riggerpaul
-
Content
1,415 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0% -
Country
United States
Posts posted by riggerpaul
-
-
QuoteFrom an email from PD:
QuoteThe Katana was never put through any r&d for a removable slider. The slider that was developed for the Katana is unlike the rest of our sport canopy sliders.
The removable sliders do not work well on all canopies and I would foresee some very adverse affect to the opening of the Katana.
I wonder PD's comment pertains more to a full-RDS that includes a bag and pilot chute attached to the slider, than to a removable slider that doesn't have the bag and pilot chute attached. -
The drill instructor approach to skydiving instruction creates an artificially stressful situation that might give a clue to the student's expected reaction to an actual emergency where both the stress and danger will be very real.
Without some sort of stress simulation, how does a person get a good idea about how they will handle the real thing when it presents itself?
I don't mean to say that skydiving instruction must be brutal. But without some induced stress, won't we be missing an opportunity to get an important insight?
After all, it is far better to get this insight while safe on the ground, isn't it? -
QuoteQuoteQuoteWe're talking micro-seconds?
I would think it might be on the order of up to 1/4 of a second, maybe even more. That would be 250 milliseconds, or 250,000 microseconds.
1/4 of a second is a very long time isn't it? I am more used to timescales measured in nano and micro seconds in electronics. Is a spring really that slow?
Not that it matters much.
It might not be just the spring.
If the cutter is below the pilot chute (and spring), but above the freebag, there's plenty of time between the pilot chute launching and the cutter clearing the closing loop. The pilot chute would have to go to full bridle extension and lift the bag.
If the cutter is above the pilot chute, sure, the closing loop might clear the cutter in a very small amount of time.
But the duration of the "window of opportunity" depends on cutter placement. -
Quote(and whatever you do, don't try to cash any check he sends you.)
If you took the check to your bank, and tell them you suspect it is fraudulent, is there anything they are interested in doing?
Will the banking authorities at the other end get notified? Will THEY do anything? -
QuoteQuoteWhat distinguishes a law from a regulation?
You claim that the FAA only has the authority to issue "civil penalties".
But the link Andy9o8 provided is pretty clear that criminal actions CAN result from violating FARs.
If there is a particular law that says breaking an FAR is against that particular law, isn't that effectively making the FARs laws too?
Criminal actions are brought under US Code (not FAR's) by the Department of Justice (not the FAA), commonly under Title 49 in the case of aviation related crimes.
I don't care much WHO is doing the prosecuting.
There are FARs that, if broken, can result in a criminal prosecution.
Fine, the FAA may not have the authority to conduct that criminal prosecution for an FAR violation.
But someone else can, and, to me, that gives the FARs the weight of law.
I'll ask again, what distinguishes a law from a regulation?
What does it take for you to consider something a law, as opposed to a regulation?
For instance, are the vehicle codes laws? Why, or why not? -
What distinguishes a law from a regulation?
You claim that the FAA only has the authority to issue "civil penalties".
But the link Andy9o8 provided is pretty clear that criminal actions CAN result from violating FARs.
If there is a particular law that says breaking an FAR is against that particular law, isn't that effectively making the FARs laws too? -
Quote
Not to muddy the water , but FAR's aren't law.
If not law, then why can/do peace officers arrest airline passengers who violate FARs? -
QuoteMy concept is. Straiten the pin and do the tests from service buletin for pins (apply side force on the pin). If it passes keep it, if it bends again replace it.
Since the pin is not in the rig when you straighten it, you'd be testing with the test block method, right?
I don't believe the test block method tests the central portion of the blade.
If that's where the bend was, the test would not prove much, if anything, would it? -
QuoteQuoteWho is it that you would like to be less vague?
The manufacturers want to sell canopies. They are not your instructors, and they are not your national club.
If you want USPA to be less vague, fine, have at it.
I think it should be the USPA it is not the manufacturers job to self regulate.
People can't have it both ways. We can't bitch about deaths and injuries under open canopies, and then resist change. Having to meet specific objectives under canopy is the correct method in my mind. There is no point just requiring jump numbers.
Guidelines will always be broken, but at least people will KNOW that what they are doing is irresponsible. I slightly disagree that the best person to take care of yourself is yourself. I like to know that someone with 1000+ jumps has my back, is prepared to offer guidance and mentoring. Sure it is my responsibility to behave in a responsible manner.
Is there a reason that you cannot establish for yourself a set of goals to achieve on your way to becoming a proficient canopy pilot?
USPA is US. Start a grassroots movement to support sane canopy progressions.
The folks who lead USPA now mostly came from a time when you needed to work a lot of stuff out on your own. Why put it on them?
If you think that guidelines are too vague, work on refining them.
You don't have to be the expert to launch the effort. Talk to the folks that appear to know, and write down what they say. When you have something that is better than what we have now, submit of for review and refinement.
If you really want to see it happen, MAKE it happen. -
Quote
Divalent is right. I quite strongly disagree with the vague guidelines as it allows people to find "mentors" who are prepared to tell them what they want to hear.
Who is it that you would like to be less vague?
The manufacturers want to sell canopies. They are not your instructors, and they are not your national club.
If you want USPA to be less vague, fine, have at it.
But when USPA makes anything resembling a stronger recommendation, they seem to catch a whole lot of shit about it.
Just look at the discussion regarding the USPA recommendations for jumping with a camera. The folks at USPA just can't win. It seems to me that people demand standards mostly so they can be ignored.
The best person to take care of yourself is YOURSELF.
If you are unsure, if you feel the manufacturer's recommendations are too vague, if you feel that the USPA's recommendation are too vague, then take the matter into your own hands, and stay well on the conservative side of any of the recommendations.
If the problem is mentors who will say whatever the students wants to hear, maybe the student should be wanting to hear something more conservative in the first place.
After all, survival is the goal, isn't it?
Sure, it would be nice if this was nice and scientific and mainstream.
But, it is not. It is a fringe sport, what's written about it is often less than we would sometimes like. A lot of canopy flight is more art than science.-
1
-
-
-
QuoteQuoteThey banned the units under pressure from the PIA.
Nonsense.
Some manufacturers withdrew their approval and have kept that position (for example, UPT, Sunpath, RI), some withdrew their approval and then decided Argus AADs would actually be okay (for example, Altico and Mirage), still others never withdrew their approval (for example, Wings).
Some national organizations withdrew their approval (for example, Australia and New Zealand), other national organizations did not (for example, USPA).
What exactly do you think PIA (or Airtec or AAD/Vigil or the Bilderbergers) threatened to do to manufacturers? Why did that pressure work with some organizations but not with others?
Mark
Pressure is not necessarily so overt.
When the message from PIA came out, it puts a manufacturer is a tricky position. If they do nothing, and something happens in one of their rigs, it could look quite bad for them, because someone will say, "See the PIA bulletin? They told you so! Why did you ignore them?!?".
I liken it to yelling, "fire", in a crowded place - it can start a deadly stampede, fire or not. -
Quote
I completely agree with you. But I do feel that it would be helpful of PD to provide clearer guidelines. Something similar to the downsizing checklist that Bill Von wrote.
We need to keep in mind that by the time the average jumper has 25 jumps they have gone from nothing to being able to self jumpmaster, a huge learning achievement by any standard. It is not difficult to see how they can believe at 50 or 100 jumps they have "mastered" canopy flight. Leaving vague definitions does nothing to highlight how little they actually know.
Not so huge. In fact, barest tip of the iceberg.
One look at the accident reports should have any sane person realizing that there is more to this than meets the eye.
At 100 jumps, you've got maybe 100 minutes of freefall, and 500 minutes of canopy time.
600 minutes, 10 hours, to master an aviation skill?
In which physical skill does 10 hours make an expert? Skiing? Rock climbing? Bicycle? Piano? Golf?
Why do some people insist, hell, why do they even IMAGINE, that 10 hours would make an expert skydiver?
And, if PD said you should spend your first 100-200 jumps at 1:1 and below, how many would actually listen? -
Airborne Systems T-11? -
QuoteHello. I have completed all of my AFF training (23 jumps as of now) but I have not finished my A-license. I have not jumped in four months and I am assuming that I will have to re-do my level 7 to show my current skill. Do you think it could be worse? Will I have to do more jumps than that to be back at solo jumping?
Any advice is greatly appreciated!
Whatever it takes, isn't it worth it?
If your skills have faded, don't you want to refresh them?
"Do you think it could be worse?" Worse would be finding yourself on a skydive without the skill necessary to survive.
It is not "worse" to find that your skills need work, and to do the work, so that your skills are sufficient to give you a shot at surviving.
Now, if you are worried that they would lie to you to take your money, that's a different thing.
But if you aren't up to the required standards, the worst thing that could happen is that nobody insists that you get there again. -
Quote
I'm not a lawyer, but IMO, not putting the closing loop through the Cutter is gross negligence. It's a simple action, clearly understood by everyone, and doesn't particularly depend on a level of skill or expertise. I would reasonably expect every rigger to do this. Perhaps my expectations of service and your differ?QuoteIf might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be proved
It is my understanding that GROSS NEGLIGENCE is not about the particular error that was made, but about the circumstances surrounding the error.
I'd surely hate to have made this mistake. But I am a very careful rigger, and if I made that mistake, it was purely an accident, and NOT gross negligence (as I understand it). I would feel worse than you can imagine, and I'd surely never rig again.
I don't know if the case at Archway meets the legal tests for gross negligence.
Maybe it does. In which case, sure, go after the rigger for it.
But if it does not meet the legal tests for gross negligence, then while it is very sad, it is also part of the way things can sometimes happen in this sport. -
QuoteSo if you were in a car accident where the brakes failed, you would assign no liability whatsoever to the mechanic who had just serviced them. After all if you hadn't of driven the car, or if you had used the handbrake or turned the key off the car wouldn't have crashed.
It seems to me that a student (or any skydiver hiring equipment) can reasonably expect that the it was put together by an expert and that if there's an AAD, it is functional.
Of course if they had pulled silver or hadn't jumped we wouldn't be tapping away on our keyboards, but in my view that doesn't excuse the rigger's failure to route the closing loop through the AAD, nor should a waiver excuse gross negligence.
If you had signed a waiver where that mechanic said he might make a mistake and you might be killed, no.
If might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be proved.
But, if it was a simple mistake, with no special circumstances, like his being drunk or stoned or hating you and wanting you dead to get your spouse, no.
The main parachute was built by professionals, and yet, you do not hold them liable when it does not work as advertised, do you?
Nope.
If the parachute split down the middle on your first jump, and you break your legs, you'd be happy if they replaced the parachute, or refunded your money.
If you want the cost of the repack back, I'll go along with that all day.
You are already swimming in products that have liabilities restricted to direct costs of the product, clearly denying any liability for consequential damage. That's pretty much the way this needs to be. Rigger's work was bad? Get a refund for the work.
Again, prove GROSS NEGLIGENCE, and we are talking about a whole different thing. -
QuoteQuoteFor the sake of discussion (don't take this as arguing or disagreeing, please. I'm just considering these questions in my own mind, and I'd like to get more input) -
Do you consider that reserve, with the loop not in the cutter, airworthy or not?
Overall Legally: - Not Airworthy per FAA regulations.
AAD: - Factually not airworthy due to having been rendered useless by the rigger.
Reserve: - Factually airworthy only for manual activation.QuoteIf the jumper DECIDES not to turn on the AAD - airworthy or not?
Overall Legally: - Legally airworthy per FAA regulations. Student must have it turned on per USPA BSRs.
AAD: - Factually not airworthy due to having been rendered useless intentionally by the jumper.
Reserve: - Factually airworthy only for manual activation.QuoteIf the jumper FORGETS to turn on the AAD - airworthy or not?
Overall Legally: - Legally airworthy per FAA regulations. Student must have it turned on per USPA BSRs.
AAD: - Factually not airworthy due to having been rendered useless unintentionally by the jumper, et al.
Reserve: - Factually airworthy only for manual activation.QuoteSo, which and whose mistakes make the reserve unairworthy?
The misrigging of the AAD makes the entire rig unairworthy per FAA regulations. Proper rigging of the AAD is a required element of a repack; failure to do so makes the rig illegal to jump just as if the rigger had failed to fill out the data card. However, a data card can be checked, unfortunately, the closing loop/cutter cannot.
The rigger is bound by the manufacturer's instruction to put the loop through the cutter.
Why is the jumper not bound by the manufacturer's instruction to turn the device on before jumping? -
QuoteQuote
Regarding the second statement, okay, thanks. What about the other conditions?
Jumper CHOOSES to not turn it on?
Jumper FORGETS to turn it on?
If forgetting to put the closing loop through the cutter renders the rig unairworthy, would not also forgetting to turn the AAD on?
Both render the AAD useless.
My thoughts are that, for a licensed jumper, choosing not to turn on an AAD is a perfectly acceptable choice (if not necessarily wise) and does not render the rig unairworthy.
That same up-jumper forgetting to turn the AAD on is the same until the day that having a functioning AAD is mandatory for all jumpers.
So, who forgets what is part of determining airworthiness.
Mistakes happen.
If the novice, unlicensed, jumper forgets to turn on his AAD, and a jumpmaster fails to find it, is the rig airworthy or not?
As an unlicensed jumper, that novice is required to have an AAD, at least here in the USA.
If the jumper dies, did the jumpmaster(s) have the same liability as the rigger in the Archway case? -
QuoteQuote
Do you consider that reserve, with the loop not in the cutter, airworthy or not?
Not airworthy...based on not packed as per the instructions...and the fact that the $1400 loop cutter AAD is a non-functional piece of junk that will not perform as designed.
Sure it will fire, but it's design is to cut the loop!Quote
If the jumper DECIDES not to turn on the AAD - airworthy or not?
The AAD is airworthy, but the owner elected not to use the option of the use of an AAD.Quote
If the jumper FORGETS to turn on the AAD - airworthy or not?
Same as above as the owner did not select the option of AAD use. Just another way of not selecting the use!!!Quote
So, which and whose mistakes make the reserve unairworthy?
The first one. The rigger did not assemble the components as instructed by the manufacturer and the FAA. (requirement to follow Manufacturer's Instructions)
Also it (the reserve) is considered a assembly of componets, not just a reserve canopy, once assembled.
BS,
MEL
Thanks.
One final question.
I once heard a story that a jumper was required to have an AAD to jump somewhere. Apparently, he told the rigger to put the AAD in the rig, but instructed him not to put the loop through the cutter. Airworthy or not? Is the rigger even allowed to comply with the customer's instruction?
Thanks again! -
QuoteI believe (and I am not a rigger so correct me if I am wrong) that an AAD has to be functional (i.e in date and with enough "life" to last until the end of the packjob and with functioning batteries) for a rigger to be allowed to install it in a rig.
Missing the closing loop renders it unable to perform its function of cutting the closing loop so therefore a mis-routed closing loop would make that packjob unairworthy.
This is all opinion based on my understanding of the rules.
Regarding the first statement, that is not universally held to be true.
Regarding the second statement, okay, thanks. What about the other conditions?
Jumper CHOOSES to not turn it on?
Jumper FORGETS to turn it on?
If forgetting to put the closing loop through the cutter renders the rig unairworthy, would not also forgetting to turn the AAD on?
Both render the AAD useless. -
QuoteQuote
Packing is different from closing.
I would have to strongly disagree on this one.
The term "packing a parachute" is considered to be all tasks needed to place the parachute in service.
Also from Poynter's Volume I, page 492. 9.3.1.1, last paragraph.
"Parachute packing should be a continuous,
uninterrupted operation. The packer should not leave the table until the parachute is sealed and logged."
This was actually in a 1962 FAA Preamble also.
Cheers,
MEL
For the sake of discussion (don't take this as arguing or disagreeing, please. I'm just considering these questions in my own mind, and I'd like to get more input) -
Do you consider that reserve, with the loop not in the cutter, airworthy or not?
If the jumper DECIDES not to turn on the AAD - airworthy or not?
If the jumper FORGETS to turn on the AAD - airworthy or not?
So, which and whose mistakes make the reserve unairworthy? -
QuoteI think that the FAA could do a better job of recruiting DPREs to provide coverage in areas with significant jumping activity.
I suspect that the FAA does not, in fact, recruit them, but accepts applications from those willing to apply.
Councilman24 (Terry Urban) is a DPRE.
Terry, do you know? Does the FAA recruit DPREs? Or do they just take the applicants that present themselves. -
QuoteWhat container did you have this issue with?
Your profile says you have a Vector 3. I don't think the grommets are supposed to line up on the Vector 3 containers. I am pretty certain they are supposed to be offset.
Agreed
Here's a part of a photo in the V3 manual
do you charge a storage fee?
in Gear and Rigging
The page you mention discusses situations where there is no work being done to the goods - safety deposit boxes, parking garages and stuff like that.
Conspicuously absent are auto service stations or car dealers, where the goods were there for the purpose of service, not for the purpose of storage.
Now, they do mention boarding kennels, as for pets. But I don't know if that is like or not like a service station.
So, lawyers out there, is deliberate storage of goods different from goods left for service and then left unclaimed?