AMT

agree, I dont mind the type I in the PT17 or a T34 or even SNJ, but I wouldnt want it in an L39, strongs harness restraint system can use a C9 but I dont think they use a diaper, softie offers that option, and I like it. Orderly deployment on a durable canopy, I will accept the additional bulk.

I've heard some negatives about the strong diaper, specifically line entanglement on deployment potentially causing it to lock. I have some seats and 1980's back type I (nb8, etc) that I wore, and sometimes still do, I didnt consider them fatal, I like the C9's...though butlers diaper on a 28' in a new rig is very appealing. I think the military still uses type I on a flat 24'...I think?

Do you mean the diaper has more malfunctions than canopy first deployment?

It's time consuming, but I've made friends with the mechanics. Yes, but that's only because you lack boobies. Crown royal, or johnnie walker can reduce this timeframe also.

He takes all the precaution of drawing a line "no further entries" below the signature, but leaves empty lines in the entry area above his signature between sentences, a couple long enough for somebody else to fit additional "work" into his entries. I usually draw a solid line through extra spaces.

now the age extention to 65 killed that hiring for another 5 years.

As far as the FAA is concerned the logbooks are the only thing that matters, whenever I deal with them thats all they look at, sometimes they never even look at the plane beyond a visual display of airworthiness certificate, or if they're bored they might look for the afm, equipment supplements, etc. The only time the actual parts of the airplane get checked by the FAA is during a post crash inspection. Most jumpers might not know what they are looking for in an aircraft logbook but you could still ask to see them, if they have a problem now, tell them you would be happy to come back later. If they never can do this for you they might be too busy or maybe hiding something. If they do let you see the logs, and you cant make sense of them, stare at the pages for a bit with a serious look, thumb through some pages, then hand them back, say thanks, and be happy that they were open with you.

So far I havent seen you answer this, or really directly any question, but rather leave open responses that indicate personal opinion, or quote FAR's, yet not explain your interpretation. you bet? Ok so their take is not valid to this discussion but yours is? what do they think? depends on the FSDO, sad yet true. you dont think? He is an FAA representitive, I've never seen one shoot from the hip on a response, thats not their job. But what do they know. why, did you set him straight? This thread seems stagnant, with nothing being contributed to bring about an answer. If you are getting your A&P I hope your going to a 147 school, because I can think of enough interpretations to disqualify you until the end of time otherwise, but people do it all the time, I and most everbody else doesnt have a problem with it, But that is another discussion just like this.

seems like he cut, possibly only the left engine, or maybe both but in any case he allowed the aircaft to get slow and stall. I agree with the assessment that he was look back at the jumper on the wheel because looking back and left causes the pilot to make a left rudder input which in this case is a pro-spin input. This is one of the reasons people die turning slow base to final trying to see the runway under the high wing on cessnas. Once the spin was in the incipient phase he applied power which only served to make things worse and shows he was attempting in panic stall recovery, further developing the spin. Why you would panic at that altitude is beyond me but you can see him hold up elevator and left rudder throughout the duration, meaning the aircraft recovered in spite of and not because of, some airplanes just dont like to stay in spins. Try that with a pitts. Acro pilots from the 80's should remember gene beggs power off, hands off, opposite rudder spin recovery proceedure, it has saved many.

First let me set the tone, Im asking, and NOT arguing. This question is specifically directed at you.....How can a part determined by the FAA to not need approval, be subject to FAR's concerning mantenence, alteration, airworthiness and qualified persons? Compare it to an ultralight, if it meets 103.01 and 103.03 than it requires no approval, certificate, etc, per 103.7. The operator doesnt even need any certificate. How do you regulate maintenance on this then? You don't. Ultralight manufacturers have airworthiness standards, just the same as PD. Im sure both would ground unairworthy products, but that would just be a suggestion, since the FARs dont require an airworthiness standard to be maintained, part 103.7 even tells you this. I don't think I've seen anything that says a main canopy must be maintained to its original design and airworthiness. Or can I interpret 65.129 to say this, but it could probably also go the other way. And of course any FAR's concerning parachutes only apply to them when used in conjunction with a US registered aircraft, which is the only way the FAA can inforce anything about them. I have to wonder if the original intent of the FAA was to tightly regulate main canopies, particularly when they would allow 254lb unapproved powered aircraft to fly around. But then again they were once tighter then now. The biggest question I have is that there seems to be enough people on both sides of the debate, and im not seeing anything but interpretations, how do I know you are right, and they are wrong or the other way around? Or do I just get the standard "if you read 65.111/ac105-2 its there" that I hear from everybody? obviously it isnt, or not clear enough. Whats to say people on your side of the argument dont fall through their own interpretive doors on their way to your conclusion? You did however provide the best advice about dealing with this debate.

I follow, and that is how I thought it was. If the main parachute is not required to be approved than how can it be regulated. The preamble I refer to is the one that I am always told to read after being told that the intentions of the part 61 statement pack, maintain, alter refers to changing the method of packing the main , and not changes to its construction. I do agree that I do not wish the FAA to rewrite this part, despite its confusion. If it is rewritten it would no doubt be done so by the FAA in conjunction with manufacturers and master riggers with specific interest, and as a result be overly strict for economic reasons. Mandatory main canopy line replacements done only by factory at specific jump numbers, looking at your main crosseyed warrants a factory inspection, etc.

there is a trend here, ask people who can work on a main, nobody really knows......ask a master rigger, and they will tell you only a master rigger. Where can I find (in writing) the preamble that people keep telling me spells this out, but never show me? This would be helpful to read

What container are you jumping it in?

But I believe the needle seperates the weave and leaves the fibers undamaged, then under loading the strands will return to the proper orientation. With a burned area the fibers surrounding the damage must take up the load of the missing fibers. I would also be concerned that since this area has been melted, that it would be brittle and not stretch with the surrounding fabric. I realise that this may sound like rationalizing to the worst case but the way I feel is that I know a patch works, but dont have a way to determine if a small unrepaired hole will work, it probably would but I dont know. And hackish probably doesnt eather or this thread wouldnt be here.

Quote>MAte, personally, i know that there will be a more logic explanation of what to do than what i am about to say but seriously.. If my Reserve had a hole in it i would get a new reserve< Feel free to correct my logic: if your reserve is constructed by being sewn together then why would you fear a sewn patch that probably wont be larger than 2 inches? If the reserve was "burned" through by the closing loop with only a 1/8" hole, it would probably last forever, but its still a hole, and I see no logical reason not to repair it.

I would hold it up to a light and look at the fabric weave, if the threads are pushed aside but not damaged the rigger could probably work them back into order. If the threads are damaged or the holes were caused by friction, (my LoPos seemed to suffer from this), then being a reserve it should probably be repaired as stress from fabric tension will concentrate on the edges of the holes possibly causing the damage to propagate, I assume the air flowing through the hole during deployment would also contribute to tearing.

>Is it MORE of a risk to train a FJS on a square than a huge (say 50') round ? the packers would work for evey cent on that one.

Better described by Paul Foxman as anxiety being a fear of fear. Anxiety is more common than people think, I lived with a severe form of it for many years resulting from a few experiences Id rather not talk about. I can very much relate to instances such as sitting in a car at the dz then leaving, for reasons unknown. The "not feeling right" (anxiety) is what happens when you feel fear, and don't know exactly why. Naturally you will come to associate certain things with these feelings and will seek avoidance to prevent anxiety. Some fears you will recognize as irrational, but are unable to do anything about them, other peoples lack of understanding of this makes the situation worse. I experienced this and also found myself always bound by continuous negative what-if thinking/projecting which contributed to the anxiety. It is a terrible thing. I think your situation probably has very little to do with skydiving and is far more complicated than you may realize. Fear is normal, but anxiety is not. It is however learned, and those learned feelings can be replaced with time and professional assistance. You may think that professional help sounds excessive, but if the anxiety is strong enough to prevent you from doing what you like, it is probably effecting many aspects of your life.

Im not sure if its just the exposure to water that affects the porosity, but rather having the water forced through the weave during canopy retrieval or washing.

If anybody knows somewhere I can get my hands on a clean, low jump #'s MKI PC that hasnt been shortlined pm me, if its a good canopy Ill make it worth the effort.

I'd rather have him pencil pack it, than slip through the system and get on a plane with an 'illegal' rig. As long as the paperwork appears to be in order, those responsible for checking such things are covered in case of an incident. Being safe and being legal are two different things. A shit, rushed pack job is legal if a rigger signs and seals it. A perfect factory-spec pack job without a seal is safe, but not legal in the eyes of the FAA. 1. Nobody has the right to use a riggers signature but him. If the rigger wants to pencil pack it, thats his business as long as the rig owner knows about it, but its still illegal. 2. If the rigger has the rig in his possession, why not just pack it, what, 45mins-hour, to be sure and not risk his ticket? 3. Do you have to have it that bad that the rigger needs to hurry something that isnt that big of a deal to do right. 4. Safe and legal ARE two different things, but if you strive for professionalism then you end up covering both aspects at once, having to strive for safety is a warning sign.

I know that this is more then a "rare" practice, but are you seriously advocating this as something that is ok to do, particularly at a place where new impressionable people can read this.

???

They already do, strong makes a version of a paracushion that is both a pilot restraint, and parachute system. It replaces the foreign equivalent on the Russian Albatross and Delphin jet trainers, and has the option of a 16' static line. The static line works like an rsl, it just pulls the ripcord pins out of the closing loop with a ring, which at high speeds Im sure would be a firm opening, but thats probably why they use the C-9.

I wouldn't say he caused an embarrassing situation for acrobatic pilots. He wasn't flying reckless, was above 1500' agl, and wasn't breaking FAR's that I know of. He was flying a demanding airplane, and screwed up the recovery. He could have been higher, and he could have saved it. He admitted his mistake and in doing so provided a learning opportunity for all acro pilots who read it. Most pilots would have covered it up with "it wouldnt respond", causing doubt about how safe aerobatic flight is. He also had an exit plan, something very few acro pilots have, and he stuck to it. He is alive therefore it was a textbook bailout. This spin recovery with power problem is nothing new, Gene Beggs "discovered" it in the 70's, and even developed an emergency spin recovery procedure that I have taught since the day I learned it, it has worked in everything from j-3's to stearmans.