got things changed so that now we have the 180 repack cycle and we can do it on this.

Don't sit back and watch if you really want something to be changed.

Thank you,

JerryBaumchen

PS) Now please read my post on the CSPA system & riggerrob's input; I think that would be something to begin a serious discussion from.

PPS) OK, who wants to be the Chair on the Rigging Committee sub-committee on this? I do not, sorry.

[nigel99 143]

Reposted from another thread with Tom's permission.

Quote

Who Can Pack a Main Parachute?
(Reprinted from Parachutist, June 2002)
By Tom Buchanan

Regulations are often boring. Most of us would rather be skydiving than sitting in a library studying a mountain high stack of federal regulations. While we don’t need to know all the legal detail about regulation, we should know at least enough to comply with the basic rules governing parachute operations.

In July of 2001 the FAA updated Part 105 and part 65 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR’s), and established a new standard that outlined specifically who can pack main parachutes. The key regulation (105.43) requires that “...The main parachute must have been packed within 120 days before the date of it’s use by a certificated parachute rigger, the person making the next jump with that parachute, or a non-certificated person under the direct supervision of a certificated parachute rigger.” Further, part 105.43 prescribes that both the person making the jump, and the pilot in command of the aircraft, hold responsibility for complying with parachute packing requirements.

Those of us who have our main parachutes packed by non-riggers, and the folks who are packing main parachutes for others, should be aware of FAA supervision requirements. Since the pilot and jumper hold responsibility for compliance under Part 105, both can be held in violation if an FAA inspector determines that a parachute packer is not a certificated rigger, and not under the direct supervision of a certificated rigger. It is also possible that an inspector could find a commercial packer in violation of the regulation, although that option is not clearly detailed in the regulation.

Direct Supervision
The term “Direct Supervision” is defined under part 105.3 to mean “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.” Under this regulation it is not enough that a rigger is in the area. Rather, the regulation requires that a relationship of responsibility must be established between a non-certificated parachute packer and a certificated rigger, and the rigger must be involved in actually supervising the specific work, to some degree.

The extent of the relationship between a packer and rigger, and the specific nature of the supervision required is not defined under part 105, however it was addressed as the rule was developed by the FAA.

The changes to Part 105 were originally released as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in April, 1999. In that NPRM the FAA modified the packing requirements to allow a rigger to supervise the packing of main parachutes by non-riggers, a matter that was addressed inconsistently under the old regulation. When the FAA released the
NPRM they wrote: “The FAA proposes to clarify the meaning of the term “supervision,” since there has been some industry confusion as to what constitutes appropriate supervision...In the proposed regulation a certificated rigger must personally observe the entire packing process of the main parachute to ensure that it is being done properly by a non-certificated person who is not the holder of a parachute rigging certificate. The certificated parachute rigger should be available for immediate consultation while the non-certificated parachute rigger is packing the main parachute. The certificated parachute rigger also should inspect the main parachute being packed, as necessary, through, and upon completion of the packing process. In comments attached to the original NPRM the FAA also defined the word supervision to include “...The scope of supervision of a non-certificated person would be similar to the supervision requirements stated in 14 CFR Sec. 43.3(d) which states that “...a supervisor personally observes the work being done to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly, and if the supervisor is readily available, in person, for consultation.” That regulation, 43.3, addresses “Persons authorized to perform maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration” associated with aircraft.

Following publication of the proposed rule the public was invited to offer their comments. The FAA reviewed the comments received and issued a revised rule, along with an analysis of relevant public comments. The original NPRM used the word “supervision”, while the final rule used “direct supervision.” The FAA addressed that language change as follows “...Although the term “direct supervision” was not used in the NPRM, the FAA believes that adding the word “direct” clarifies the FAA’s intent that a certificated rigger must be on the premises during the parachute packing process. The certificated riggers presence ensures that he/she is readily available in person for consultation.” Both the final rule, and the intent presented in the NPRM and response to comments, indicate that the FAA expects a high degree of supervision from a certificated parachute rigger.

Blanket Approval and Unattended Supervision
Since the publication of the NPRM, some packers have suggested that a rigger can easily approve a non-certificated person to pack main parachutes once, and perhaps even issue a short note to that effect, alleviating the requirement for further supervision. The FAA refuted this theory in their comments attached to the final rule. In fact, one commenter to the NPRM (Skydive Delmarva) did suggest that a certificated rigger should be allowed to give written authorization to a non-rigger allowing him to pack main parachutes without supervision. The FAA responded as follows “...The FAA disagrees, for safety reasons, with Skydive Delmarva’s request to allow persons authorized in writing by a certificated parachute rigger to pack main parachutes without supervision.”

The comments by the FAA made it very clear they expect a non-certificated packer to receive ongoing supervision from a rigger, and that the rigger must be on the premises. The FAA did not say the rigger must watch every step of each pack job, but rather that a rigger must supervise “to the extent necessary to ensure it is being done properly.”

It is incumbent upon each certificated rigger providing supervision, and upon each non-certificated packer, to make sure a level of supervision is being provided that will satisfy an FAA inspection. As each rigger defines that supervision it would be wise to review the initial language of intent in both the original NPRM, and the final rule with comments. A failure to provide an adequate level of supervision could generate an administrative response against the dropzone, pilot or the jumper using the rig packed by a non-certificated packer. The FAA might also find violations on the part of the supervising rigger, or the non-certificated packer.

So, that is a brief discussion of main parachute packing requirements covered by parts 105 and 65. If you are interested in the specific regulations, most of the relevant FAR’s are included in the USPA SIM, and all Federal Aviation Regulations are available at http://www.faa.gov. The FAA comments regarding the NPRM were included in the Federal Register on April 13, 1999 and May 9, 2001.

Your Role In The Packing Process
Now let’s quickly review how this effects each of us on the dropzone:

• If you are using the services of a packer, it would be a great idea to ask if he/she is a rigger, and if not, ask how supervision is being provided, and by whom. Remember, the FAR’s make the jumper and pilot responsible for compliance with part 105.43.

• If you are a packer and do not have a rigger certificate, you should establish a supervisory relationship with a rigger and make sure he/she is willing to take legal responsibility for your packing. You must also make sure the rigger is available at all times when you are packing main parachutes to be used by others, and that you agree about the level of supervision required.

• If you are a rigger and are providing supervision for a packer, you should think clearly about that responsibility, and the level of supervision you are providing. It may not be enough to say you watched the packer a few times and determined that no further supervision was required. If asked by an FAA inspector you should be able to detail how and when you have supervised each packer under your certificate. The language of the final rule provides a great deal of latitude regarding supervision, but the written intent of the regulation establishes a very high standard of supervision.

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

[sailorjohnny 0]

I'll try to explain how the Norwegian system works:

We do have a packer's certificate, and it is an A license requirement. The packer's certificate gives one the right to independently pack main parachutes. Most of my jumps from early student career were on my own pack jobs, and this by itself gave me a great understanding of how the gear works, in addition to a greater respect for, and trust in the gear.

As I said, if you have a packing certificate, you can pack main parachutes without supervision. It doesn't matter who jumps them, as nobody should ever expect the main chute to actually work.

The packing exam consists of doing a pack job supervised by a rigger. Before you begin, the rigger will intentionally mess something up (step through etc), and he/she will ask you questions about gear and packing as you pack. If the rigger is satisfied, you get the packer's certificate.

You'll need to hold a valid A (or higher) license to keep the packer's certificate valid (min 20 jumps/year for A), or have a rigger certify a number of pack jobs a year to keep only the packer's certificate valid.

Quote

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.

Rental, tandem, and club owned gear require thorough inspections every 3 months (with reserve inspection/repack every 6th), while privately owned require one inspection every 12 months (including reserve inspection/repack).*

Personally, I think this system works great, and I don't see any problems with it.

*Edit: All of these inspections (and repacks) have to be done by a rigger. The inspections include everything from harness metal parts and webbing, to line attachment points, deployment system etc.

[nigel99 143]

Quote

I'll try to explain how the Norwegian system works:

We do have a packer's certificate, and it is an A license requirement. The packer's certificate gives one the right to independently pack main parachutes. Most of my jumps from early student career were on my own pack jobs, and this by itself gave me a great understanding of how the gear works, in addition to a greater respect for, and trust in the gear.

As I said, if you have a packing certificate, you can pack main parachutes without supervision. It doesn't matter who jumps them, as nobody should ever expect the main chute to actually work.

The packing exam consists of doing a pack job supervised by a rigger. Before you begin, the rigger will intentionally mess something up (step through etc), and he/she will ask you questions about gear and packing as you pack. If the rigger is satisfied, you get the packer's certificate.

You'll need to hold a valid A (or higher) license to keep the packer's certificate valid (min 20 jumps/year for A), or have a rigger certify a number of pack jobs a year to keep only the packer's certificate valid.

Quote

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.

Rental, tandem, and club owned gear require thorough inspections every 3 months (with reserve inspection/repack every 6th), while privately owned require one inspection every 12 months (including reserve inspection/repack).*

Personally, I think this system works great, and I don't see any problems with it.

*Edit: All of these inspections (and repacks) have to be done by a rigger. The inspections include everything from harness metal parts and webbing, to line attachment points, deployment system etc.

It sounds like quite a good system. Thanks for the detail.

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

[stratostar 5]

Quote

I'm not so sure about student or tandem equipment, though. Should equipment "for hire" require a higher standard of care?

Should a commercial aircraft be maintained @ commercial part 135 aircraft standards or should 'any person' be able to work on it to part 91 standards or how ever they see fit to "fit it"?

The clear answer is, under the current FAR's a smart DZO will have his paid packers holding a riggers ticket or one ticket holder on the mat complying with 105.43, it only takes one fuck up to land you in a world of FAA shit and or bring down on the industry a lot of trouble that need not be.

Z-hills @ Perris V, has paid packers, last time I was there each and everyone of them was a ticket holding FAA rigger, it's not that hard to comply with the reg, plus it keep some one working who took the time and paid dues to earn the ticket, I would rather have them looking over my gear then "the lifestyle packer/dz bum" who could care less there is wear on the Y line of a drouge or line trim or the other 1000's of things that can go wrong on a highly used rental rig and tandem rigs.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

Z-hills @ Perris V, has paid packers, last time I was there each and everyone of them was a ticket holding FAA rigger, it's not that hard to comply with the reg, plus it keep some one working who took the time and paid dues to earn the ticket, I would rather have them looking over my gear then "the lifestyle packer/dz bum" who could care less there is wear on the Y line of a drouge or line trim or the other 1000's of things that can go wrong on a highly used rental rig and tandem rigs.

I seem to recall hearing about a dz that was going to get all their packers to slam 20 chest packs (no spring loaded p/c's and small canopies) and get them a chest type ticket, because that would conform to the regs. Can't remember what dz it was, or how it was coming along.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

I'm not so sure about student or tandem equipment, though. Should equipment "for hire" require a higher standard of care?

Should a commercial aircraft be maintained @ commercial part 135 aircraft standards or should 'any person' be able to work on it to part 91 standards or how ever they see fit to "fit it"?

The clear answer is, under the current FAR's a smart DZO will have his paid packers holding a riggers ticket or one ticket holder on the mat complying with 105.43, it only takes one fuck up to land you in a world of FAA shit and or bring down on the industry a lot of trouble that need not be.

Z-hills @ Perris V, has paid packers, last time I was there each and everyone of them was a ticket holding FAA rigger, it's not that hard to comply with the reg, plus it keep some one working who took the time and paid dues to earn the ticket, I would rather have them looking over my gear then "the lifestyle packer/dz bum" who could care less there is wear on the Y line of a drouge or line trim or the other 1000's of things that can go wrong on a highly used rental rig and tandem rigs.

I think it would be nice to see a "Junior Rigger" or maybe call it just plain "Rigger" that's a step below a Senior Rigger.

Main packs and simple parts replacement only. No reserves or sewing.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo