LavaLady

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    51

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by LavaLady

  3. Though they do not appear to publish this letter on their web site, I have a letter headed - Re: Service Bulletin PA SB9502 Rev 2. Dated 18th Nov 2004 from the Managing Director of P.A. This letter adds to the SB and does indeed include the words that I posted previously regarding the potential means to grant limited extension to their SB. :)

  4. Quote

    All Parachutes Australia containers - including the Talon they make under license - lifed at 20 years.



    PA has and will continue to grant limited exemptions to their Service Bulletin No 9502Rev2. http://www.parachutesaustralia.com/s2/SB/PASB9502.pdf The exemption can only be granted after passing an inspection by P.A. If the equipment inspection determines that certain repairs, replacements of modifications are required, the equipment owner retains the right to have these completed by any APF authorised rigger.

  10. The Australian Parachute Federation is mourning the passing recently after a short illness, of Life Member Jim Cox. Jim has been a valued member (since 1963) and we have always appreciated his honest, straight forward approach. A Senior Instructor, Jim has also represented Australia in Style and Accuracy, he has volunteered as a judge and has been actively involved in Parachuting Administration at State and National Level.

    Our thoughts and best wishes are with Fay, Carolyn and family.

  13. In 2007 the International Parachuting Commission (IPC) conducted a Protective Headware Survey. The results of this survey were compiled in a report and presented to the IPC and provided to parachuting National Sporting Organisations that are members of the IPC. Below is an extract of how the survey came about and was conducted. (taken from the cover letter)

    A) BACKGROUND AND AIM OF SURVEY
    During 2007 the matter of the requirement for ‘Protective Headwear’ arose, in the context of this being a condition for entry in a competition (an FAI First Category Event).

    Some debate arose as to what constituted ‘Protective Headwear’ and what regulations exist in various countries, as law and/or as regulation by the National Sport Parachuting Organisation or Association.

    The IPC’s Technical & Safety Committee undertook to collect information on this matter, to:
    1-Make countries aware of what others do and how they regulate;
    2-Help set standards based on experience and requirements of others;
    3-Act as a guide for skydivers considering visiting other countries.

    B) RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
    The results of the survey are presented

    31 countries supplied information.

    The information supplied was on the basis of:
    1-Requirements under national law (government regulations)
    2-Requirements of the National Sports Parachuting Organisation

    Information was sought also on the basis of:
    A-Type of Jumper
    B-Parachuting disciplines

    An examination of the information supplied shows quite wide difference in the requirements of the various National Sport Parachuting Organisations.
    It is also apparent that National Sport Parachuting Organisations are to the fore in safety regulation as regards headwear, in that while 27 of the 31 responding countries have requirements set down by their NSPOs, only 13 have requirements in law. In some instances the national law-making authority defers to the NSPO in the area of protective headwear use.

    It is hoped that the survey results may be of interest and of some help, especially to those who may review their requirements in this area, or who may wish to set a standard where none already exists.


    I am unable to post the entire document here but the results should be accessible from each parachuting national sporting organisation/federation.
    As the Technical Officer of the Australian Parachute Federation (and yes we took part in the survey), this info was provided to our members at our annual conference. I would imagine personnel in similar positions would have this report.

    In regard to the tandem student/tandem instructor protective headware question, of the 31 countries that responded:
    18 require some sort of headware for the Students (described as ranging from cloth or leather hats to hard shells)
    14 require some sort of headware for the TI. (described as ranging from leather hats, any type to hard shells)
    of course as a 2007 survey, this info might now be out of date.
    ;)

  15. In Australia we seem to be having difficulty sourcing Parachutes de France LOR 2 Loops. One rigger here is expressing that he is getting no service from PdF. Does anyone have any ideas of how to go about obtaining either a spool of 1.5mm Cypres closing loop material or pre made loops? (as against the normal 2.3mm thick)
    Kim Hardwick ;)
    Technical Officer
    Australian Parachute Federation

  16. The APF has more than the SB page. It also has a pretty comprehensive index of all SBs. For that matter, the APF in the past promulgated manufacturer's advisory notices as Rigging Advisory Circulars (RACs). These are all still available on-line on the APF web site and the better link to use to access the RACs, the SB's and the index is at http://www.apf.asn.au/sbrac.aspx Kim Hardwick. Australian Parachute Federation Technical Officer.;)

  17. Hi there,
    The official position of the Australian Parachute Federation is as follows.

    "The APF Director Safety has stated that a Vigil AAD may not be fitted to rigs that may be used by solo students, whether the unit is turned off or turned on. This ruling is to remain in force until further notice."

    Further investigation and enquiry is still being made by both the APF Director of Safety & Director of Rigging before any policy change.

    So, this means that if you are not a solo student, and your container has been approved for Vigil use by the manufacturer, you will have no problem using your equipment in Oz.;)

    Kim Hardwick
    APF Technical Officer