Should PIA develop a rigger certification? (In addidion to the FAA certification)

[blackfox 0]

We all know that the FAA doesn’t really know jack crap about rigging, and yet we let them regulate us.

Most of the FAR's are outdated. Lap parachutes have not existed for 50 years yet the FAA still thinks this is a type of parachute.

Also you can become certified as rigger by packing rounds and then magically you are allowed to pack ram-air canopies, and vice versa.

Not to mention that some containers are really different but apparently if you can pack one you can pack them all.

I can continue talking about tandem packing, TSO's, ADD's, ext, but the point is that I think PIA or USPA should give an additional rating so that jumpers know that riggers really know everything they are supposed to know.

Rating Idea:
Once you have obtained your FAA Rating, then you can obtain a PIA rating.

The 6 PIA ratings would be PIA senior rigger (back, chest, seat), and PIA master rigger (back, seat, chest)

To obtain the PIA senior rigger certification, a rigger would:
1. Prove that he/she can pack rounds and ram-air canopies
2. Knows how to pack a chute into different containers (javelin, racer, wings)
3. Knows how to assemble the 3 ADD'S and skyhook.
Ext..

The USPA used to have a ram-air certification for riggers.

Now sure you old-timers might think it’s too much of a hassle but I think it would help young riggers by forcing them to learn more and it would really help jumpers know that their rigger is knowledgeable.

Of course I think a PIA rating should be optional, so that those who take the extra effort to prove their knowledge would be rewarded by being able to call themselves PIA Riggers, but those who think it unnecessary could simply stick with their FAA rating.

Vote and say why

[JerryBaumchen 1,422]

Hi bf,

I voted ( yes ) and I'll say why.

For the most part, I agree with your arguement(s).

I would like to see this and for it ultimately be that all riggers would be certificated by the PIA on a world-wide basis. This will not happen in my lifetime, though.

The PIA ( it seems to me ) is not at this time capable of doing the certification; not because of lack of knowledge but because of lack of resources.

Canada ( the CSPA ) certificates their own riggers and it seems to be working just fine. I know of no downside to the Canadian system ( if there is one I would appreciate the thought ).

For me, the ultimate goal would be to get the FAA completely out of regulating parachutes used for intended jumping ( I'm OK with them regulating pilot emergency rigs ).

It is my opinion ( NOTE: the word opinion ) that if you get an FAA-type aside, hand him a beer and get him to fess up, he'll tell you that they would love to get rid of the whole parachute thingy. But they will never say this officially. The reality is that most of them ( and it is really not their fault ) just don't know the difference between a pilot chute and a ripcord.

And my personal experience is that they don't want to learn.

Ok, off the soapbox & end of rant.

JerryBaumchen

PS) You did ask for 'why.'

[darkwing 5]

PIA should do it ONLY if the FAA gives it up, which they should. Although one way for the FAA to be persuaded to give it up is for the PIA to have a working system in place. I agree it would take resources that PIA does not have (probably).

The system as it exists now just barely works.

-- Jeff
My Skydiving History

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Not to mention that some containers are really different but apparently if you can pack one you can pack them all.

Sure, provided you can read the manual. Since the FAA requires you to follow the manufacturer's instructions, you better have a copy to go with the strange parachute, container, or AAD.

Quote

I can continue talking about tandem packing, TSO's, ADD's, ext, but the point is that I think PIA or USPA should give an additional rating so that jumpers know that riggers really know everything they are supposed to know.

When problems crop up it's not necessarily because of what riggers know, but what they do. When the manufacturer specifies a specific bridle routing, it might be there for a reason. When the manufacturer specifies a specific closing loop configuration, it might be there for a reason. When the manufacturer says to stow the excess plot chute mesh "between the coils" instead of "under the decorative cap" it might be ther for a reason. Actually following the instructions is enough to avoid all those problems.

Maybe a surprise inspection of N pack jobs in the first few years would do it where a deviation from the manufacturer's instructions is a fail.

Requiring specific knowledge may even be counter productive when more people "think" they remember how something is supposed to work (they did pass the test) and then do it wrong based on their faulty memory instead of reading the instruction manual because they know they don't remember.

[diablopilot 2]

No way. The PIA and the companies that it is comprised of are too self serving to be able to regulate the rigging industry without a conflict of interest.

Think of the conflict the USPA has between members and group members and multiply the problems by 5.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[riggerrob 643]

"Canada ( the CSPA ) certificates their own riggers and it seems to be working just fine."

......................................................................

Yes,
The Canadian Sports Parachuting Association certifies two levels of riggers on seven types of equipment.

CSPA Rigger A -assemble, inspect and pack reserves and do minor repairs including hand sewing.

CSPA Rigger B - same as American Master Rigger. Can do any machine sewing repair that can be done outside the factory (eg. does not require special patterns or sewing machines.)

CSPA divides parachutes into seven types:

round canopy
ram-air canopy
1-pin sport container (Vector, Javelin, etc.)
2-pin sport container (Wonderhog and Strong Tandem)
Pop-Top (Racer, Reflex and Teardrop)
Pilot Emergency Parachutes (must be approved to pack all other types)

The terms "senior" and "master" should be dropped because they are confusing.

PIA would be wise to include:
a glorified reserve packer
something similar to Canadian Rigger A
something similar to American Senior Rigger (simple machine sewn repairs)
something similar to American Master Rigger

PIA should also encourage manufacturers to offer short courses (one or two days) on the finer points of packing and repairing their gear.

Rob Warner, FAA Master Rigger
CSPA Rigger Instructor (all seven types)

[tdog 0]

You know that the PIA is an invite only manufacturer's trade organization, right???

I like the idea. I just don't think the PIA is the right group to be neutral....

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

No!

Why? ... what tdog and diablo said.

To the OP: Some good ideas, maybe, but the wrong organization to implement and mediate it, IMO.

[phildthedildo 0]

"back in the day" when square reserves first came out in 1978, you had to be 1) a licensed rigger and 2) go thru the square reserve riggers couse given by para flite or anyone who had obtained the square reserve rigger/examiner rating from para flite. the program was administered thru USPA. it was dropped sometime in the 80's.
so maybe something like that??

[riggerpaul 1]

Agreeing with tdog.

For example, Aviacom (Argus) and Advanced Aerospace Designs (Vigil) are not members.

Last I heard, they were not being allowed to join due to objections from Airtec (Cypres).

At least the FAA is impartial with respect to the commercial aspects of this.

The DPRE, a non-FAA person, is supposed to be ensuring that the required knowledge is demonstrated. If the DPREs are letting unqualified people through, fix the DPREs.

But as someone said, the problem isn't the knowledge, it is the practice.

Personally, I have the manual out for review before I work on a rig. I invite my customer to come see me work. They can see for themselves if I am doing what's in the manual.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

CSPA divides parachutes into seven types:

1 round canopy
2 ram-air canopy
3 1-pin sport container (Vector, Javelin, etc.)
4 2-pin sport container (Wonderhog and Strong Tandem)
5 Pop-Top (Racer, Reflex and Teardrop)
6 Pilot Emergency Parachutes (must be approved to pack all other types)

Rob,

And the seventh one would be..............?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[filioque 0]

Requiring specific knowledge may even be counter productive when more people "think" they remember how something is supposed to work (they did pass the test) and then do it wrong based on their faulty memory instead of reading the instruction manual because they know they don't remember.

[riggerrob 643]

"

Quote

Quote

CSPA divides parachutes into seven types:

1 round canopy
2 ram-air canopy
3 1-pin sport container (Vector, Javelin, etc.)
4 2-pin sport container (Wonderhog and Strong Tandem)
5 Pop-Top (Racer, Reflex and Teardrop)
6 Pilot Emergency Parachutes (must be approved to pack all other types)

"

Rob,

And the seventh one would be..............?

......................................................................

7 chest container.

Chest is included purely for historical amusement.
I repack less than one chest reserve per year. Most Canadian lofts do not even have a chest pack laying around!

[flydog 0]

I agree with Paul. The oral and practical tests are administered by a DPRE. The DPRE has a master riggers ticket. If there is a problem with riggers in the field fix the DPRE that lets them get there.

Going further on fixing rigger problems though and following what the FAA already does with pilots, How about a biannual rigger review. Prove you are competent and up to date on any new policies and procedures every couple of years. Either you can perform or not. Weed out the bad ones.

[JerryBaumchen 1,422]

Hi tdog & riggerpaul,

As regards joining PIA being a problem. I would say that the simple solution is to have an additional type of membership for those riggers who only would want to get certificated. And this 'new' type of membership could not be denied.

Would that solve that problem for you? Just asking, not ranting.

JerryBaumchen

PS) All of you out there, have a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year; and don't do anything that I wouldn't do.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Hi tdog & riggerpaul,

As regards joining PIA being a problem. I would say that the simple solution is to have an additional type of membership for those riggers who only would want to get certificated. And this 'new' type of membership could not be denied.

Would that solve that problem for you? Just asking, not ranting.

JerryBaumchen

PS) All of you out there, have a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year; and don't do anything that I wouldn't do.

Actually, I never figured PIA membership would be a requirement. A rigging certification from one's legal governing body should be the only prerequisite for a PIA certification. All the rest should be based on performance in some sort of testing.

I was pointing out that the motivations of PIA are many and varied. To me, the organization seems to have a political side to it. I worry that political considerations could taint this new function.

Have happy and safe holidays!

[tdog 0]

I think perhaps - continuing education credits for attending seminars hosted by the manufactures, etc - would be cool.

However, no one in this industry can afford that.

Example, I have a certification for work. Taking the written test was $450 for 60 questions, $600 a year membership fee, and $250 for the 200 page textbook for the exam.

That program is commercial and can afford to offer and administer the continuing education so one can earn the "good housekeeping seal of approval" in that type of work....

Who will pay all those fees in skydiving to host, administer, and regulate it???

Maybe bi-annual reviews by the DPRE? That would be simple and cheap....

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

If there is a problem with riggers in the field fix the DPRE that lets them get there.

Is there a problem with riggers in the field? When was the last fatality that was contributed to by rigger errors?

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

When is the last time you saw a representative of the FAA?

When was the last time you saw a USPA representative enforce their own rules? The most I have seen is a slap on the wrist for a gross violation.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Beatnik 2]

Quote

7 chest container.

Chest is included purely for historical amusement.
I repack less than one chest reserve per year. Most Canadian lofts do not even have a chest pack laying around!

I am certified on all seven types and I use my chest rating quite often. I usually do about 40 chest packs a year or more. It's these 1-pin containers I don't see much of. I think I packed a Javelin two years ago. Then again I am doing more and vintage and specialty stuff. I let most sport jumpers find someone else, I don't have time for them.

[blackfox 0]

some people have made some good points, perhaps PAI is not the best organization to certify rigger, the USPA would be a better choice, actually an even better option would be to create a rigger organization.

PIA represents businesses
USPA represents jumpers
__?__ represents riggers

we should create one

Association of Parachute Riggers (APR)
or
Parachute Rigger and Regulation Association (PRRA)

I claim rights to the 2 names above

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The most important thing to remember is that the FAA is not going to relinquish their control so a PIA or USPA rating would be a redundant and useless expense; kind of like the USPA tandem instructor rating.

[masterrigger1 2]

+1

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[flydog 0]

Tdog that is what I was thinking the same people who can give the ratings review the ratings biannually. I know of some riggers who in the past had never packed a square. That would be found during the biannual and could be handled by the DPRE with additional instruction to keep all up to speed. We dont need a big program to administer this and add cost. While the DPRE will make some money off biannuals, this would be no real problem for the serious riggers and would also help to get information out to the rigging community. Even the people out of the mainstream would have to see a DPRE every couple of years and be be brought up to speed./

[blackfox 0]

Quote

I know of some riggers who in the past had never packed a square. That would be found during the biannual and could be handled by the DPRE

A DPRE has no power to do anything in this situation because packing a square is not a requirement by the FAA