Canadian FAA riggers

[teason 0]

The other day, a visting jumper told me that an FAA senior rigger is not allowed to assemble gear but a CSPA rigger "A" is!
This comment comes a couple of months after I read in Canpara that FAA riggers in Canada lack the training and knowledge required to pack Canadian gear! The article also states that an FAA rigger could lose his ticket if he packs Canadian non TSO'd equipment in Canada.

What the f**k is going on here? Does Canadian gear use different webbing, thread, nylon?
Does Canadian gear not come with manuals (we must have them to pack any gear)

Can someone clarify what the hell's going on! According to Transport Canada the two tickets are recognized, why the persecution or am I the one who's clueless?

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[d604 0]

Well, an FAA rigger is not allowed to repack (or work) on non-TSO'd gear, as far as I know, so doing so may get them in trouble. Also, if the FAA rigger is 'working' in Canada and there is an issue of them needing CSPA insurance or Defense Fund they would not be covered as you need to have the CSPA rating to be covered for such stuff (assuming they were a CSPA member).

Yes, CDN gear comes with manuals if not there would be a lot of riggers scratching their heads when it comes time to close the reserve. And no, the gear is manufactures (hopefully) by the same nylon, etc. that you buy in Paragear.

HTH
Sean

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Well, an FAA rigger is not allowed to repack (or work) on non-TSO'd gear, as far as I know, so doing so may get them in trouble. Also, if the FAA rigger is 'working' in Canada and there is an issue of them needing CSPA insurance or Defense Fund they would not be covered as you need to have the CSPA rating to be covered for such stuff (assuming they were a CSPA member).

Yes, CDN gear comes with manuals if not there would be a lot of riggers scratching their heads when it comes time to close the reserve. And no, the gear is manufactures (hopefully) by the same nylon, etc. that you buy in Paragear.

HTH
Sean

An FAA Certified rigger can work on anything he wants, he just cannot certify as airworth for use by people non TSO'd gear, or certain military gear. Also a rigger holding a rating issued by the FAA has no authority to work on equipment in Canada, he/she would have to be certified by the Canadians. After all, they are different countries.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

The other day, a visiting jumper told me that an FAA senior rigger is not allowed to assemble gear but a CSPA rigger "A" is!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Foolishness!
The FAA cleared up that confusion years ago.
I assembled a couple thousand reserves - using my FAA Senior Rigger's certificate - while working in California.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This comment comes a couple of months after I read in Canpara that FAA riggers in Canada lack the training and knowledge required to pack Canadian gear!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Since most Canadian-made parachutes are close copies of TSOed, American-made gear, the learning curve is pretty short. Any FAA rigger with two clues and a manual should be able to learn how to pack most Canadian-made rigs within an hour.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The article also states that an FAA rigger could lose his ticket if he packs Canadian non TSO'd equipment in Canada.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Correct.
FAA Riggers can do a variety of repairs to Canadian-made gear, but they risk losing their licenses if they sign them off as airworthy, because FAA riggers are only allowed to sign off FAA TSO approved parachutes.
On a practical note, the FAA does not want to be bothered with this trivia unless an FAA rigger's seal and signature are found at the scene of a fatality.

Since four of the better Canadian made manufacturers (Flying High, ParaFab, Roger Sport and WestWay) have or used to hold TSOs, this is a trivial argument.
Transport Canada "adopted" FAA TSO C23D as a Canadian standard back in 1994. For example, Transport Canada "administers" Flying High manufacturing Sidewinder harness/containers under TC TSO-C23C (identical to FAA TSO-C23C).
Trivia: the European Joint Airworthiness Authority has also adopted the FAA TSO process along with Australia and South Africa .

The main reason TC have not grounded non-TSOed gear is that the fatality rate has been low.
Another case of laws being on the books, but not enforced!

Blue skies,

Rob Warner
CSPA Rigger A since 1984
FAA Senior Rigger since 1988
FAA Master Rigger since 1996

• Quote

[teason 0]

Quote

Also a rigger holding a rating issued by the FAA has no authority to work on equipment in Canada

Absolutely false.
Canadian Aviation Regulation 623.38 E) Parachute Packing Requirements

Quote

(1) For the purpose of this section a certificated parachute rigger means a person who holds a valid certificate issued by:

(a) The Canadian Sport Parachuting Association; or

(b) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

FAA riggers are recognized by TC.

This reminds me of the time I was told my USPA D license was worthless 'cause they're so easy to get!

I also had a friend who went down to the US and was told that they wouldn't recognize a CSPA riggers pack job.

It's going both ways!

The CSPA rigger cert. is worth getting for the defense fund and to be on the same page as to what is standardized across the board. But to imply incompetence was what really got my goat.

Now the only non TSO'd gear I do these days is glider reserves. I don't seal 'em and I don't certify 'em. I just ensure that maintenance and inspections are being done correctly. So It's a moot point about non TSO'd gear. It is the atitude some have towards FAA riggers in canada that is bothering me. Some of us haven't had the oppurtunity to attend a Rigger "A" course. Some of us studied our asses off, went down to gear manufacturers and spent weeks learning about gear from that people how make it. We learned from some of the legends in parachute equipment. We learned from some of the best. Then we come back and have people think we're lesser riggers.
I take a great deal of pride in my rigging. I never pack without an open manual. I always encourage the owner to watch and learn about inspections and gear and I never get "creative".

Have others experienced this attitude? Is it common or am I just getting worked up for nothing.

I tend to be overly sensitive

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[mjosparky 4]

Whoa, chill out, I did not say one was better than the other. Being a FAA certified rigger I am not familiar with Canadian rules and regs. I just assumed, I now, they would not sign off on the cert. of another country. I know the FAA does not recognize the certification from another country.
No flame intended.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[teason 0]

Sorry.
As I said before, I tend to be overly sensitive.

Over the past while I've heard comment about Canadian FAA riggers and want to know if it's isolated or not. Could be I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill but better I know than just assume.

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Sorry.
As I said before, I tend to be overly sensitive.

Over the past while I've heard comment about Canadian FAA riggers and want to know if it's isolated or not. Could be I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill but better I know than just assume.

Tim,
When you take the FAA written and go through the practical and oral, it doesn't matter if you are Canadian, American or from somewhere else. To pass and get your seal you have to know what you are doing and have every right to feel proud. A lot of effort and time goes into acquiring the knowledge.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggerrob 643]

It sounds like the (off dz.com) that sparked this whole thread came from someone who enjoys spouting off on subjects that he does not understand.

So everybody chill.

Differences between CSPA and FAA rigger certification standards are small.
FAA Senior riggers have broader - but shallower - knowledge about round canopies, military surplus gear, sewing. etc.
The concept that most of them plan to laugh military surplus gear and round reserves out of their lofts - the after they earn their ratings - is lost to the FAA. Also, less than half of FAA Senior riggers touch a sewing machine after they graduate.

CSPA Rigger As have more general knowledge about sport gear, but the newer ones don't have a clue about round parachutes.
Who cares? ... as round reserves and military surplus gear are rapidly disappearring from Canadian DZs.
The bottom line is that freshly graduated CSPA riggers have more detailed knowledge about 90% of the gear they will encounter on their DZs.

Step forward to five years after writing the exam.
Licensing systems aside, the long term measure of a rigger is in his/her attitude.
Is the rigger curious?
Is the rigger a neat freak?
Is the rigger constantly trying to pack neater?
Does the rigger update skills by attending PIA Symposiuma or assist on rigging courses?

Governments cannot legislate attitudes.
In the long run, the better CSPA and FAA riggers are equal.

Rob Warner
CSPA Rigger A since 1984
FAA Senior Rigger since 1988
FAA Master Rigger since 1996

[d604 0]

Quote

... but the newer ones don't have a clue about round parachutes.

Well, that's not entirely true, unless the program changed since 2000. We had to learn a fair deal of round theory and some of the projects were how to modify military surplus gear. I remember the military gear stuff as; I thought it was a waste of time to learn such stuff in a 2000 course.

Sean
CSPA Rigger A Since 2000
for both round and square parachutes

[teason 0]

Quote

Step forward to five years after writing the exam.
Licensing systems aside, the long term measure of a rigger is in his/her attitude.

That's an exellent point. The certification is just a springboard into rigging. It's where rigging begins.
What determins a good rigger is where he goes from there, not who gave him the paperwork.

As for the guy who made the comment, he's a really decent guys who was just telling me what a Rigger "B" told him. There was no malicious intent on his part.
That's kinda what got my goat. I don't blame the jumper for being misinformed but when it may have come from a Rigger "B" ...
We should all be on the same page and share a proffesional courtesy.

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Quote

... but the newer ones don't have a clue about round parachutes.

Well, that's not entirely true, unless the program changed since 2000. We had to learn a fair deal of round theory and some of the projects were how to modify military surplus gear. I remember the military gear stuff as; I thought it was a waste of time to learn such stuff in a 2000 course.

Sean
CSPA Rigger A Since 2000
for both round and square parachutes

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sean,

You are correct on that point.
The CSPA Rigger A written exam has not changed.
However, the point that I was trying to make is that most new CSPA riggers memorize just enough theory - about round canopies - to pass the written exam and skip the packing test on round reserves.
Since they are over-loaded with information, most of them promptly dump theory about round canopies from their short-term memory. If they do not pack a bunch of round canopies, that information is lost forever.

This reflects a contrast in CSPA policy. On the one hand, CSPA has to serve small clubs that still have round reserves in their student rigs. On the other hand, larger, more progressive commercial centers replaced all their round reserves a decade ago.

As an example, during the (March 2004) CSPA Rigger A course - held in Kamloops - only three (of 8) candidates asked to be tested on packing round reserves.

As for military surplus gear ... the last pilot who brought a military surplus PEP into my loft was diplomatically told that it would cost US$1,000 to make it airworthy!
Hee!
Hee!