RIGGER ERROR - LIFE SAVING ISSUE

[Capricorn1 0]

Quote

Try not to forget that you are talking about life saving devices. The line should be drawn somewhere.

Yes absolutely! But the line should be dictated by common sense, knowledge, and by case-by-case not by time alone!

Let's say you are an airplane mechanic, a 50 year old Cessna 182 comes...no history of maintenance whatsoever, duct tape to hold structural components together, rust all over the engine, oil leaks like it's showering...would you sign it off as airworthy? Same airplane comes, spotless maintenance record, fresh paint, everything checks from the airframe, to engine, to avionics...would you refuse to sign the annual or 100 hours because it's 50 years old?

THINK!!!

[potvinj 0]

Like you Im using older mains that have hundreds of jumps and a "few" hours of UV exposure. I dont fear this gear. But although I havent realized it, Im sure the descent rate and the opening time have increased slightly since I began jumping it 16 yrs ago. No big deal for openings at 3000', but that could be an issue for openings much closer to the ground.

In the case of the TSO that affects the old gear discussed here (i.e. C23c/NAS-804), the reserve canopy must be "fully opened" within 3 seconds from pack opening, in a cut-away scenario. Also, after opening it must descend no faster than 21ft/sec when loaded at 170lb. A canopy that deploys and opens in 3.5 sec, and or descend at 22ft/sec as a result of higher porosity would still be an acceptable main. But it would no longer qualify as a reserve. So Im thinking that's what manufacturers are looking at when evaluating old gear.

Now I see your point that if it opened in 3.5sec and descended at 22fps at year-20, it must have done that too at year-19. Im not sure that we have the technology today to nail a canopy opening time and ROD within 10% or less, without performing a quazillion test jumps. I guess the next best thing is to establish a time marker (or "re-certification time"; not necessarily a "limit") for which performance reduction can be assessed in a meaningful manner, and lead to an objective decision on whether a canopy can be put back into the field. I think that PD, Strong and others use such times that way.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Let's say you are an airplane mechanic, a 50 year old Cessna 182 comes...no history of maintenance whatsoever, duct tape to hold structural components together, rust all over the engine, oil leaks like it's showering...would you sign it off as airworthy? Same airplane comes, spotless maintenance record, fresh paint, everything checks from the airframe, to engine, to avionics...would you refuse to sign the annual or 100 hours because it's 50 years old?

THINK!!!

Ok. Go ahead! Get all parts of your gear replaced after 20 years. Than you got a brand new gear, don't you?

[Capricorn1 0]

On an airplane you don't usually change structural components just for the fuck of it.

Most 182s 50+ still have the very same airframe as they did 50 years ago.

Wear and tear items such as many engine components, tires, and brakes are being replaced very much like I hope you change your closing loops once in a while, lube your cables, reline your main, change he kill line of your PC, yada, yada, yada.

I think I spent enough time here.

The Internet is really like the special Olympics.

Over and out!

AGAIN PLEASE SEND ME ALL SKYDIVING GEAR THAT IS 20+ YEARS OLD, I PAY FOR POSTAGE

[slotperfect 7]

A few years ago I jumped at Greene County, KY (Bardstown) out of their Beaver. He had just put a brand new engine in it, which he told me had originally been made as war contingency stock and stored in some sort of preservative in a barrel. That engine must have been at least 50 years old.

Without a doubt that engine went through all of the inspection, maintenance, and installation processes and checks required by the FAA, all performed by certificated personnel.

If there had been an arbitrary service life placed on that engine it would have been destined to become a lawn ornament in front of somebody's double-wide.

I realize there is a difference between shelf life and service life, and that this engine had not yet been placed in service. Parachute gear in question, for the most part, has already been placed in service at some point in the past despite infrequent use.

Otherwise I think it is a worthy analogy.

I think it should be left up to the *professional* decision of the individual Parachute Rigger as to whether he will choose to work on gear that is past XX years old. I agree that it is critically important to educate new Riggers on this issue and give them the information they need to make their own informed decision.

Arrive Safely

John

[mark 107]

Quote

I think it should be left up to the *professional* decision of the individual Parachute Rigger as to whether he will choose to work on gear that is past XX years old. I agree that it is critically important to educate new Riggers on this issue and give them the information they need to make their own informed decision.

What information would you provide to a new rigger in solo practice in, say, North Dakota so he could make an informed decision? Please be as specific as possible.

Thanks,
Mark

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

AGAIN PLEASE SEND ME ALL SKYDIVING GEAR THAT IS 20+ YEARS OLD, I PAY FOR POSTAGE

Ok. Send your address, number etc. You can expect a VectorII and a Cricket reserve in 4 years or earlier. If I can not jump it you are welcome to do that.

[riggerrob 643]

- A skydiver's reserve repacked 3 times/year over twenty years (with the rig jumped 10 months/year) will age a lot faster than a pilot's rig that is repacked twice a year, used in the cockpit 4 months/year and stored in ideal conditions over the same two decades.

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

We sort of agree on that point, however, I still believe that all round canopies and pilot chutes - that were mentioned in "acid mesh" Service Bulletins - should be retired.

[potvinj 0]

Correction: the technical standard for TSO C23c
is defined by SAE AS8015A. The standard NAS 804 is for TSO C23b.

[deathtrap 0]

Quote

Are we talking about main or reserve here?

I'm talking GEAR. Everyone in this thread seems to be hung up on reserve parachutes, and I agree that grounding stuff based on age alone is a "lowest common denominator" solution. However, when it comes to other parts of the SYSTEM, such as the HARNESS, how can you ensure that the webbing and THREAD are structurally sound without doing destructive testing? It's no secret that some rigs see as much wear, tear and exposure in one year of jumping as many rigs see in 20+ years.

We don't have reserve parachutes blowing up left and right, and we don't have jumpers breaking harnesses left and right, either. So for the most part, I would say the system as it's in use, is not broken. BUT there are an increasing number of riggers that don't want to make a judgement call, and want to defer everything back to the manufacturers. If this keeps happening, manufacturers will implement rules and guidelines to keep themselves out of court and there will be lots of jumpers left holding perfectly airworthy gear that's not legal to jump.

So riggers, EXCERCISE THE PRIVILEDGES THAT YOUR TICKET GIVES YOU

[skydance 0]

[mark 107]

Quote

So riggers, EXERCISE THE PRIVILEGES THAT YOUR TICKET GIVES YOU

One of the privileges of my rigger ticket is to decline to pack a rig for any reason I choose. I exercise that privilege from time to time.

Mark

[deathtrap 0]

Absolutely! Refusing to pack a rig is not the same as grounding a rig. Tell the customer the reasons you don't want to pack it, and now that they're informed that there might be something unsafe with it, let them find someone else to pack it, and/or start saving for a new piece of equipment.

[mark 107]

Quote

Refusing to pack a rig is not the same as grounding a rig.

Absolutely! Grounding a rig is not one of the privileges of a rigger.

Mark

[hajnalka 0]

Quote

Quote

So riggers, EXERCISE THE PRIVILEGES THAT YOUR TICKET GIVES YOU

One of the privileges of my rigger ticket is to decline to pack a rig for any reason I choose. I exercise that privilege from time to time.

Mark

WOW - I agree with both of you, in spades.

What an excellent thread for riggers everywhere. Thanks to everyone who's contributed solid fact, reference and knowledge.

Sorry for skydivers who consider us grumpy or opinionated . We have to make a lot of judgement calls, and it isn't always easy.

When I became a rigger several years ago, things seemed easier. You inspected the crap out of everything. Rounds with mesh anywhere near the acid era were pH and pull-tested. Anything questionable you thumb-tested, and if you still had doubt you pull-tested it. If still in doubt, you called the manufacturer.

Now there are mfgs who forbid fabric strength pull-tests (they say it unduly stresses the fabric. I know it stresses the fabric, but unduly?) ... and others who ask that you pull-test their reserves once a year.

More mfgs are putting limits on their gear, which makes the job easier; I'm finding this especially with rounds/pilot rigs. Orphaned gear we treat more skeptically since there's no one to call or service the stuff.

At our loft we don't follow the 20 year rule. I used to have an experienced pilot/jumper, and I regularly repacked a rig of his that had a Mills Mf. round from 1966. Like the above new rigger, we'll gladly pack a 21-y/o Raven that's in good shape and been well-cared for. In fact I'd rather pack an old Raven than a -M or -MZ even with the service bulletin done, but that's just my opinion
I've thumb-tested and pull-tested plenty of mains that failed big time, and over time, I've come to see where to expect damage on them and what to look for. I've had two rounds that failed pH tests and shredded like tissue paper. I've examined mains that blew up due to being packed with sliders collapsed, mains that blew out cells due to wear/age/UV damage/you name it, and mains that had major damage due to hard openings.

I don't have a porosity tester, or a sensor that can detect the amount of UV exposure, or anything else that's really high-tech. I do have lots of experience. If something's questionable in my mind, I call the mf or (at the worst extreme) send it to them. Harness? ANY question at all - sorry, not repacking it - let's go to the mf.

This is turning into a rant, sorry .

Sticking up for professional Senior Riggers out there everywhere, because most of us really DO have very good judgement.

Best,
Dawn

[hajnalka 0]

Almost forgot my reason for posting: Grounding.

"Riggers cannot GROUND equipment."

I thought we could, on certificated equipment - in fact I thought I'd seen ADs and SBs in the past that referred to obliterating TSO labels?

I'll have to look this up.

Best,
Dawn

[RIGGER 0]

Quote

Right on. Re-read my post on Sept 14th.
"EXERCISE THE PRIVILEGES THAT YOUR TICKET GIVES YOU" or give up your ticket!

Each rigger have the rights to use his ticket privileges in the way he like to do his rigging all time that the rigger does not pass over the law & the mfg. instructions.

The big problem are the riggers that "Go Over" & beyond the ticket !!!

I would like to see more riggers that do have limits & standards.

Safe Rigging & Safe Riggers !!!

[Rover 11]

I haven't read all the thread so sorry if this has been in before. Parachutes Australia have mandatory 20 year lifespans on some of their equipment including the Talon, which I assume is made under license. Check this link.
[/url]www.parachutesaustralia.com/s2/SB/PASB9502.pdf

2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do.

[billvon 2,989]

>what is the harm in using this older equipment?

A few issues:

1) Older gear has had more odds of seeing more wear. Given any consistent standard of care, the older the gear is, the more wear it has seen.

2) Older gear is of significantly different design than newer gear. A jumper used to a PD113 reserve (and who has had good luck landing it) might well buy a 20 year old Micro Raven 120 thinking he is "safer" since it's bigger - then break his back when it stalls on landing.

Does this mean the MR120 is "bad?" No. But it flies very differently than a PD reserve, and does not take to overloading well at all, especially when flown like a modern main (or even a modern reserve.)

Why is this important to riggers? Because if the guy is seriously injured or killed, they are coming after you. Their lawyers will be calling you to see why you packed this obviously flawed reserve.

Will they win? Probably not - but you'll have to defend yourself. The best way to avoid lawsuits is to avoid injuries and deaths, and to that end, passing on some of the older gear might be a good idea.

3) Service. As gear gets older and companies go out of business, it can be harder and harder to get service manuals, inspection standards and especially backup opinions on airworthiness. I had a Swift container/reserve for a while back in the 90's, and towards the end of its life had to search for someone who was familiar with them to get it repacked/repaired.

Anyway, it's going to be up to each rigger. But there are issues with age that riggers shouldn't ignore. For many reasons, a good-looking 20 year old MR120 really isn't "just as good as" a newer PD113.

[riggerrob 643]

I posed this question to CSPA's Technical Committee a couple of years ago.
The old guys on the committee stubbornly refused to set calendar limits on old skydiving gear.

On the other hand, young riggers do not want to waste time learning how to pack round reserves. Especially after I tell them a few scare stories about twenty year old round reserves and the whole acid mesh era!
I can be a cruel and evil Rigger Instructor!
Tee!
Hee!

Similarly, Raven 120 reserves are falling out of fashion.

Finally, when I try to explain the brake system on Swift 5-cell reserves, skydivers' eyes glaze over and they say: "No! Find me a REAL reserve."

So, even without regulations, obsolete gear quietly falls out of fashion and quietly disappears.

[Davemon 0]

Riggers taking the moral high ground of the 20 yr service life by not packing a rig are just not willing to accept the responsibility of their job. Seems a bit hypricital when they willingly pack a 106 square foot reserve for a 200 Lb client when the TSO Label states a max weight which is neglected. Can't have it both ways.

[billvon 2,989]

>Finally, when I try to explain the brake system on Swift 5-cell reserves . . .

That release system puzzled quite a few jumpers at Bridge Day one year, when two jumpers jumped modified Swifts. "How did she release her brakes completely if she's using a slider? It makes no sense!"

[JerryBaumchen 1,354]

Hi Rob,

Quote

Finally, when I try to explain the brake system on Swift 5-cell reserves, skydivers' eyes glaze over and they say: "No! Find me a REAL reserve."

I owned two of those reserves and never had any problem with understanding how to pack them.

I think it is something about it is the teacher's responsibility to teach . . . .

JerryBaumchen

PS) Or as some people post, RTFM.

PPS) Actually I am thinking that would make a great test for a newly certificated rigger; hand him a 5-cell Swift reserve and the manual, get a bag of popcorn and sit back and see what happens.

[riggerrob 643]

Jerry,
You are following me down the path of cruel and twisted rigger instructors.
I only do that to rigger candidates who lip me off!!!

[pchapman 279]

Only partially on topic:

Riggerrob:

Quote

>Finally, when I try to explain the brake system on Swift 5-cell reserves . . .

It puzzled many. A friend had to use his old Swift in '02 and found the brake lines misrigged. Brakes were set, but once he popped them, discovered none of the lines went through guide rings (tho' still thru the slider).

It had been done that way when first assembled about 6 years before, and had gone through about 6 different riggers since then.

If a rigger saw a normal canopy packed weird, he would have questioned it. But a weird canopy packed the wrong weird way wasn't as easy to spot...