mark

Rover

Because of the countless reserve rides due to a floating / dropped pull out. Saw a cypres save because of that and the guy had been jumping pull outs for 20 plus years. He immediately had his gear converted to a BOC.

That's it?

Mark

jumpsracer

Don't know where you're getting your facts from. Pullouts are easier to pack, Don't have to worry about the pilotchute getting stuck in the pouch, and no pilotchute in tows!

Also, no BOCs to replace, and reduced chance for premature deployment.

UPT and RI also offer pull-outs.

-Mark

DrSher

Maybe I should just contact a rigger, tell him/her what I want (. . . Swift [reserve])

Echoing what Terry wrote a few posts earlier:

1. If you insist on a Swift+ reserve, you will get a canopy that was designed 30 years ago, when wing loadings of around 1.0lb/ft^2 were common for experienced jumpers.

2. The canopy will have been manufactured 25 years ago. There is no such thing as a new Swift+. It will likely come with an incomplete history, i.e. you will not know how many times it has been packed or jumped, or in what conditions.

3. Your canopy will be an orphan since the company that made it is no longer in the sport business.

4. The Kevlar tapes and the particular variety of Spectra lines are not common, which makes repairs more of a hassle, and the canopy's span-wise construction is something that most riggers today are unfamiliar with. IIRC, there are also two Service Bulletins, one for improperly shaped ribs, and one for improper bartacks on the lines.

-Mark

baronn

Don't wanna drop dimes on anyone but, I've jumped a KA a few times and have never seen a pilot rig on any of those pilots. The thread was started to find out the Rules from the FAA, not whether it's a good idea or not. IMO, that's a personal, rule decision. I'm not lookin toget anyone in trouble, I just want to know what the FAA says. I haven't found any solid statement from them yet. I'll post anything I find.

From your original post:

baronn

So the FAA website says that the STC for the door mod for skydiving operations requires the pilot to wear a bailout rig.

Is that solid enough for you? How about posting what you found on the FAA website?

For the rest of us 91.307 is the only FAA regulation about pilots wearing parachutes. Nothing in there about a pilot needing a parachute for skydiving operations, nor needing a parachute unless it's a cabin-class aircraft, nor needing a parachute because the door is operated in flight.

Mark

baronn

So the FAA website says that the STC for the door mod for skydiving operations requires the pilot to wear a bailout rig. I've never seen a King air or Otter pilot wear 1. Saw a rig hangin on the back of the right seat on a Skyvan. Is this just being ignored or different rules for different aircraft?

Can you provide a link to the particular section of the FAA website?

Mark

tsalnukt

Religious belief class????

http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/About-AA/The-12-Steps-of-AA

The AA program is not required, though.

Mark

1888

It's interesting to note that when the cycle went to 180 days the price of a repack doubled!

Now the usual repack price is the equivalent of three lift tickets. That's just too much.

ChrisN_714

I sent an inquiry to Sun Path and received this response:

"Our guideline is that you can install a canopy one size smaller than the size for which the container was built. In this case that would be the Pilot 150 ft².

Based on that guideline, the Pilot 140 ft² is too small for the J3K. It's unlikely that you will have sufficient pressure on the main pin the keep the container closed in all attitudes of flight."

I have yet to discuss this with my rigger as my schedule won't allow for me to swing by the DZ until later in the weekend and I currently have a Pilot 140 seller awaiting my response. I wanted to use this forum to seek out some external opinions and hear from some of you, if possible.

If you don't get the answer you want, keep asking. Eventually you'll find someone who knows more than the manufacturer.

Mark

The learning obstacle you describe is called "interference." It occurs when similar actions produce different results. For SOS systems that simply attach cutaway cables to a normally-situated ripcord handle, interference is a problem.

There is at least one SOS system that does not use a conventional ripcord handle, and does not suffer from interference. That system is in use at the US Air Force Academy, which has used it successfully for decades, as well as some civilian dzs.

I would be cautious about drawing conclusions from anecdotes. Although there might be cases where reversion to SOS-style cutaway/reserve deployment procedures has led to injury or death, there may be other cases where out-of-sequence or improperly performed two-handle procedures have also led to injury or death.

Mark

edited for typo

mathrick

SOS is actually the single-handle, integrated cutaway + reserve system they have on some student rigs. You're right it's useless (worse, it's dangerous, and thus banned in DK at least)

Sorry, thread drift ahead:

Can you say more about why you think SOS is dangerous?

Mark

hackish

I took that to mean that the repair had to be approved by the manufacturer.

The manner of the repair has to be approved, not a particular repair itself.

Quote

Apparently I'm not permitted to make a sigma closing loop, or more technically repair a worn out one by replacing the spectra on it. Why not? They say you can't.

We've seen enough "nonstandard" stuff to understand why they might say this, but in the US, specific approval is not required for repairs and alterations (appropriate to your certificate) you do to the main.

Mark

skytribe

[The Parachute Rigger Handbook] states that a resize is an alteration and not a major repair. To do either you would need to be a Master Rigger but paperwork would need to be filed out for an alteration as you would be returning it in a different condition from the original.

The PRH is partially correct. It would be an alteration if the harness were changed to an unapproved configuration. It is not enough to be an alteration to simply change from the as-manufactured configuration. If a change to the as-manufactured configuration were an alteration, than patching a canopy would be an alteration.

When a harness is approved, it is approved in a range of sizes. Changing the size within the approved range is a repair. (Sometimes it's not even a repair -- it's just moving the webbing through the adjustment friction adapters.) Changing the harness to a size outside the approved range would be an alteration.

Mark

For US riggers:

All repairs must be done with procedures approved by the FAA or the manufacturer. If a repair is "ghetto," it is not approved. Specific rig-by-rig approval is not required by regulation, though.

There is no FSDO paperwork required for repairs, either major (like harness resizing) or minor (like basic patch).

There is no requirement to note repairs on the packing data card. The only requirement is that it be logged in the rigger's logbook. In one sense, this is okay, since the entire system must be inspected before approving return to service, and it doesn't matter whether a part is original, replacement, or repaired. A notation on the data card is irrelevant to the inspection.

On the other hand, we would like a way to tie a particular repair to a particular rigger or rigging shop. Right now there's no way to do that unless you already know who it is and have access to their logbooks, and assuming the repair has been done within the previous 2 years.

-Mark

masterrigger1

Quote

For a main canopy, start cutting and sewing; not one iota of req'ments by the US.

Not actually true Jerry.

Not actually true, MEL.

Jerry is writing about manufacturing. Your Part 65 reference is to maintaining.

Mark

PD-218R fits. Also Optimum-253.

-Mark

Deyan

is it legal according to FAA?

Yes. Although as Mr. Pobrause noted, it's frequently easier to take maneuver things if the reserve is out of the pack tray, in which case it's getting repacked.

-Mark

Why did you ask it as a moral question instead of as a legal question?

-Mark

Countersink bit works well for #0. You'll need to hold the stud side with channel lock pliers to keep it from spinning.

Alternatively for gommets in general, grind down one jaw of a pair of side-cutters. Make several different sizes. Bigger gets more leverage, smaller gets you inside smaller grommets.

Mark

councilman24

FAA order 8900.1 editorial update Third Quarter FY 2015, Volume 5 Chapter 5 Title 14 CFR Part 65, Section 9, 5-1336 added paragraph E., which didn't exist in previous versions, as follows,

E. Current Certificate and Type Rating. No person may pack, maintain, or alter any personnel-carrying parachute intended for emergency use in connection with civil aircraft of the United States (including the reserve parachute of a dual parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping) unless that person holds an appropriate current certificate and type rating.

While the supervision privilege provisions are in earlier paragraphs this paragraph adds the specific requirement that if it's going in the air the certificated rigger has to do the work on the emergency or reserve parachute.

The quote from 8900.1 is actually verbatim from 65.111(a) -- no change from the original 1962 version.

That part of the regulation was in existence at the same time as Part 149 (Parachute Lofts), which clearly allowed uncertificated persons to work under supervision. Supervision then and now means: observes to the extent necessary and takes responsibility for the finished product.

Same church, different pew:
The NPRM (64 Federal Register No. 70, page 18304) and 2001 rule change (66 Federal Register No. 90, page 23543ff) included the attempt to regularize the supervision of dz packers. There is nothing in the NPRM or 2001 rule change preamble to suggest that the FAA was intending to limit supervision to main parachutes. We know the rule change was poorly written -- typos, grammar, etc. -- so the the privileges phrase should be read as it was intended: Supervise for types for which rated, and in addition, supervise packing main parachutes IAW 105.43(a) or 105.45(b)(1).

The reason why main parachutes need to be mentioned separately is because they do not have "type." Only reserve parachutes have "type." If main parachutes were "back type" parachutes, a person could pack 20 mains to qualify for a senior ticket.

Mark

councilman24

The privilege of supervision is applicable only to the sections of part 105 having to do with a main. The FAA has recently sent guidance to this effect to inspectors.

Could you provide the reference for the guidance, please?

woppyvac

I have created a single member LLC to use and now I'm trying to find insurance... But it dawned on me that those things mean nothing if the student doesn't sign a waiver for my LLC - correct?

When someone makes a jump with WoppyVacLLC, does he jump with the LLC's employee? If so, the employee can be sued.

Mark

pchapman

So to educate people, Rob, how do the P-124's brakes work?

I'm not Rob, but I'll give it a try.

What would be the brake-set eye on any other canopy is assembled to the rear riser rapide link. The deployment setting is thus also the maximum flying speed setting.

Each toggle line is fingertrapped to the control line, about 15" above the links. If the fingertrap is pulled more than 15" below the link to steer or flare, the jumper is pulling down on the link -- with the same resistance that you would get from doing a rear riser turn or flare. This abrupt change in required control force provides a natural, intuitive place for the jumper to quit pulling down on the toggles.

Mark

dpreguy

The worst case scenario of all: Releasing one brake and then getting scared and doing nothing.

If they do this on an Aviator, the canopy returns to straight flight.

-Mark

1. What percentage of the PEP rigs that you repack/maintain have a square canopy in them?
5-10%.

3. Do you ever recommend a square canopy to your PEP owning customers?
Always. It doesn't make sense to jump a 5mph canopy in winds more than 6-7mph, which is most of the time. Rigs with skydiving reserves (Ravens, PDRs) should be used by skydivers only, but the "slug" steering on the RI Aviator (disclosure: I have some association with RI) makes it a reasonable choice for someone with no experience or training.

-Mark