riggerpaul

You know, it's funny you say that. I slept with a guy that slept with a rigger (his wife) last night. And I also think nearly $100 for a Racer repack is insane. Racers are no harder than any other conatainer to repack. What do you mean? I have to use all my pullup cords when I pack a racer!

I'm responding particularly to your last paragraph We used to use velcro for riser covers, and for main and reserve cover flaps. We also used to use belly-bands, and rear-of-leg pilot chute pouches that often had several inches of exposed velcro to worry about. These applications were not well suited to the properties of velcro, and velcro quickly got a bad name. What followed was a knee-jerk reaction to get rid of all the evil velcro from rigs, even in the places where it worked well with just a little bit of care and maintenance. With a little care, velcro for securing main toggles and excess steering line worked fine. It was easy to take care of, and repairing worn velcro in these areas isn't very difficult at all. I've been using one set of velcro equipped Type 8 risers for years and years and years and many hundreds of jumps. I think this was mostly a case of tossing out the baby with the bath water.

To whom was the gear reported stolen? Were the police involved? If not, why not? When SSK sent the AAD to the dealer, why didn't they involve the authorities at that point? If the AAD was reported as stolen to the police, that's where it should have been sent. Anybody can report equipment to USPA as stolen. That doesn't necessarily make it true. I'm not saying that the dealer has no claim. Far from it. But his claim is only one of the claims on that gear. They all need to be considered to resolve the matter. When stolen property is located, it is supposed to go to the authorities, not randomly sent to one of the claimants. This matter should be handled by the appropriate authorities. It is for the courts to decided who needs to pay whom, what needs to be paid, and to whom the contested equipment finally belongs. Any other solution just makes the mess bigger for all parties involved. No matter who is right or who is wrong, this matter has been handled improperly, and the result is that it is more convoluted than ever.

Okay, this puts light on a number of issues. Thanks for posting it. What remains is that there are a number of people who have conflicting claims to the equipment. It is not fair to lay all the loss on Eric. That's just saying that it all comes down to a game of musical chairs, which is not as it should be. It seems unlikely that we will find the original perpetrator of the fraud. But, in fact, the entire ownership history of this gear is really needed to know who should be liable for what. UPS might have had some culpability for the problems. I don't know the original shipping terms. It might be that the receiver "proved" his identity to the standards for the UPS delivery. The credit card company should have been held more accountable at the time of the purchase. Business insurances should have been involved. The amount of money is not trivial. The seller on ebay that Eric bought from should surely be involved. That person seems to have totally dropped out of the picture, leaving Eric stuck all alone. But if the gear is deemed stolen, then that person sold stolen gear, which is also a crime. Various statutes of limitation might come into play. It isn't clear to me that SSK did the right thing by sending the AAD to the dealer. When SSK got the AAD, its ownership was contested. Simply sending it to one or the other of the claimants doesn't seem like the correct course of action. The status of the equipment should have been frozen at that time pending adjudication of the claims. It seems to me that SSK should have held the AAD and notified some authority of the apparent conflict. SSK should have tried to remain a neutral party, but instead, they allowed themselves to become tangled in the matter by sending the AAD to the dealer. It sounds to me like all of the contested equipment should have been handed over to authorities for adjudication of the claims. That's what courts are for. Maybe a small claims court could have handled the matter, which might have made the cost of adjudication less onerous. But sticking Eric with all the liability is no more just than sticking the original dealer. There were a bunch of parties involved, and they should all be held accountable for their parts in the saga.

So you are saying that merchandise purchased with a stolen credit card is not really stolen? And if it is later sold to someone else they can just keep it? Are you serious? Yes, I am serious. There is a legal distinction between "stolen", where someone breaks in and takes your property, and "fraud" where someone transacts business with you under false pretenses. This distinction helps to protect both sellers and buyers in cases like this. Check with a lawyer in your state. You said Part of the credit card company's service is assumption of certain risks when transactions are made in accordance with the rules set forth in their agreements with both cardholders and merchants. If, as you said, the merchant met the responsibilities set forth in his agreement with the credit card company, then the credit card company is supposed to pay him even when the card is used fraudulently. That's part of why the merchant pays a fee to the credit card company. He pays to have the transaction secured. Once he has met the credit card company's requirements, he gets his money. So you have made what I believe are two conflicting assertions. On the one hand, you say the merchant met his responsibilities to the credit card company, on the other hand you say that the merchant lost his money. I believe one or the other of these assertions is incorrect. I suspect your assertion that the merchant fulfilled his requirements is not correct. For some time now it has been standard practice that mail order merchants must only ship to the address of record of the cardholder. I think it is unlikely that the fraudulent user of the card could have had the rig shipped to the real cardholder's address. So, something in your version of the story doesn't ring true to me. The credit card companies understand that they are providing an insurance service, and account for the occasional fraud with the fees that they charge their customers who are the card holders and the merchants. Also, the OP said something about the original dealer not getting proper authorization for the transaction. If that's the case, then the original dealer is on his own with his liability. That's what he agreed to with the credit card company. The original dealer was the victim of fraud, not the victim of theft. Again, check with a lawyer in your state. I believe you will most likely learn that there is a legal definition for "stolen" that might not be what you think it is. Or check with your local police. Tell them that you gave something to someone and now he won't give it back. I believe they will tell you that the property was not stolen in the legal sense of the word, and that they cannot help you. The distinction between stolen goods and credit card fraud provides protection for many innocent parties, both sellers and buyers. You may want to lump all the different ways of getting stuff that isn't yours as "theft", but that's not necessarily how the law sees it.

(I am in agreement with Jan here. I only replied to her post because it was the last on in the thread.) I don't believe that this gear meets most states' legal definition of "stolen". I believe you will find that the legal definition of theft/stolen is that the property was taken without the knowledge or approval of the rightful owner. That's not what happened here. The rightful owner willingly shipped that gear. It was not, technically, stolen. While it is true that the rightful owner was defrauded, I don't believe that the current owner can be accused of receiving stolen property. At least, that's my understanding of how things work here in California. Don't take my word for it - talk to a lawyer in your state. As someone else said, and as I believe, most states will not call this theft. They will call it credit card fraud. The distinction is important because stolen gear does not lose its stolen status just by being sold to another person. Receiving stolen property, even if you didn't steal it, means you will probably have to give it back, and be out your money. But if the gear doesn't meet the legal definition of stolen, then the current owner is not under the onus of having received stolen property, and he should not be made to give up that which he has properly bought. The owner who was defrauded should have pursued the matter with the proper authorities at the time of the original fraud. His right to do that now may also be affected by the state's statute of limitations. But the fraud doesn't have anything to do with the current rightful owner. As I said, ask a lawyer in your state.

Thanks Mike. That's helpful information. Mostly I rig for the your "average" jumper, but occasionally I'll do some work for a "pro". Armed with the information you supplied, I'll know better what to expect in either situation. Yes, I know that the black Argus batteries don't even last more than 2 or 3 months. But I haven't yet seen "proper" batteries that failed so early. Around here, a pair at the Walmart are about $10. So even if they don't last the full year it isn't like they're going to break anybody's bank. Again, thanks for the information.

I don't think it is really about the mismatch, per se. The word I got from Aviacom is that their Argus-branded "black" batteries are simply no good. Aviacom mentioned that these batteries don't even fit quite right in the cases. While nobody actually said it, I have to presume that these batteries just don't meet the specifications of the Lithium CR123 battery. I specifically asked if I should be replacing the batteries in any new Argus so that they are fresh when the units are put into active service. They said, "no, only replace the batteries if one or both is one of these bad (black) batteries." The only unit that I have seen where the batteries died early had a black battery in it. The other battery was a name-brand battery, though I don't recall which brand it was. Mike, did the units that didn't last a full year all have at least one Argus-branded battery? Or are you saying that you have seen units with brand-name batteries fail early? Though my sample is admittedly small, I am seeing units with name-brand batteries go for the full year, even when their DOM is some months back, and they presumably sat on a shelf with batteries installed. I cannot really guess how long they might actually be able to last, because I replace them per Aviacom's schedule. But I can say that the only unit I have seen with premature battery failure had one of these "bad" batteries. If the black batteries are just plain bad, then having one would certainly affect the other battery, no matter what the brand.

(Did you save it when you closed it?) Don't save it when you close it. If you save it, the reference to Today() gets changed to today's date, and tomorrow it is broken. If you don't save it, then it stays as a reference to the function Today() and all is well. Is that what you are talking about? I've been using this script for years, except recently I changed the 120s to 180s. Maybe you misunderstand how I use the spreadsheet. On the day I repack a rig, I open the spreadsheet and it tells me the last date the rig is good on. It also tells me the earliest pack date that is still legal today. I need that when I want to know when rigs must be packed for our boogie. If I want information about a date other than today, I enter that date in the box labeled "Today". Then it tells me the information for that date. So, what is the bug?

Got MS Excel? Here's a spreadsheet I use.

Not if they cannot get the patent holder to license it.

FYI - the Collins Lanyard has a patent. I have been told that the owners of the patent are not granting licenses unless they are also licensing the Skyhook system. So the 2 other MARD systems that are emerging do not have a Collins Lanyard.

Actually, I never figured PIA membership would be a requirement. A rigging certification from one's legal governing body should be the only prerequisite for a PIA certification. All the rest should be based on performance in some sort of testing. I was pointing out that the motivations of PIA are many and varied. To me, the organization seems to have a political side to it. I worry that political considerations could taint this new function. Have happy and safe holidays!

Agreeing with tdog. For example, Aviacom (Argus) and Advanced Aerospace Designs (Vigil) are not members. Last I heard, they were not being allowed to join due to objections from Airtec (Cypres). At least the FAA is impartial with respect to the commercial aspects of this. The DPRE, a non-FAA person, is supposed to be ensuring that the required knowledge is demonstrated. If the DPREs are letting unqualified people through, fix the DPREs. But as someone said, the problem isn't the knowledge, it is the practice. Personally, I have the manual out for review before I work on a rig. I invite my customer to come see me work. They can see for themselves if I am doing what's in the manual.

But if you read it that literally, then you can't even reseal the rig if the seal gets broken. Do you inspect/pack the reserve if a rig you just packed last week comes back to you with a broken seal since it must be sealed only after packing it? Anyway, yes, I do seal the rig after packing it. I also seal the rig if the seal gets broken. And the seal can get broken just from normal use or from myself when having to put a new ripcord in, or service an AAD, or the like, within the same repack cycle. I understand how you are interpreting the reg...just not convinced we have to take it that literally. But, you could be right...we'll see... Mike The way I read that rule, if I was that last one to pack that parachute, it is "after packing". The rule doesn't say anything about how long after. The other thing I get from that rule is that someone should not seal it if he did not do the most recent packing. Taken literally, "after" does not stipulate "immediately after". If they wanted to say "immediately after", it would have been a simple matter to say that instead.

No, actually, that's not at all what we are doing. What we are doing is debating whether existing law says the things you say it does. You have claimed that there is existing law that says I shall not close a rig if the AAD battery will expire before the next repack. You have claimed that I am breaking the law right now if I do that. You have claimed that the existing law does not make the pilot and jumper responsible for ensuring that required maintenance is performed to the manufacturer's specification. You have claimed that existing law burdens me with a forward looking responsibility for the airworthiness of a rig. We are not debating "what needs to be done". We are debating your claims that laws exist right now that say the things you say.

That is not what I said..you need to re-read the post! It was before that as the Sentinals and FXCs were being installed in the Early 70's. At least the Sentinal Pin Pullers were being installed then. MEL You didn't answer my question. So, I'll ask again. Prior to 2001 there was no mention of an AAD in the FARs. Was it legal to use an AAD on a reserve before there was a regulation that allowed it? Why?

Oops. I should have looked at the canopy before I posted. Now, for some confusion... the writing below the boxes says the canopy must receive a permeability test within the last 25 jumps or 40 repacks. How do we know about that 40th repack if there are only 39 boxes? (I didn't really ask that question. I don't want to open yet another can of beans.) Nice to hear that one came back. I've never heard anyone say that before.

Sure, I did! It is the same one that you posted above. 65 says I cannot pack a rig that is not airworthy Again, 65 was written when all that you had to pack was a container, a canopy, and sometimes a pilot chute. They were no batteries and AAD's to contend with. The pack cycle was ony a few days instead of several months. So I believe (and this is what is being looked at this very moment) that the intent when the rule was written, was to be airworthy for the entire pack cycle. So that will be determined by the FAA sooner or later. Airtec cannot dictate changes to FAR's period. End of story. You must follow their instructions for maintenance though. But, if there is a conflict with the manufacturer instructions and the FARs, the FAR's are to be followed not the manufacturer's instructions. That would be correct. 1. The canopy would be good for the entire 180 days of the repack cycle. 2.The batteries would not be. 3. If you had a reserve ride the day after packing the PD canopy it also would not be airworthy. Cheers, MEL What you are saying, then, is that the airworthyness of the AAD depends on the rig it is in. That's silly. A CYPRES(1) (with appropriate maintenance met, of course) with an 18 month old battery in it is airworthy. Plain and simple. Which rig you put it in doesn't change the airworthiness of that AAD. But, you say that the airworthiness of the AAD depends on which rig you put it in. If I put it in a rig that has a natural fiber canopy (still a 60 day repack), the AAD is airworthy. If I put it in a rig that is all man-made material (180 day repack), the AAD is not airworthy. By the way, prior to what, 2000 (2001?), there was no mention of an AAD in the FARs at all. There always was a rule that said I had to wear an approved single-harness, dual-parachute rig with an approved canopy. By your reasoning - that I must produce a rule that allows things - we were never allowed to use an AAD before the newer rules in 2000(2001?). After all, there was never a rule that allowed them. The rule didn't say "an approved rig with something else that we don't talk about in it." Did it? So, according to your logic, how was it legal to use an AAD before the rule specifically allowed it? Regarding the PD canopy, the manufacturer says "after the 40th repack". Well, you did the 40th repack. That would qualify for "after". But you say the canopy is still legal, even though that's not what the manufacturer told you. You apply your own rules rather inconsistently.

Final question. This is theoretical, but please tell us how you think things should work. Argus has a 1 year battery life per manufacturer instructions. We go to a 18 month repack interval. Argus is now illegal to use at any time?

Because there is not a FAR that states jumping a wet reserve is illegal for one. One more time....show us in black and white in either the FAR's or an AC that states your theory. The part that I did not like is the fact that: 1.It is not an offical Document from the FAA 2. The last two questions were answered by the PIA, not the FAA. At least it was not answered by the legal counsel assigned to the new rule. Ed Averman, is that person. He is listed as the legal contact for the new rule on the Federal Register. I spoke directly with him a few days ago. In that conversation, he explained that the only thing that he was asked to look at was pack dates. The question of opening and re-closing of containers was never mentioned to him, nor was the legallity of appliances (AADs)and their service dates. Cheers, MEL And you have not produced a law that says closing a rig with a battery that has 5.5 months of life left is illegal. 65 says I cannot pack a rig that is not airworthy. 105 says that we must all follow the manufacturer's instructions for AAD maintenance and service. Other than in 105, there is no mention of AADs in the FARs. I have never seen anything from AIRTEC that says I must replace the battery before the stated life limits of 2 years and 500 jumps. Closing the rig with a battery that has 5.5 months of life is not prohibited by the AIRTEC, the manufacturer. 105 states that the rig must be in compliance with inspection and service requirements AT THE TIME OF USE. It doesn't say you cannot own a rig that is not in compliance. It says that the rig must be in compliance at the time of use. There is no law that says the rig must be in compliance when it is not being used. In US law, that which is not prohibited is allowed. FARs say I must follow the manufacturer's instructions. The manufacturer does not say to replace a battery that has less life than the inspection interval. Therefore I am allowed to repack a rig as long as the battery has some life left according to the manufacturer's specification of battery life. Of course, I know full well that you won't agree. So, let me ask you another question regarding finer parts of the law. What do you do when you put a mark in the last box on a PD reserve? Do you hand the rig back to the jumper, or do you send the reserve back to PD? PD says that the reserve must go back to PD after 40 repacks, and you just did the 40th repack. Is that when you have to send the canopy back? I suspect you would hand the rig to the jumper, and you would send the canopy back to PD the next time the rig comes back to you for another repack. If that is what you would do, please explain why the AAD battery should be treated differently from the canopy.

The following was transplanted from another thread for reference. MEL wanted to move the continuing discussion there back to this thread. Paul, The FAA is now beyond that point that you are trying to make. They now know that they need to write section for this. Also, From Part 105: Definitions Parachute operation means the performance of all activity for the purpose of, or in support of, a parachute jump or a parachute drop. This parachute operation can involve, but is not limited to, the following persons: parachutist, parachutist in command and passenger in tandem parachute operations, drop zone or owner or operator, jump master, certificated parachute rigger, or pilot. This links the rigger after he or she has packed the rig as they would not be jumping an un packed parachute! A lot will come out at the PIA as they are targeting a solution by that time frame. NOTE: Moderators, could someone cut and paste the posts from here regarding the pack cycle issues, over to the 180 day thread? Thanks, MEL By your interpretation of the law, the FAA should have gone after the rigger when the woman with the wet reserve died at the swoop meet a few years ago. To the best of my knowledge, they did not. Why not? It is because, once the airworthy rig is given to a jumper, continued airworthiness becomes the responsibility of the jumper. That doesn't mean the jumper can do the work required to make a rig airworthy. It means that they are responsible to ensure that when the rig becomes un-airworthy, that it does not get jumped. This continuing responsibility lies with the jumper and the pilot, not the rigger. Do you run around making sure that every rig you inspected continues to be airworthy? No, you do not. No rigger does. If the jumper ignores the un-airworthy condition of the rig and dies, does the FAA come after you? No, they do not. My best information is that the new AC 105.2D will contain information much the same as the PIA document I cited on this thread a while ago. http://www.pia.com/piapubs/PIA-180FAQ.pdf is still available on the PIA website. I know, you didn't like that document either.

No, that's not what he said. FAR 65.129 says "No certificated parachute rigger may—(b) Pack a parachute that is not safe for emergency use;" If the molar strap was still on, the rigger is already in violation, and is responsible. For the purpose of what Mark said, you must presume that the rig was in compliance with the law at the time it was delivered. Once that condition has been met, and the rig is delivered, the rigger has no further control. If the owner then pours battery acid on the rig, it is not airworthy, seal or no seal. The responsibility lies with the jumper. Failure of that rig to perform as required is no longer on the rigger.

You are always free to take your rig to the rigger at Costco. I'm sure they'll beat my price.

Paul, If you look at the very begining of 65 it states "Certificate Required" 65.111 Certificate required. top (a) 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 issued under this subpart and complies with §§65.127 through 65.133. (b) No person may pack, maintain, or alter any main parachute of a dual-parachute system to be used for intentional parachute jumping in connection with civil aircraft of the United States unless that person— (1) Has an appropriate current certificate issued under this subpart; In a nutshell, Part 65 is about riggers! Nowhere, and I mean nowhere does it state in the regs that a owner/jumper is responsible for the airworthiness of a rig. I charge anyone to show us that in a FAR or AC. It does not exsist! Sure it does! It states that the rigger has to pack it! And the owner cannot pack the reserve, so that rules that out. Only one person certifies it for use, that would be the rigger, hence the "certificate required". Again show us where it states (in black and white) where the owner is responsible. You cannot "read into" the FAR's. You have to read them as they are written. Cheers, MEL In your argument, you are confusing who does the work with who ensures that it is done. 65 says riggers do the work. 105 says jumpers and pilots ensure that the required work was done by a rigger at an appropriate time. They ensure compliance by checking the Packing Data Card, not by packing the rig. 105 says that a jumper or pilot must ensure that the rig was inspected in the last xx days. 105 says that the jumper or the pilot must ensure that the AAD manufacturer's requirements for service or battery life have been met. 105 does not say the rigger must ensure that the battery is good before a jump. It says the jumper or pilot must do that. Again I say, ensuring that the work is done is not the same as doing the work. The rigger does the work and logs it on the Packing Data Card. The pilot and jumper check the Packing Data Card to see that the requirements for use have been met. 65 says who does the work. 105 is about checking the Packing Data Card. 105 says that on the day a jumper wants to use a rig, he must check the Packing Data Card to see that the rig was inspected within the required time. The rigger is not involved. 105 says that the jumper or pilot must ensure that the AAD was maintained according to the manufacturer's requirement. This means that the jumper must know if the CYPRES(1) battery is past 500 jumps. It says nothing about the rigger. The only regulation that talks about AADs is 105, and 105 is about jumpers and pilots. 65 says the rig must be airworthy when the rigger packs it. It doesn't say it must stay airworthy any longer than that. If the canopy and harness and container are good, and the battery has not exceeded its specified life, I can close the rig. 105 says that the jumper and pilot must ensure compliance with inspection and service requirements. Now, it is your turn. Show me the law that says the battery must last until the next inspection.