JerryBaumchen 1,373
Recommended Posts
councilman24 37
Between Part 105
"(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device."
and AC-105
"Skydivers who use an AAD on their reserve/auxiliary parachute should ensure that the
installation of such a device has been approved by the parachute manufacturer
or the FAA (see paragraph 8). The FAA does not approve AAD's. They do
approve ttie installation which is submitted with the manufacturer's TSO
paperwork. The manufacturer's instructions for installation should be
followed. The installation of an AAD to a TSO or military specification (MILSPEC)-
approved parachute constitutes a major alteration to that parachute. A -
jumper who uses any type of AAD should be aware of its level of reliability
and become fully proficient with the device. A prejump check should be made. .
for proper setting, arming, and operational reliability to ensure proper
functioning of the AAD. When the situation requires use of the reserve
parachute, the jumper should always manually pull the reserve/auxiliary
ripcord even when using an AAD."
Airtec believes they can madate under US regs that they go into their pocket and cutter elastic. They maintain that it is an entire system that includes the soft parts. You can argue the meaning of "maintained" but I'm not willing to put one in an Vigil pocket Airtec says not to.
The bolded part above can be taken to refer to the AAD manufacturer or the parachute manufacturer referred to two sentences above. But if Airtec mandates their pocket and cutter elastic, it's tough for a manufacturer to disagree.
But, several rig manufacturers told me that they were working on other methods to secure the cutter of this type of AAD and that they were planning on making their own generic pockets. This was at the 2007 symposium. I haven't gotten into it much since then. At an earlier meeting several of us had discussions with Kai and Helmut about this. At the time I thought that Helmut was going to relent on the pocket but not the elastic cutter holder. He felt that was critical. I don't think that was ever followed through on by Airtec.
Last I knew at least Sunpath's order form ask you to specify which pocket. Too lazy to look right now.
"(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device."
and AC-105
"Skydivers who use an AAD on their reserve/auxiliary parachute should ensure that the
installation of such a device has been approved by the parachute manufacturer
or the FAA (see paragraph 8). The FAA does not approve AAD's. They do
approve ttie installation which is submitted with the manufacturer's TSO
paperwork. The manufacturer's instructions for installation should be
followed. The installation of an AAD to a TSO or military specification (MILSPEC)-
approved parachute constitutes a major alteration to that parachute. A -
jumper who uses any type of AAD should be aware of its level of reliability
and become fully proficient with the device. A prejump check should be made. .
for proper setting, arming, and operational reliability to ensure proper
functioning of the AAD. When the situation requires use of the reserve
parachute, the jumper should always manually pull the reserve/auxiliary
ripcord even when using an AAD."
Airtec believes they can madate under US regs that they go into their pocket and cutter elastic. They maintain that it is an entire system that includes the soft parts. You can argue the meaning of "maintained" but I'm not willing to put one in an Vigil pocket Airtec says not to.
The bolded part above can be taken to refer to the AAD manufacturer or the parachute manufacturer referred to two sentences above. But if Airtec mandates their pocket and cutter elastic, it's tough for a manufacturer to disagree.
But, several rig manufacturers told me that they were working on other methods to secure the cutter of this type of AAD and that they were planning on making their own generic pockets. This was at the 2007 symposium. I haven't gotten into it much since then. At an earlier meeting several of us had discussions with Kai and Helmut about this. At the time I thought that Helmut was going to relent on the pocket but not the elastic cutter holder. He felt that was critical. I don't think that was ever followed through on by Airtec.
Last I knew at least Sunpath's order form ask you to specify which pocket. Too lazy to look right now.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE
Fandango 1
Terry is absolutely right when he does not mix and match AAD components of different manufacturers
As a rig manufacturer I also strongly advise you to NOT install a AAD in another one's set up !
Why ?
When we TSO a reserve container, AADs are not involved, since they are not TSOable.
Rig manufacturers have to prove during TSO testing that when the ripcord is manually pulled, the Reserve can deploy without hesitation.
The AAD, as we have it today ALTERES the once tested and approved Reserve activation method, by cutting the loop inside the container, leaving a bit of loop material to be disposed by the reserve pilot chute.
Question : Who is responsible that this alternative activation method including it's installation, will neither obstruct nor block TSOed functions of your reserve/container assembly ????
Answer : The AAD manufacturer
Every reputable AAD manufacturer will, after he has fully tested the compatability of his device in all rigs he wants to sell to, provide his product with his set up, including a installation / user manual to enable YOU as the responsalbe owner of the rig to have it installed by your rigger.
Conclusion :
AADs are not compulsary by law ( parachute associations are not the law )
AADs are not TSOable
AADs are your personal choice of enhancing your safety
AADs which cut the loop inside the container, alter the once tested and approved reserve activation method
If you, as the responsable owner, put a AAD brand X into a setup of brand Y it is YOU who will be left with the responsability of the compatability of all involved components in your reserve container !!
Mind you, this is not a technical issue, this is a legal issue.
Think about it and ask the ADD manufacuter of your choice to provide you with the above mentioned items, no matter if you are the owner or a rigger !!
Regards
Stefan Ertler
Paratec GmbH
As a rig manufacturer I also strongly advise you to NOT install a AAD in another one's set up !
Why ?
When we TSO a reserve container, AADs are not involved, since they are not TSOable.
Rig manufacturers have to prove during TSO testing that when the ripcord is manually pulled, the Reserve can deploy without hesitation.
The AAD, as we have it today ALTERES the once tested and approved Reserve activation method, by cutting the loop inside the container, leaving a bit of loop material to be disposed by the reserve pilot chute.
Question : Who is responsible that this alternative activation method including it's installation, will neither obstruct nor block TSOed functions of your reserve/container assembly ????
Answer : The AAD manufacturer
Every reputable AAD manufacturer will, after he has fully tested the compatability of his device in all rigs he wants to sell to, provide his product with his set up, including a installation / user manual to enable YOU as the responsalbe owner of the rig to have it installed by your rigger.
Conclusion :
AADs are not compulsary by law ( parachute associations are not the law )
AADs are not TSOable
AADs are your personal choice of enhancing your safety
AADs which cut the loop inside the container, alter the once tested and approved reserve activation method
If you, as the responsable owner, put a AAD brand X into a setup of brand Y it is YOU who will be left with the responsability of the compatability of all involved components in your reserve container !!
Mind you, this is not a technical issue, this is a legal issue.
Think about it and ask the ADD manufacuter of your choice to provide you with the above mentioned items, no matter if you are the owner or a rigger !!
Regards
Stefan Ertler
Paratec GmbH
Gardner : She looks fast !
Truman Sparks : Yeah, it's the stripes.
Truman Sparks : Yeah, it's the stripes.
Is this to say that a container that is listed as "Cypress Ready" cannot be modified by a rigger (ie: installing the correct pouch) to accept another manufacter's AAD?
-Steven
mark 107
QuoteThe AAD, as we have it today ALTERS the once tested and approved Reserve activation method, by cutting the loop inside the container, leaving a bit of loop material to be disposed by the reserve pilot chute.
Question : Who is responsible that this alternative activation method including it's installation, will neither obstruct nor block TSOed functions of your reserve/container assembly ????
Answer : The AAD manufacturer
If the issue is what happens with the piece of closing loop remaining after it is cut, then there is no practical difference between the major loop-cutter AAD brands.
In the U.S., the harness/container manufacturer is responsible for AAD installation (sewing in channels and pockets). This installation is not an alteration, since it appears on the TSO drawings as part of the approved configuration of the harness/container.
If the harness/container is not AAD-ready, then a qualified person can obtain authorization for alteration by working through the local FSDO.
I don't know of any AAD manufacturers who have obtained FAA authorization for alterations on their own behalf.
QuoteIf you, as the responsible owner, put a AAD brand X into a setup of brand Y it is YOU who will be left with the responsibility of the compatibility of all involved components in your reserve container !!
Mind you, this is not a technical issue, this is a legal issue.
Maybe, but I don't think it matters much. Riggers have always been responsible for the compatibility of assembled components.
Mark
Fandango 1
@ Steven : of course it can be changed. It must be changed once you wish fit a alternative AAD.
@Mark : It is irrelevant who does the work. At least in Germany the owner is responsable for the airworthyness of his kit. Who does the work for him is not really the point.
The rigger can be held liable for his work, I agree, but it is the owner who is responsable that his kit is up do date and legal.
Compare it to cars : If your car has no MOT, you as the owner will get the ticket, but if work has been done by a garage to get your car MOT ready, and this work has caused a accident, they are liable.
As I said, this is a legal issue not a technical.
Stefan
@Mark : It is irrelevant who does the work. At least in Germany the owner is responsable for the airworthyness of his kit. Who does the work for him is not really the point.
The rigger can be held liable for his work, I agree, but it is the owner who is responsable that his kit is up do date and legal.
Compare it to cars : If your car has no MOT, you as the owner will get the ticket, but if work has been done by a garage to get your car MOT ready, and this work has caused a accident, they are liable.
As I said, this is a legal issue not a technical.
Stefan
Gardner : She looks fast !
Truman Sparks : Yeah, it's the stripes.
Truman Sparks : Yeah, it's the stripes.
erdnarob 1
I understand what you say but not quite agree with you. That question was raised at the last PIA Reno symposium and Bill Booth politely answered than when he tests a rig he does it with about half a dozen of different manufacturers reserves and assume that other reserves which fit well in the container and do not interfere with the normal function of the container are OK. That should be the same idea with a pocket in Spandex which obviously can contain a Cypres, a Vigil, an Argus or an Astra which all have about the same kind of volume. To illustrate a bit more this thread here is something which happened few year ago. When the Cypres II came out (2002), the British Parachute Association (BPA) forbided the installation of the Cypres II in a Cypres I pocket since the shape and size were different. Immediately Airtec (Cypres maker) published a waiver for UK only saying that installtion is OK. Have you seen a very different pocket for Cypres I or Cypres II ? Not at all and it is still the same and working well. Nothing can make us not able to use our common sense and this pocket issue is a problem which in fact doesn't exist.
Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.
billvon 3,008
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> Nothing can make us not able to use our common sense and this pocket issue is
>a problem which in fact doesn't exist.
You are arguing "it's basically the exact same pocket and will work fine" and I agree. We're not talking about common sense; we're talking about lawsuit protection - and they have little to do with each other.
>a problem which in fact doesn't exist.
You are arguing "it's basically the exact same pocket and will work fine" and I agree. We're not talking about common sense; we're talking about lawsuit protection - and they have little to do with each other.
I try to keep up with this ongoing battle but will never say that I know it all.
So how can AirTec stop it? Just asking, not arguing.
JerryBaumchen
PS) It is my understanding the FAA only says something regarding the maintenance of the unit(s).
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites