Conflicting Instructions! your thoughts

[rigger_john 0]

The thread on the LOR2 RSL system got me thinking, here in the UK when there are conflicting instructions between the manufature of a container system and the manufature an AAD. British riggers have to follow the instructions of the container manufacture.

I think thats the same in the USA to? I don't know about other organisations.

I remember Stefan Earler from Paratec telling me once that he thought the job of approving a AAD in a next system was the responsibility of the AAD manufacture as they were the experts on thier kit.

I tend to agree with him, so how come w give container manufactures the right to over rule AAD manufactures as to how an AAD should be fitted?

Any opinions?

_________________________________________

Nullius in Verba

[riggergreg 0]

I would say that the container manufacturer would know more about fit and function of the entire system than an aad manufacturer. Although they should collaborate on design and function, in the end, the container design is still the most important.

You can use the container without an aad, but not vice-versa

[riggerrob 643]

That policy was written before AADs became fashionable.

Originally it meant: follow the canopy manufacturer's instructions, but when they start to disagree with the container's instructions, follow the container manufacturer's instructions.
... add a new line about AADs.

Half the confusion is caused by manufacturers being slow to update manuals. A complex and expensive process at best.
Try reading the date on conflicting manuals. Generally you follow the most recent manual.

[riggermick 7]

Quote

The thread on the LOR2 RSL system got me thinking, here in the UK when there are conflicting instructions between the manufature of a container system and the manufature an AAD. British riggers have to follow the instructions of the container manufacture.

I think thats the same in the USA to? I don't know about other organisations.

I remember Stefan Earler from Paratec telling me once that he thought the job of approving a AAD in a next system was the responsibility of the AAD manufacture as they were the experts on thier kit.

I tend to agree with him, so how come w give container manufactures the right to over rule AAD manufactures as to how an AAD should be fitted?

Any opinions?

In the US harness/ container manufacturers hold FAA TSO authorization, AAD manufacturers don't. The feds will automaticly defer to the federaly approved manufacturer as the final word on any installation. That's where the clout lies, with the "approved" manufacturer.

Mick.

[rigger_john 0]

Quote

I would say that the container manufacturer would know more about fit and function of the entire system than an aad manufacturer. Although they should collaborate on design and function, in the end, the container design is still the most important.

You can use the container without an aad, but not vice-versa

I can see where your logic comes from about the entire fit and function ect, however I can't see how making a container, no matter how good you are makes you an expert in electronics. Nor would it give you any expertise in the best way of instaling the electronics into a given rig.

As I said the rules are the same here in the UK as in the US we defer to the container instructions, but I still think the manufacture of the AAD whould know better than the container manudfacture.

_________________________________________

Nullius in Verba

[JerryBaumchen 1,354]

Hi Mick,

Re: That's where the clout lies, with the 'approved' manufacturer.

What is the proper saying here: HOLD THE PHONES, WE HAVE A WINNER.

It is, in my opinion, all about priorities; and I think that when it comes to the feds actually looking into something (which they will not do unless req'd [just my jab at them]), it would ONLY come down to that which is 'approved.'

Other thoughts????

Jerry

[riggergreg 0]

Quote

I can see where your logic comes from about the entire fit and function ect, however I can't see how making a container, no matter how good you are makes you an expert in electronics. Nor would it give you any expertise in the best way of instaling the electronics into a given rig.

I'm sure there has been colaboration between the container manfs. and the aad Manfs. over the years in deciding how and where to install the various aads. From the bulky old FXCs with push plates or pull plates, to the more sophisticated cypres and vigil, both manufacturers I'm sure, had to discuss methods and locations of installation. I don't know which aad you are talking about or which rig, But I'm sure it has been discussed at length.

[rigger_john 0]

Quote

I don't know which aad you are talking about or which rig, But I'm sure it has been discussed at length.

I'm not talking about any AAD, I'm talking about conflicting instructions. As I said, "it seems to me" that a manufacture of an AAD would be a better authority as to how it should be used.

I was just wondering why we don't defer to them if there is a conflict between instructions.

_________________________________________

Nullius in Verba