masterrigger1

Walt, In the most recent court cases involving AC's, the Federal Judges have thrown the cases out because the AC's are deemed not regulatory. The last one that I know of was the incident at Virginia Tech involving a drone. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-usa-aircraft-unmanned-idUSBREA2618P20140307 It is now a standing policy that AC's are not to be used as law based decisions. Order 8900 is also included in this. Ask your local FSDO guy about it. Also something to note is they are now putting a disclaimer on these newer versions of AC's: 1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides information to assist in ........ This AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation. Nothing in this AC changes the legal requirement for public aircraft operators to comply with the statute. With regards to the PTS and associated tasks, the DPRE should be selecting the appropriate tasks for the applicant in the different areas. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Purely guessing here, I would say it was three different manufacturers as they all have something that closely states the same in their manuals. I know it was not me. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

It was a civilian contracted publication that never was reviewed by any of the appropriate people or AFS-100 which is the Legal department of the FAA. The above mentioned people were made aware of the many conflicting issues inside the AC and it is now being re-written. So no; it is not their opinion.... What if Cessna said rebuilding a engine was minor repair, do you think the FAA needs to go back and change the PTS for airplane mechanics? We have standards of testing applicants and they are located in the PTS (Practical Test Standards). These testing standards are set forth by the FAA and not the manufacturer. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Micheal, AC-105-2E is NOT regulatory and it is not the only guidance out there. It offers some very bad guidance (in certain places..) that conflicts regulation. Also, remember that it was written by the two youngest DPRE's out there. Lastly, a manufacturer cannot upgrade your privileges but simply stating a repair is a minor one when it is considered by the FAA as a major one. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Having the serial number is always great, but usually not needed. There are some canopies that absolutely need to be identified by serial numbe like the Safire II. Safire serial numbers before 94213827 are considered Safire I's and serial number 94213827 and above are Safire II canopies. PD has a few canopies that you need to know what revision that you are dealing with or have also. For instance the Pulse. It has two Revisions P01 and P02. See attached: Other manufacturers are in the same boat as well. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

We do relines and make line sets for sale along with other services. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Maybe I can answer part of that. I started the original Icarus Service Center, along with the service center concept for other manufacturers. Also, we use the factory files for Icarus, PISA, Attair, Para-Flite and a few other companies. On another note,we still manufacture one line at a time. This is a process which is more time consuming, but more accurate than mass producing them. So with that, my Icarus Line sets are usually considered factory line sets. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

The regulations that I post WAS complete.All five pages of it. If you re-read my post, you will note that I stated that since 25.83 did not exist in the CARs in 1937, they had to add the rule later which would mean that a preamble was written specifically for that rule. You are right, I do not have it in my procession, but AFS-300 quoted from it on the paper seal saga. So it does exist..... Moving goalposts are your specialty, not mine. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Yep! ...and since 25.83 did not exist when the CAA first established the rules in 1937, they had to write a preamble to include 25.83. Keep looking , you will find it! MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

No..it is not in other words... It is in the preamble to 65.133. Every rule has a preamble to describe why that particular rule is being added/written to the regulations. It was brought up during the paper seal saga that was put to bed, so you should be already aware of that. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Mr. Sellars can have that conversation with you again if you like. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Riggers need to learn how to seal them in a way that lessens the chance of breakage. Owners need to protect the seal. Like never taking a upper main flap and stuffing it under the reserve flap which is the number one reason these things get broken. Second is the pin backing out gradually and the owner never checking it and pushing it back down periodically. In other words, treat it like it will cost you $65-$85 which it will on my end. With that said, it has been a long time since I have had a customer with a broken seal thread. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

The preamble to the rule as you well know. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

It is in the intent. They state that sealing a parachute is to identify the rigger and prevent tampering. So how in the world can the above be achieved if it is missing? It can't... You should know that. Mr. Sellars (FAA) informed me that he had that conversation with you a few months ago. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

JP, You beat me to it. The canopy was deployed straight and then IT turned itself into line twist. Seems to be a common problem with the OPT.... MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Jerry, Hearsay is not a testimonial from the person that participated in the conversation. Yes, I had not bothered to look it up , that is why I asked. Since knowing that: (1) Your previously held TSO was under C23b (2) Any new products are to be certified under the current TSO (at that time) and TSO23b was a long time ago. (3) Your Lap is rated with TSO23b, so you used the existing TSO. ....Obliviously with changes. (4) "New" products can be made under a change notice of an existing TSO. Like the Vector III over the old Wonderhog... (5) Lastly, the conversation with Glick, who at that time was the head of oversight for Skydiving. Rightfully so, but no one is looking into it that deep. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Well I guess i am really confused. Before you got that approval, Caleb Glick (washington FAA) phoned me with questions regarding your Lap parachute. He specifically asked me my thoughts on a a "minor " change of that magnitude. that and the purposed "need" of a lap parachute. Is your parachute TSOC23b certified or is it with C23d or later? MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

I am in the same boat on this Jerry for the most part. I think there should be limits, but far,far down the chain if you will. Although I do like the ability to use extreme rebuilding:) Aircraft engine mounts and carb heat boxes have always used extreme limits of rebuilding and the FAA knows all about it. This actually helps us out in the aircraft world. A new air box for a C-182 is about $5,000 from Cessna. A total rebuild is $1800.... Again, I would be careful of going to deep in the thought process here. Remember you relied very heavily on the "minor" change option for your back to lap conversion. Adding a lot of limits would almost certainly cancel that option later in life if the right people started looking at it. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Not really. There where more than just a handful of 149 lofts. Most of the larger Drop Zones had one nearby that was used by them. If I remember correctly the major manufacturers of the day were also part 149 certified. Para-Flight and National come to mind... As far as basement rigging and 65.127... If you look most do not have a 40 ft table available to them either. Which is still a requirement BTW. 65.127 Facilities and equipment. No certificated parachute rigger may exercise the privileges of his certificate unless he has at least the following facilities and equipment available to him: (a) A smooth top table at least three feet wide by 40 feet long. (b) Suitable housing that is adequately heated, lighted, and ventilated for drying and airing parachutes. (c) Enough packing tools and other equipment to pack and maintain the types of parachutes that he services. (d) Adequate housing facilities to perform his duties and to protect his tools and equipment. Also, spoke to Flight Concepts about receipt/ inspection of materials. Red informed me that his manual (which he is sending me a copy) mandates material control/certification in his QA program. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Determining proper strength and quality is easy. You simply hold onto the certification that comes with every order of material. Jerry just stated that he does this also. The standard of receiving a cert for materials has been going on before you and I was born. Now if you are buying from an unreliable source like from EBay, where you probably would not get a certification, that would change things somewhat! Back in the day, a lot of people built rigs in their basement and thought that was legal when it was not. Most rigging work was done in a 149 loft, all master rigger work HAD to be done in a 149 loft until about 1985. As far as Poynter's quote; it is/was his opinion and one I do not mirror. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Jerry, I know for sure that when Part 149 was mandatory, so was the material traceability. For those who do not know this, Part 149 was "Certified Parachute Lofts". Back in the day, all rigging was supposed to be done in these lofts as per regulations. Part 149 was dismantled in 1993 I think... So the TSO did not require traceability, Part 149 did. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Well it just depends. Cost- prohibitive might just mean the guy cannot afford a new $3,800 container either...just saying. If you have a $500 container and add $500 worth of work to it, it might be a better rig than the $1500 one that is currently available that is considered later and greater. It is all economics. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Rob, How and what you make tuck tabs out of dictates the tolerance factor. I have never had any issues with making them, maybe someone else has had issues, MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

It can be done... MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Michael, It does exist. There is a reason that the Dacron lined Vector tandem canopies have sacrificial pieces of line on the outside A's and C's. I have seen damaged risers in the past also. Dacron and Technora are the line mediums that usually generate the most heat BTW. MEL Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com