lonelymoose

I work for the airlines and travel with my rig fairly regularly. Of course do everything mentioned thus far. Also, right before my rig goes through the x-ray machine I just give the TSA dude watching the screen a quick heads up that a parachute is coming through so he's not so surprised with the weird picture coming at him. 9 times out 10 they don't do a thing, sometimes they might just do a quick swab for explosives.

I sure wish I could be at Dewolf's class this year to hear the comments/lessons surrounding these issues. There could be some good discussion with all that experience there!

Interesting, Mark! Like you originally, I missed that reference in the 105.45 tandem section. But the FAA really tries to confuse us. In the doc Howard provided, the FAA specifically stated that the rule changes have nothing to do with tandems: "Another commenter stated that this rule should also apply to the main parachute of a dual harness/dual parachute (tandem) system and that ‘‘the 180 day requirement should be applied to such systems to give at least the same level of control as single harness/dual parachute systems.’’ Although this comment may have some merit, it too is beyond the narrow scope of this rulemaking, which addresses only single harness, dual parachute systems. The FAA will consider this issue for possible inclusion into future rulemaking." Am I reading the regs correctly? 1) Reserves for single harness systems AND dual harness systems (tandem) have to be packed within the previous 180 days. 2) Main canopy on a single harness system ONLY must have been packed within the previous 180 days. 3) Main canopy on a dual harness system has no requirement to have been packed in any timeframe???? §91.307 Parachutes and parachuting. only refers to parachutes for emergency use (reserves) §105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems. only refers to single harness systems. §105.45 Use of tandem parachute systems. refers back to §105.43 and only pertains to reserve parachutes. Is this common knowledge and has this always been the case? Or am I just missing something?

This is a fact, however, more specifically it's a very light/neon green, like a lot of the newer school/pedestrian signs and fire trucks.

Not if it is tested and TSO'd for those high speed openings, whether it is large or small. I think the intention of this thread is to make us think about what our canopies are rated for, weight and speed. If we pick a canopy TSO'd for our weight and the speed we fly, and keep it in good shape, then we should be fairly safe...in a perfect world...

I bought my Mirage Jan 1998 and it still looks practically brand new 10 years later. Not even considering buying a new rig, I love my Mirage!

I think the Instrument rating analogy was pretty good. There are questions about basic attitude instrument flying on the Private Pilot Written Exam which cover the knowledge areas required of a Private Pilot. The big difference is that to get an Instrument Rating you have to take a completely different test which covers Instrument Rating knowledge areas. On the Parachute Rigger test you don't have to take a different test to get your Master Rigger certificate unless you never got your Senior Rigger certificate. I'm sorry for the wordy post, maybe should be a PM but here goes. I think you might have your facts wrong a bit on this one. I am a commercial airline pilot and have never flown an aircraft which pumps fuel from one tank to another, except for as a maintenance function on the ground or as a completely automatic function not controllable by the pilots on center tanks. When a pilot crossfeeds, he/she is not pumping gas from side to the other but is opening a valve or two to allow the opposite side engine draw fuel from the opposite side tank. Normally, left tank feeds left engine and right tank feeds right engine. By opening a crossfeed valve it allows for example the left engine to draw fuel from the right tank. Therefore, if a tank has a leak, you can't drain the remaining fuel from the other tank by pumping fuel into a leaky tank. You could try to run an engine from an empty tank while having a full tank available to you. All multi-engine pilots know and understand this concept. Regarding your comment about pilots blindly following checklists without thinking about what is happening behind the scenes. Like you said, we are highly trained on the systems of the aircraft, and usually we have no control, or very little control over these systems. We learn so that we can have the big picture and understand what is happening when things go wrong. However, there are thousands of possibilities when it comes to abnormal/emergency situations and mechanical issues. When we have an issue, we are trained to use the checklist if one exists and for very good reason. One, when the s@#$ hits the fan, it's not always easy to sit back and keep your cool while you're thinking of some nut and bolt you learned about a year ago in a calm classroom. Two, while we know a lot about the aircraft, we don't know everything, and these system are very intertwined. Say we think we know the proper response to a problem and we try it out. Many times that action can affect another system and make the problem many times worse. Of course we are encouraged to use common sense and use good judgment, but we also have to trust our training and procedures. It's very difficult to second guess what a crew did in an emergency because you don't know the situation. It would be similar to second guessing how a canopy pilot handled a malfunction without being there or knowing the circumstances. Of course we should investigate and try to find out what happened and learn from any mistakes they might have made, but many times they are doing the best job they can with the resources they have available to them. Back to the Rigger Written. I thought the knowledge tested was appropriate as well. Spelling and grammar mistakes are unacceptable on something like that. Having questions come from several different documents covering the same/similar material with conflicting info makes it very difficult to confidently take a test. Usually the FAA has specified documents it pulls its knowledge from so you know what to study and what they expect the answers to be. There were questions on the test which were in Poynter & Blackmon's Parachute Rigger Study Guide and in a separate study guide supplied by Dave DeWolfe which had the exact same questions and possible answers, but one guide said one answer was correct and the other guide said a different answer was correct. I got a couple of those questions on the test. I'm confident I know and understand the material they were testing, but I don't think they effectively tested me on it. Once again, sorry for the somewhat irrelevant wordy post...just my two cents...

I was also one of the lucky few to take the test last week. I was expecting changes and additions to the questions from the bank we had. Thus, there was no "surprise" factor for me. However, there were terribly worded questions which seemed to have not been prove read before publication. There were questions, in addition to the 3 extra trial questions, which had spelling and grammar mistakes which made it VERY difficult to choose a best answer. I passed with a lot of room for error, but feel bad for those who failed, whom would have passed had it not been for these poor quality questions/answers. In addition to grammar/spelling issues, there were questions which were very subjective. Questions where in Poynter's manual it says one thing, and in the Parachute Rigging Handbook it says the opposite, with both as possible answers on the test.

I know this is off subject but its amazing how fast they act if they get paid enough! Except for the recent change to the mandatory retirement age for air carrier pilots to 65. The House passed it last monday, the Senate on Tuesday, the President on Wednesday, effectively immediately! Talk about a screw job!

I just got off the phone with my local FSDO/FAA in New Jersey and they told me to study the latest knowledge test guide on the FAA website: http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_guides/media/FAA-G-8082-15C.pdf I told them that I was told the website doc was out of date already as well. He said: ". . parachutes are parachutes and haven't changed much, same shit, different day." He said the only way to get the test bank is to open a testing center account with the Oklahoma City office. I'm taking the test at DeWolf's course in Jan and am studying all the books, but also wanted to study the test bank to make sure.