Opening and reclosing other peoples reserve pack jobs

[rigger_john 0]

There is a word doc here with a drawing of the BPA method of sealing reserves.

http://www.bpa.org.uk/forms/docs/Form%20215%20-%20BPA%20Reserve%20Sealing%20Method.doc

_________________________________________

Nullius in Verba

[skycat 0]

Quote

There is a word doc here with a drawing of the BPA method of sealing reserves.

http://www.bpa.org.uk/forms/docs/Form%20215%20-%20BPA%20Reserve%20Sealing%20Method.doc

Made it clicky

Fly it like you stole it!

[Hooknswoop 19]

Neat, but the reserve can be opened, re-closed, and sealed with the original seal. The tacking to keep the seal away from the grommet makes this method cumbersome.

Derek

[mrobiette 0]

Ah OK, I just posted the same info on a different thread without reading this one first.

I guess it would technically be possible to open and reclose it, but if there isn't much slack in the seal thread it would be very fiddly. Plus you have to bear in mind that seals are not mandatory anyway so I guess the safety side tends to outweigh security over here. The tacking only takes a few seconds if you do choose to seal.

Still, each to their own, and it would be a dull world if we all did everything the same...

Martin

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

so I guess the safety side tends to outweigh security over here.

Sewing on the flaps of a packed reserve does not sound very safe. One person died after doing to his own rig.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[rigger_john 0]

Try to reclose a reserve using the same seal. I'll admit it is possible in theory, but I've tried just to see how hard it is and I don't think you can do it.

_________________________________________

Nullius in Verba

[Hooknswoop 19]

Sounds like a project right up my alley. I'll give it a shot

Derek

[FineHavanas 0]

Quote

Sec. 105.49 Foreign parachutists and equipment


(a) No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft with an unapproved foreign parachute system unless--

This regulates the use of an "unapproved foreign parachute system" by foreign visitors in the US.

Could you clarify what is actually meant by "unapproved"? Is it the equipment itself (say, a H/C not approved for use in the US) or the reserve pack (say, packed by a foreign non-faa certified rigger)?

What if I visit the US with my Rig that is bought in the US, but assembled and packed in my own (foreign) country by a non-faa certified rigger. Will my jumping activity (when visiting the US) then be regulated by Sec. 105.49? What if it is packed by a FAA certified rigger?

Hope you will clarify this, thanks.

Rene
(edited for typos)

[tombuch 0]

Quote

What if I visit the US with my Rig that is bought in the US, but assembled and packed in my own (foreign) country by a non-faa certified rigger. Will my jumping activity (when visiting the US) then be regulated by Sec. 105.49? What if it is packed by a FAA certified rigger?

Hope you will clarify this, thanks.

The specific regulation is discussed in detail at: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=96, as listed in an earlier post. Please see the following:

Quote

Either the reserve or container must be UNAPPROVED. If both components are TSO'd and can be used in the United States by a United States citizen, then United States standards apply. So, a French citizen jumping a Javelin and a PD reserve in the United States must comply with all United States regulations, including a 120 day repack by an FAA rigger, with a seal applied to the reserve.

The short answer is that if your rig is approved for use in the USA it must be packed by an FAA rigger while you are jumping here. If either the reserve or container is not approved for use in the USA, then you may follow your home country regulations. The word "approved" means TSO'd by the FAA.

Enforcement of the regulation varies. Some drop zones ignore the approved/unapproved part and simply let foreign jumpers use their own gear, whatever it is. Some DZ's stick to the regulations. Contact the specific DZ you will be visiting in advance to get their interpretation of the regulation.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[rigger_john 0]

Let me get this right, If the equipment is TSOed then it's approved regardless of where it was made or who owns it? And if its approved it has to be packed by an FAA rigger under FAA rules regardless of who jumps it?

If thats right I think that almost every person visiting the USA is violating the FAR. I can't think of a reserve that doesn't have TSO approval. I can't remember the last time I worked on a non TSO HC system

I think that rule if I understand it right has huge implications.

_________________________________________

Nullius in Verba

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Let me get this right, If the equipment is TSOed then it's approved regardless of where it was made or who owns it? And if its approved it has to be packed by an FAA rigger under FAA rules regardless of who jumps it?

If thats right I think that almost every person visiting the USA is violating the FAR. I can't think of a reserve that doesn't have TSO approval. I can't remember the last time I worked on a non TSO HC system

I think that rule if I understand it right has huge implications.

It is correct, and it does have huge implications. There are actually many reserves and containers that are not TSO'd, but the rule does apply a penalty to foreign jumpers who choose to use BOTH a TSO'd reserve and harness/container. Many DZ's do not know about the specific interpretation, or have chosen to ignore it. To the best of my knowledge the FAA has not brought any enforcement action regarding this matter, and would probably not look at the issue closely unless there is an accident.

I have attached a copy of the USPA paper on the topic. It may provide a bit more information.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[ludwigschmude 0]

and that´s only thing that makes sense to me, too. In the end it´s my name on that packing card and I have to stand up for it, nobody else.

[Jordan82 0]

https://www.pia.com/piapubs/tb/TB-252v1.1.pdf

[dpreguy 14]

Hookenswoop is correct. The installation must be noted on the data card, the rig re-sealed. Although it can be done that way, it is a very bad practice. This new rigger is now the certifying rigger for this assembly and assumes all responsibilities for it.

The new rigger is now responsible for everything inside that reserve pack … and any other defects on/in the rig, because when the new rigger records the info and puts his seal on it, it was that new rigger's responsibility to thoroughly inspect the entire assembly. Including the main parachute if it is still attached. Say the main parachute is installed backwards or a riser is twisted or the main is not airworthy... or there is something about the H/C that makes it not airworthy. If the main was attached when the "just installed the AAD" rigger got it, or the H/C is not airworthy this new rigger has just signed on to take responsibility for everything.

Can the new rigger argue that he isn't responsible for all of the other things? Yes. He can argue that. Can the new rigger argue that he is not responsible for inspecting the entire assembly? Yes, he can argue that. "I just installed the AAD. How was I supposed to know the other things were not routed properly or were not airworthy?" Yeah, go ahead with that defense; but not inspecting the entire rig, including the main, if it was attached, is an unethical and whiny and losing argument. Although it is rare, survivors can sue. I'd hate to be in that chair when the fingers are pointed. And even if you beat the legality...I'd hate to be that rigger when other skydivers talk over the campfire about how you gave an unairworthy rig back to the jumper and he went in. All the while you are defensively repeating, "I just put the AAD in and I never looked at anything else...How was I supposed to know all the other stuff wasn't good? etc". Yeah - right.

Ethics are just an academic subject, and a rigger's responsibilities are just words; until the consequences fall.

Never do this.

[pchapman 279]

I always thought it was stupid that in skydiving a rigger somehow had to take responsibility for the whole rig.

For the rest of aviation it it isn't like "Oh, sorry, I can't check your magnetos -- or even open the cowling -- because another mechanic did your annual inspection and now they won't know who to investigate if you crash".

But I still stick to the skydiving convention for reserves because that's what the US & Canadian organizations want. Some sort of made up liability crap.

[rmarshall234 13]

pchapman

For the rest of aviation it it isn't like "Oh, sorry, I can't check your magnetos -- or even open the cowling -- because another mechanic did your annual inspection and now they won't know who to investigate if you crash".

I understand the argument and it's probably a good one but consider this: Every time the pilot does a preflight -which is required by the regs- he is certifying that the aircraft is airworthy. The same thing doesn't apply in skydiving....there isn't always a Certificated Individual on the hook, passing the liability from hand-to-hand for that particular flight (jump).

[DBCOOPER 5]

rmarshall234

***

For the rest of aviation it it isn't like "Oh, sorry, I can't check your magnetos -- or even open the cowling -- because another mechanic did your annual inspection and now they won't know who to investigate if you crash".

I understand the argument and it's probably a good one but consider this: Every time the pilot does a preflight -which is required by the regs- he is certifying that the aircraft is airworthy. The same thing doesn't apply in skydiving....there isn't always a Certificated Individual on the hook, passing the liability from hand-to-hand for that particular flight (jump).

Where did you get that? A preflight does not certify anything except the pilot is willing to fly it. There is no sign off for a preflight.There are so many things a pilot can not see or never been trained for that could kill them that doesn't show on a preflight. Rental pilots never even see the sign off for the annual or 100 hour unless they are taking a check ride.

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[rmarshall234 13]

DBCOOPER

******

For the rest of aviation it it isn't like "Oh, sorry, I can't check your magnetos -- or even open the cowling -- because another mechanic did your annual inspection and now they won't know who to investigate if you crash".

I understand the argument and it's probably a good one but consider this: Every time the pilot does a preflight -which is required by the regs- he is certifying that the aircraft is airworthy. The same thing doesn't apply in skydiving....there isn't always a Certificated Individual on the hook, passing the liability from hand-to-hand for that particular flight (jump).

Where did you get that? A preflight does not certify anything except the pilot is willing to fly it. There is no sign off for a preflight.There are so many things a pilot can not see or never been trained for that could kill them that doesn't show on a preflight. Rental pilots never even see the sign off for the annual or 100 hour unless they are taking a check ride.

§91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.



The broader point however, is that with pilots and airplanes the FAA always has someone they can go after, a Certificate they can pull. Not so with skydivers.

[pchapman 279]

rmarshall234

The broader point however, is that with pilots and airplanes the FAA always has someone they can go after, a Certificate they can pull. Not so with skydivers.

Okay, but uncertified skydivers aren't really the issue when dealing with the reclosing issue:
If 6 different FAA certified mechanics were involved with a plane, is that much different than if 6 FAA certified riggers were involved with a rig?

Still, the rules are what they are.

Maybe authorities would be more forgiving if the system involved detailed logs for the harness/container as well as the reserve. Then each item of work could be logged by the rigger responsible -- although that still gets away from the idea of "one rigger only per pack job, because it's easier to find someone to blame that way".

I have seen a couple European countries use logs for each component.

[DBCOOPER 5]

So how many riggers have ever been blamed for anything? Lost their ticket?

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.