TSO'ed Main Risers

[billbooth 10]

Polarbear just asked if you needed to be a rigger to assemble your own main parachute. At the moment the answer is "no". However, it is possible that the answer, in the future, might be "yes".
I am on the committee which is re-writing the current TSO, which applies only to the reserve harness and container, reserve ripcord, reserve risers, and the reserve canopy, bag, and pilot chute. This means that these items are the only certificated parts of a parachute system, and therefore the only parts that have to be assembled and looked after by a rigger. However, some members on that committee want to include a new series of tests that the main canopy release device (and drogue release device on tandem rigs) must pass to get a TSO for the rig. In other words, they want to, for the first time, "certify" the main risers.
There is good reason for this view in light of all the manufacturers who have made 3-ring releases improperly in the past. However, there is a "Catch 22" involved. If we include the 3-ring system in the standard, it would then become part of the "certificated system" and, some at the FAA might argue, therefore must be assembled and maintained by a certificate holder, ie. rigger. This would mean that a jumper could no longer connect his main risers, to his OWN rig, unless he was also a rigger. If the drogue release is included, it means that a tandem master could no longer close his own main container.
Some on the committee (including me) feel that the general jumping population (including you) might not "take kindly" to such a regulation.
My question to all of you is this. Would you be willing to trade your current right to assemble your own main parachute, in exchange for the FAA requiring manufacturers to make main canopy releases correctly, in order to get a TSO? Now mind you, just because we include main risers in the standard, doesn't necessarily mean that the FAA will require riggers to hook up main risers. I just opens the door for them to do it, and I'm afraid, for a bureaucrat, it is a "logical" step.
Bill Booth

[AggieDave 6]

Short answer: No.
Long answer: For the fear of more regulation will create a down hill slide into even more regulation, and that moving regulation that far wouldn't necissarily cause a rise in the amount of rigging work, it would cause a great number of people to ignore the regulation all together. The idea of having properly made risers is obviously a good one, but infringing on my ability to maintain my OWN gear is a bit far.
A human cannonball, I rise above it all
Up higher then a trapeze, I can fly

[Lindsey 0]

That's a pretty spooky thought. Another thought I have about it is this: I see SO many people who don't know how to pack a main canopy because the packer will do it.....I think that's incredibly dangerous, for people to know so little about their own gear. People should HAVE to hook up those new main canopies and learn how it's all put together....I think safety is increased more by improving jumpers' awareness and understanding of their gear than by regulation.....
some days it's just not worth gnawing through the straps
http://home.earthlink.net/~linzwalley

[Lindsey 0]

oops....forgot to flap my eyelashes
flap, flap, flap
Lindsey
some days it's just not worth gnawing through the straps
http://home.earthlink.net/~linzwalley

[PhreeZone 15]

If you are going to propose this that would be fine, IF there was a proposal to introduce a lower rigger rating other then senior. Something like a Junior rigger. This level would be able to assemble components like this, would be able to pack without a senior rigger, and perform basic maintence as described by the manufactors.
But if you want to certify more components, you are going to have to make it easier for people to have people check these components.
If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will....

[SkydiveMonkey 0]

No. the reserve I feel is a definate requirement, but I think the jumper should be able to (dis)connect the main at will.
boobies - the cause of, and solution to, all of lifes problems

[rendezvous 0]

My question would be that if what you are trying to certify is the construction of the 3 ring release system and the risers, or as a matter of fact any main chute component, why does that have to mean that their assembly also needs to be under the certification.
Can't it be determined on a component by component basis what should and shouldn't be included. Personally I feel much more confident if I can handle the components of my parachute myself, not because I don't trust a rigger but because that helps me to understand my gear better, and in turn the sport itself. I wouldn't mind something more comprehensive in the AFF program towards handling the gear and it's components. A junior certification would be a nice idea for the purpose except for the fact that if everyone has to, or would need to take it if they are to be able to do anything to their gear then just make that knowledge
base to be a requirement under the AFF course so that every ones gets it.

[Geoff 0]

I assume this would make it illegal for anyone except a rigger to perform the monthly disconnect/ flex/ inspect/ lubricate/ reassemble recommended by most manufacturers. Doesn't sound practical to me.
Geoff

[Hooknswoop 19]

I think it would be a great idea to have the standards for the 3-ring TSO'd to make sure manufacturers build them to specs.
I don't think requiring a rigger to perform 3-ring maintenance or assemble a main is a good idea. Too little 3-rings are actually maintained and this would force the jumpers that are performing the maintenance to either do it illegally or have their rigger perform a task they should be able to handle themselves. Considering it took the FAA 10 +/- years to update part 105, and the current writing would put TSO'd main risers under the rigger umbrella of responsibilty, it would probably take another 10 years to get a "main riser" clause added to fix it.
Personnaly, TSO'd main risers would be a good thing for me as a rigger and wouldn't change the way I do business at all for my gear. So for selfish reasons, TSO'em :-)
Hook

[KellyF 16]

Bill,
One idea that could help ensure that risers are built correctly--
If you were to produce a tool similar to the jig RWS uses in the production of 3-Ring risers, and make it available for riggers or manufacturers. Or maybe include the dimensions to make one in the back of the Riser Construction Manual, of course if RWS made the tool, they could ensure that the tool is within specs. and made out of materials that wouldn't bend or distort with use or abuse. Just a thought.

[AggieDave 6]

He makes available to ANY manufactor the designs of his 3-ring system, its just that people don't ask him for it.
A human cannonball, I rise above it all
Up higher then a trapeze, I can fly

[billbooth 10]

While my committee can write the rules for a new TSO, we have absolutely no power to determine how the FAA integrates those rules into the FAR's as regards who can do what to whom. Our biggest problem is, while the FAA has many fine people who know aircraft, inside and out, almost no one in a position of authority knows anything about parachutes. So it is very hard to predict just what they will do with any new regulation. For instance, it took me 17 YEARS to get them to "legalize" tandem, and we went on "forever" to finally get a somewhat good working definition of "under supervision of a rigger". If we start including portions of the main parachute in the TSO tests, who knows where it will lead, how FUBAR the regs will become, or how long it will take to finally straighten everything out.

[billvon 2,436]

>Would you be willing to trade your current right to assemble your own main
> parachute, in exchange for the FAA requiring manufacturers to make main
> canopy releases correctly, in order to get a TSO?
No. I think that's a responsibility that falls entirely upon the jumper. Any jumper can easily ensure that a set of risers is built according to spec; either they can do it or have a good rigger do it for them. In general I think we need jumpers to take more responsibility for their gear, not less.
In addition I think it would have the following side effects:
-Additional malfunctions due to jumpers who switch canopies being required to switch them at the links, not at the container attachement point.
-Additional disregard for FAA regulations due to widespread non-acceptance of this new rule. ("Been doing it for 10 years, gonna keep doing it." "If I'm breaking the rules anyway, why not pencil pack? It's no more illegal.")
-bill von

[Kelly 0]

I don't think that it is a good idea. I like to disconnect my main risers from my container system on a semi regular basis, leave my canopy in my locker for a couple of days then re-connect the risers to the container. This makes me stay current on that aspect of my gear inspection & mainteness and keeps me from being gear lazy.
Also, when i teach a packing lesson I show the person how to connect the risers to the container. Then i show them how to do a 4 line check. I find that the by teaching them this they have a better understanding of how their gear works. It gives them a better view of the whole picture. Also, it gives them something proactive that they can do regarding their gear besides pin checks and handle touches.. basically, it gives them a little confidence boast and more knowledge of their life saving system.
its my gear. I understand people can make mistakes, myself and riggers included, but i just feel better knowing that i am the one that reconnected those risers to the container... i dont fret a reserve ride for un-neccessary reasons as much... yeah, i can still screw up, but I KNOW i did my continluallity checks and everything appeared ok.

http://kel197.tripod.com/skydivefriendsTRIPOD/

[jdhill 0]

I think many people will be surprised to find out that only the harness and reserve part of the system are TSO’d, and that the 3-ring is not…
My short answer… No, don’t make it part of the regulations… the more that the industry can regulate itself the better… While I do not have the depth of experience, knowledge, or industry insight on the subject that you have, the industry does not seem to be doing bad on this item…
I like the idea of having a measurable standard for the construction of main risers, but I think it is too much to expect that I would have a rigger change my main every time I want to switch them out...
I think the industry is competitive enough that if a manufacturer were producing unsafe risers or release systems someone (either jumpers, riggers, or another manufacturer) would catch it and make it known (we all know how skydivers love manufacturer scandals). This would obviously have an effect of sales...it would be too much of a liability to risk being known as the guys with the cutaway system that does not work or the risers that break regularly.
Just a procedural question... how would one be able to tell a main that was hooked up by a rigger vs. one that the owner hooked up? Would you put a seal on it? I don't think I would like a little piece of string and lead tangled up in my release system.
On a side note… I would like to thank you Bill for your posts on a variety of equipment subjects. The knowledge and experience that you so freely share with us only makes us better and safer skydivers. I have been fortunate to find that my equipment does not show any of the issue you have raised, but I’m sure some people have found stuff wrong that they may not have even known to look for.
Peace
Josh
http://www.aerialfusion.com

[alan 1]

Quote

I wouldn't mind something more comprehensive in the AFF program towards handling the gear and it's components. A junior certification would be a nice idea for the purpose except for the fact that if everyone has to, or would need to take it if they are to be able to do anything to their gear then just make that knowledge base to be a requirement under the AFF course so that every ones gets it.

Not everyone goes through AFF, some DZs don't offer it.

alan

[Jeffrey 0]

Kelly,
The jig/tool you spoke of, I produced for RWS and other manufactures many years ago. They work grate for insuring a consistent ring cemetery in a production environment, but may require periodic calibration and is very, very, user sensitive.
No mater how well the tooling is made. The use of any tooling of this nature by any operator should always be monitored closely by QC.
I think it would be grate if Bill was to produce them for any one wanting to build risers.
Jeff

[alan 1]

Bill, I think it would be opening up a can of worms to include the main risers in the TSO. How bad is the problem of improperly manufactured risers currently? How many incidents have there been in the last few years of risers/3 ring releases not being manufactured to specs (design, not QC problems)? Wouldn't it be more practical to simply identify anyone manufacturing non-conforming risers/release systems and disseminate that information throughout the skydiving community? Couldn't the PIA assume some role in this?
alan

[billbooth 10]

Jeff and Kelly;
It's good to hear from both of you. If there is anyone in this industry who knows what they are talking about it's you two. About the 3-ring jig. As both of you know, it's nearly impossible to make consistent mini risers without one. Any manufacturer who hasn't figured that out yet, probably shouldn't be making risers. I find it amazing that anyone makes bad risers in this country, because nearly all of the manufacturers used to work at the Relative Workshop. Talon and Voodoo, Javelin, Mirage, and Infinity are all made by former Relative Workshop employees.

[billbooth 10]

jdhill said:
"I think the industry is competitive enough that if a manufacturer were producing unsafe risers or release systems someone (either jumpers, riggers, or another manufacturer) would catch it and make it known (we all know how skydivers love manufacturer scandals). This would obviously have an effect of sales."
I wish this were true. There is however, no central database of equipment malfunctions that a new jumper can access to find out about gear problems. And in this case, what you don't know can hurt you. Take for example soft cutaway housings (instead of metal housings) on 3-ring release systems. They were terrible, yet several major manufacturers made them for over 7 years, (despite my pleas) until apparently enough people were hurt or killed for word to get around. What really hurts is that there was never a recall. Manufacturers simply stopped making them a few years ago, without a word. This means that even today, new jumpers, who don't know any better, are probably still jumping them on gear they bought used. There are many other examples, but that is about the worst I've seen.
The good thing about sites like Dropzone.com, where people of all experience levels get together, is that something like that will probably never happen again. At least we can hope.

[billbooth 10]

jdhill said:
"Just a procedural question... how would one be able to tell a main that was hooked up by a rigger vs. one that the owner hooked up? Would you put a seal on it? I don't think I would like a little piece of string and lead tangled up in my release system."
I'm, in shock! I have sat on a committee for two years, supposedly made of of the best minds in the industry, and NO ONE ever asked that question. Want a job, Josh?
Bill

[VectorBoy 0]

How could the TSO deal with non-manufacturer or custom loft made risers for different rigs? How many people have swapped your hard cutaway riser housing for what came on their rigs in light of recent hard pull incidents? Some people like "slider proof" toggle keepers and not every riser is made that way. Glen

[weid14 0]

A TSO doesn't mean they would be manufactured correctly, it only means that the ones that were made correctly work as advertised. Quality control is the most important part... maybe manufactures should be required to be ISO certified. (now that is a can of worms!)

[skymedic 0]

Quote

maybe manufactures should be required to be ISO certified

Dave, you and I BOTH know that won't happen....
Cheers....vasbyt
marc
"it's hard to be anal with no anus!!!"-Dogma

[weid14 0]

yeah, I know, much work and cost associated with ISO certification.