riggerpaul

I am not really replying to any particular post here. So, while the website might say I am replying to deadwood's post, I don't intend it to be interpreted that way. I want to mention some aspects of the regulations that haven't been touched on so far, and though they might be considered small things by some, I think they should be given some time and attention. The currency requirement as set forth in FAR 65.129.f.1 says "Performed duties under his certificate for at least 90 days within the preceding 12 months". This regulation specifically mentions "duties" as opposed to "privileges". FAR 65.121 "Certificates: Privileges" does not define duties. As the title says, it defines privileges. (Definition, "privileges" are things I am allowed to do; "duties" are things I shall or must do.) I don't know of any section that defines duties specifically, except possibly FAR 65.131 which says "Each certificated parachute rigger shall keep a record of the packing, maintenance, and alteration of parachutes performed or supervised by him. He shall keep in that record, with respect to each parachute worked on, a statement of...". So, it may be that the only "duty" we have is to log our work, and for the purpose of compliance with FAR 65.129.f.1, it may be that only logged work contributes to currency. If the only things we are logging are reserve repacks and maintenance on the gear involved, it might be than anyone who doesn't log work on 90 days of the last year might be considered by the FAA to be non-current. Logging 90 repacks on 60 days, for instance, also might not meet the currency requirement as put forth in FAR 65.129.f.1, because it doesn't actually mention how much work is required, but only mentions that you need to have "performed duties" on 90 days of the preceding 12 months. Now, I don't like the implications of this train of thought any more than any other rigger does. But if any rigger certificate action went in front of the FAA review board or the NTSB, I believe they could very easily interpret the regulations in the manner that I have here. It is well documented that people (mostly pilots, I'll grant you) have had certificates revoked for smaller details than this. All it takes is a little reading of "AOPA Pilot" magazine to find horror stories about what happened to pilots and other certificate holders for seemingly tiny misinterpretations of the rules. FAR 65.129.f.1 has some other implications that haven't been discussed. For instance, riggerrob pointed out that "If you want to be picky .. the American Federal Air Regulations require main parachutes to be packed by licensed riggers or "the next person who intends to jump it." Actually, there's a little more to it than that. It is also allowed that a main can be packed by a non-certified individual who was *supervised* by someone with a certificate. But 65.129.f.1 also says that supervision must be logged. There are a lot of paid packers out there who are not certificated riggers. Many DZs suggest that nearby riggers are supervising these people, but according to 65.129.f.1, if it isn't logged, it isn't supervision. The rewrite of the parachuting regs a few years ago greatly expanded the list of people who might be held responsible when parachuting regulations are broken. So, for example, while many DZOs choose to take the attitude that the paid packers in the packing area are independent of their control, that might not fly if the FAA gets involved. I understand that all this presupposes that the FAA chooses to take some action, and that doesn't often seem likely. But I worry that a great deal of what we consider normal could be "actionable" if anyone in the FAA decided to start taking shots at us.

Ryan, There are many great harness container systems on the market (rigs), and each has pros and cons. If you'd like more info on the Icon Sport, please feel free to contact me at the office or visit our website http://www.flyaerodyne.com/fly/products/icon.asp Looking forward to hearing from you Blue Skies Karl Meyer Sales Representative Aerodyne Research Office: 1 813 891 6300 www.flyaerodyne.com www.myspace.com/flyaerodyne

Conventional need not be about age. Regardless of its age, you cannot even put one of those UPT ripcords (with the marine eye) though the housing on MOST rigs, so how conventional could it be?

Ummm... what about Booth's idea where he puts the reserve pin on the end of the RSL and then the reserve rip cord is just a pin-puller? Do they kink the reserve rip-cord in the same manner when its the RSL that activates the reserve? You are right! It doesn't kink the cable. But Rob's post said "conventional ripcord", and Booth's implementation is hardly that.

First off, ditto what has been said regarding SOS systems. They came, they were found wanting, and they went (well mostly). But, as I recall, there was a time when the procedure being taught for an SOS was to pull enough to cutaway, wait to confirm that the main had left, and then to finish pulling the handle. Now, why someone would stop after the cutaway and not finish the Emergency Procedure, I can only guess. Maybe they were waiting for an RSL to save them. But the concept of delaying between the two different actions of the SOS was being *taught*. It didn't just get invented by the hapless jumper. So these events, though totally sad, were quite similar to the "cutaway and failed to deploy reserve" incidents that are still, inexplicably, part of the sport.

Are you saying that your DZ has no wind measuring equipment that you can read? At my home dz we have an electronic wind meter with the spinning cups thing on the roof and the display at the manifest desk. It displays the current wind speed and the highest gust. The gust number is manually reset when we think it needs it. Everybody can see the display whenever they want. If your DZ doesn't have one, maybe you can get them interested in getting one. (Of course, my home DZ is Bay Area Skydiving, Byron, CA, where we regularly experience significant winds. If your home dz doesn't have the wind problems that we have, it might not seem to them like they need such a system.)

This link didn't work for me. I went to the BPA website and didn't see any way to search for the document. Please check the link or maybe just post the doc. Thanks! EDIT - Doh! I see now that I missed that the BPA main page has a link to the Forms page. My bad!