dpreguy

Climbed for 20 years+. Rock climber and ice and snow. US, Canada, Mexico. Named 2. Placed the registers. A climber can name more than just a route.

Now the political correctness infection is spreading. Probably beyond mountains too. Mt Evans, named after a governor, is now targeted as inappropriate because he was governor when there was an indian massacre. Now a move to rename it mount Black Kettle. If only "the great one" would visit and rename it. Let' see, Columbus enslaved Indians. Rename Columbus Day too........ If Alaskans want Denali, that's cool. I actually prefer it. But lobby Congress or an agency or whatever to get the change.

Using executive authority and political correctness as a cover for a cutesy political stunt is what this is all about.

Obvious you are not a climber. The person who climbs it names it.

Because that person has earned that right. This has been around for - like - forever.

I actually don't care what the mountain is called. Just pointing out the decision here was all about political correctness. Arrogant political correctness.

Intellectually, your response was lacking..
I said the first person who climbs it CAN name it. This respect for a first ascent governs, or should.

Governments naming mountains no one has climbed is a longstanding practice too, but the point is, the natives have no superior right to the naming either. The natives naming Denali is OK for them, but it is neither more legitimate or bogus as any other. (Except for the never ending cutesy quest for political correctness). Then Jewell follows this PC quest right after the 'great one' visits and suddenly declares that Denali is the correct name. Silly; and patently obvious..

The design is all about instant openings. Pack opening bands do just that - they strip away the sides of the pack completely; and with the steel spring bands at the floor of the pack, the canopy is not only exposed, but it is pushed out at the same time. Talk about getting the canopy into the air! Pilot chute too of course. Not only the NB 8 but the Army and Air Force B 12's too. Yes the design is 50 or 60 years old but......

Also, as I recall, the NB 8 also uses a loop closure for the lower part of the container, as well as cones.

It is a very reliable design - result oriented.

(DB Cooper chose it over the other two. No that is an endorsement! Humor intended)

The first person who climbs it can name it.

The local indians/ eskimo natives have no naming rights. None. They want to call it Denali, OK, but they have no superior right to name it because none of them climbed it. They just stared at it and named it as they pleased. OK then, it is Denalii to them. No, McKinley didn't climb it either, but his claim to name it is just as good, or as bogus as the natives.

Sec interior Jewell, little puppet of political correctness, is out of her pay grade in trying to rename it.

"Mfg allow senior to perform harness work" - skytribe is probably right.

Remotely related:
A million years ago main parachute D bags used to have a tiny rubber band pocket sewed onto them with a Velcro closure. I added them on every rig I have owned thru the years, and they are very handy. I just holds three or four rubber bands. If you are packing and need a rubber band quickly - just grab one from the little pocket. I didn't invent this idea; just copied it. I have used it for decades.

Guess we'll respectfully disagree on the privileges of a senior rigger. I believe they are very much more extensive.

Hopefully there will someday be input from PIA, or the FAA or simply a consensus of riggers someday to resolve ambiguities.

In the meantime, thank you, and all others for your civility and intelligent input. I learn everyday from those with more extensive abilities and experience than me. Your loft, and others who are in the commercial end of complicated rigging tasks and repairs do things on a
regular basis I wouldn't be able to do. We learn we learn we learn. Pretty cool when you think about it.

As to the OP question, I agree that it is a master rigger task, and if the mfg says no then that's it.

Regulatory may not have been the best adjective.
Binding or authoritative probably would have been better.

The question is, and always has been: "What repairs/tasks can a senior rigger do?"; or stating it another way, "What repairs or tasks is/are a senior rigger prohibited from doing?" One answer is to label or classify that repair or that action as major or minor.

Another way to state what a senior rigger can do is simply to say, "A senior rigger can do this " without the labelling or classification of whether it could or should be classified or defined as major or minor. That is what the Parachute Rigger Handbook and 105 2E do. For example: The PRH simply states what can be done by a senior rigger and what must be done by a master rigger. Perfect! A senior rigger can be confident that he is not exceeding his authority by finding the task or repair and only doing it if it says he can. For those tasks and repairs not listed, then go back to the definition of major or minor. Using the PRH along with AC 1052E as a guide, (which gives respect to the Poynters too), provides the senior rigger, the rigger instructor and the parachute rigger examiner bright lines in determining in determining what can be done by a senior, what to teach and what to test on. The Practical Test System is the testing standard and each examiner is in an appointed position and has the obligation to follow it as part of his duties.

Taken as a whole, this is as nearly a perfect system as could be devised. The senior rigger can confidently perform tasks and repairs as stated in the PRH and 105 2E, -Poynters without fear he is exceeding his authority.

Once again, to the extent that the AC or the PRH or the Poynters are in error; they need only be corrected. To the extent that the AC or PRH is ambiguous, then they should be rewritten to remove the ambiguities. We can all participate in this.

The same old arguments, using the circular debating techniques of going from the specific to the general and back again from the general back to the specific always results in a quagmire of questions and never yields definitive answers; as the conclusions or opinions of what affects strength, operation, weight and balance, flight characteristics, yadda yadda (going on memory here of the def. of a major repair) will always differ. The present system of the AC 105 2E, Poynters and the PRH avoids this opinion-based approach and provides the senior rigger and all others teaching and testing concrete and specific guidance for defining the limits or privileges of a senior rating. No politics, no preference to those with opinions, and specificity are the goals the FAA or of any regulatory system. It seems to me to be working just fine, and we can work together to make these sources better.
The alternative is to have never ending arguments where opinion rules.

My opinion:
AC 105 2E is regulatory. In statutory construction and interpretation the more recent and more specific controls.
In many instances, and not just in rigging regulations, these newer or more specific statutes, regs and far's trump the older or less specific ones. They do so because of the legal presumption that legislative body that created the newer or more specific provisions had knowledge of what was previously in existence and have chosen to now modify that. That is the legal guideline for statutory construction and interpretation.

In instances where AC 105 2E does contradict or modify other previously published sources, because it is more recent and more specific, AC105 2E is the current and controlling authority and can be relied upon to legitimize repairs performed as described and who can do them.

Skytribe and Hackish are both correct. And, yes, according to 105 2E an individual manufacturer can reclassify (trump) a repair from major to minor on their own products.

The good news is that rarely do the Poynters and the Parachute Rigger Handbook (PRH) conflict, and I doubt that manufacturers conflict much either. The result is that we have a predictable and unified system for the determination of classification of repairs. This benefits both riggers and those teaching and testing riggers.

For additional confirmation that the FAA has fully endorsed the PRH handbook, one only has to look at some of the tasks for Senior riggers in areas I thru VI of the parachute riggers Practical Test System (PTS). Some tasks which Senior applicants can be tested on, prior to the PRH publication would have been classified as major. Now they are minor and the applicant can be tested on them. The FAA is "all in" on the PRH. It is the "law" now and can be relied upon in case of challenges based upon regulatory infraction or civil lawsuits.

No publication is perfect, and to the extent that the Poynters and the PRH have errors, it is up to us to point them out and get them corrected. I look forward to a newer and better PRH some day, which would be even more specific in task classifications and which would correct previous errors and eliminate ambiguities. If a new PRH is created, there could be a reclassification of who can perform repairs which are considered by the rigging community to be too liberal or too strict, and also consider an expansion of tasks allowed by Senior riggers. I think the FAA would listen to the rigging community as a whole in creating or confirming the present classifications. All would have a voice.

He doesn't need me to belittle him, he does that all by himself. His disdain for the military is obvious. This is returned.

He is going to the graduation of two women from Ranger school for his own self aggrandizement. They will salute him because they are required to.

His attendance as a publicity stunt is an insult to those candidates who worked so hard to earn the tab.

Miss Mahoney's opinion twice states the skydiving company has had exclusive use of the 40 acres. Not true.
Any aviation use is allowed there. Powered paragliders and powered hang gliders operate there regularly, and there was a Fly In and barbeque for antique plane owners that used the East end of it about 3 weeks ago. Not exclusive use. Shared use. All aviation users may access this parcel.

Her argument that Mile Hi should pay for past usage is silly. No one pays lease payments unless they are contractually required to do so. This 20 year lease agreement comes with obligations from both the lessor and the lessee. Lessee pays what is contractually required and the lessor must allow the usage. Negotiations over this would not rise to this level of attention without inflammatory fuel from the lawsuit losers and their followers.

To have this military hater/photo op grabber attend is an insult to these soldiers.

They will salute the office. Not the man.

He should stay home and send someone they respect

What Michael Hackish said.

Would you consider the "Take the Picture " reprint too?
It's a six or eight way over a desert scene, going below the level of the cactus tops with lizards, weeds etc. I'd LOVE one of those.

And........I have a pair of Norman Kent's Blue Skies Black Death sunglasses.

I'll be ordering a BSBD shirt for now, to go with my sunglasses. Thanks for the reprinting.

I believe the answer is: Contact the manufacturer. AC 1052e (I m not at me loft to read it) says, approximately, that a repair of this nature depends on whether it is already classified as a major or minor in recognized treatises/sources, such as Poynter, or the Parachute Rigger Handbook; and if it isn't, ask the manufacturer of that H/C if they will allow a Senior Rigger to shorten it. Some mfgs may say OK, some may not.

In short, major or minor is pretty much as it is defined in the recognized treatises, with the most recent one (The Parachute Riggers Handbook- an FAA publication) prevailing over older treatises.

I don't have the Parachute Riggers Handbook in front of me to see if it covers shortening a chest strap. If it does cover it, it will tell you if it can be done by a Senior Rigger.

Even so, AC 1052e still allows the manufacturer to define the chest strap shortening to be considered a major or minor repair.

I'm guessing that most manufacturers would allow a Senior to do it.

Opinion:
In my opinion, the discussion of what is a major or minor repair as presented in AC1052e is an intelligent and common sense approach. It recognizes the body of knowledge in the Poynter Manuals, the FAA's Parachute Rigger Handbook- the PRH, and other recognized sources and addresses the realities of the difficulties such rigging decisions. My view is that the AC1052e approach is far better than making a list of repairs with a major or minor designation. Yes, I realize that Poynter and the PRH designations of repairs constitute de facto lists, but for shortening a chest strap and some other repairs not listed, allowing the manufacturer to make that decision on their own product is a good default.

I agree. I'd also be interested in a more stretchy elastic that would last longer.

Thin bladed rotors/propellers attached to your arms and legs, spinning at thousands of rpms - I mean - what could go wrong here? Sounds perfectly safe. Especially throwing your hand deployed pilot chute between those spinning devils. Not to mention your main has to dodge them too. It's so obvious it's wonder no one has used them before! Great idea!

For reference: The newspaper's picture of her holding the envelopes is from the time of the trial; not now. The use of this old photo is inappropriate because it shows a lot of envelopes and it implies, I think, that she has present and continuing post trial support for her cause and her appeal.

I am amazed that anyone would consider the Pulse as having a powerful flare. Not. It has some speed but is wholly lacking in flare power for landing. The owner I borrowed it from said so, and dumped his for a Stilletto. In the jumps I put on it also showed it had a pathetic amount of landing flare power. About half of the flare power of a Stilletto. In short, in my opinion, the flare power of a Pulse is pathetic. Your flare stroke is way way long, and you'll be saying, "Where's the lift when I need it?".
A Sabre 2 is way better too. I'm 180 lbs and jumped a Pulse 170. Anyone contemplating buying one should definitely borrow one before buying, and not use the internet yadda yadda for your buying decision. As I said before, in my opinion, the Pulse is a dud. Sabre 2 or Stiletto out flare it by a factor of two. My opinion: you should test jump one before making up your own mind.

Well thank goodness for these dimwit types! They get caught.

One 'would be' bank robber guy wrote a note demanding money to a bank teller on the back of an envelope. He got the money and ran out, leaving the note. Too bad for him the return address on the front of it was his parole office.

The examples are endless; and quite funny.

As I remember, some just cut the mod in the "front of the canopy" and 180'd it. Was a matter of just switching the "L" bars. You are correct: The canopy is the same all around.

She will keep going until she runs out of money.

Haven't heard of a parachute company called LSI that manufactures pilot emergency parachutes. A "BA 22".

More details about the company? They make the canopies and the harness/containers too? Is LSI an American based company or European?

More info?