Rigger refresher training?

[riggerrob 643]

This poll is aimed at riggers who have held their licenses for several years.
Considering that rigging knowledge is infinite, perishable, and constantly changing - and other professionals: pilots, doctors, dentists, etc. are leagally required to do refresher training every few years - should riggers re-train on a regular basis?

For example: over the last year, I attended a PIA Symposium (including the FAA-approved re-education program), taught a Canadian Rigger A Course. Now I am reviewing lesson plans in preparation for another Rigger A Course in February.

What sort of refresher training do other riggers do?

[JerryBaumchen 1,445]

Hi Rob,

Well, since you asked.

As one of those 'even-older-than-you' type of riggers I chose 'Other.'

I have attended a fair number of the PIA Symposium 'trainings' and have never asked for their documentation. This is because the FAA issued me my license and the FAA does not require that I do anything in the way of continual training. The day that the FAA changes their req'ments is the day that I will change what I do.

Also, it ( the PIA documentation ) is another level of bureaucracy that I would prefer to avoid.

Also again, I have yet to attend one of those PIA Symposium 'trainings' that I considered being actual training. It is usually just sit, watch & BS with the guy sitting next to you. Then you pickup your paperwork goodie and, then VOILA you're trained.

I do however keep up with anything that I can find to read, I communicate with other riggers ( a lot of this ), I get riggers with different knowledge/experience than I have to show me stuff ( the discussion you & I had on bulk-management not too long ago ), and I practice doing 'things' until I am satisfied with what I am doing.

As a case in point, many years ago I read one of the Parachuting Poynters on patching, I took some scrap fabric & started practicing, then I did some patching on my own main. It was only after I was completely satisfied with my abilities that I did a patch on a reserve.

And if I consider myself incapable of completing a task in the proper manner, I will not take on the work.

Now given all of that, I would not be averse to attending some additional training on numerous aspects of rigging as I will be the first to say that any of us could use it ( I feel that there is still a lot of rigger knowledge that I lack ). IMO the best type of additional training is in rather small groups ( no more than 5 people ) where there is a lot of one-on-one interaction and time to get the necessary practice in. IMO training means getting your hands dirty.

I do not consider sitting in a seminar training.

OK, down off of my soap box. Your regular programming will now continue.

JerryBaumchen

PS) Now that I have been all nasty towards PIA that does not mean that I have changed my mind about getting the FAA out of regulating riggers & having PIA take it over ( for the USA only, the other countries around the world can do as they
wish ). I know that it would be a huge undertaking for the PIA but, IMO, the FAA does a rather poor job of regulating riggers; but that is a discussion for another time.

[councilman24 37]

including the FAA-approved re-education program

Rob,

Hate to burst your bubble there is nothing FAA approved other than permission to hand out a piece of paper. It has no meaning so they didn't care if we gave out that certificate.

If that screws up it qualifying for the CSPA continuing ed requirement, sorry.

The problem in the U.S. with requiring continuing education is that the PRIMARY education is undefined and un-regulated. The analogy is a private pilot teaching anyone else to fly. A senior rigger is the only instructor required for a new senior rigger. No equivalent to a CFI is required. So, how to mandate and define continuing education when the initial training is undefined?

Unlike Jerry, I think being exposed to manufacturer's packing demonstrations, sewing demonstrations, information on other procedures (including line replacement that you have done at the symposium) is very valuable continuing education. Of course I may be biased since I've been very involved with most since 1999 until the last one. I couldn't have packed a Preserve V in a pilot rig without the demonstration there. Going to the Rigger Forums or Symposiums have allowed me to bring a number of techniques back to other local riggers. including the master rigger who trained me. Molar strap, tensile strength and pH testing, propacking, and a whole lot more came back to my DZ through me going to PIA symposiums. I think they are valuable.

But it is uncontrolled and has no meaning in the U.S. More in other reply to Jerry..

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[councilman24 37]

Quote

Also, it ( the PIA documentation ) is another level of bureaucracy that I would prefer to avoid.

I guess I didn't know that filling out a basic form on the honor system and getting a piece of paper for some bragging rights was "bureaucracy". Especially since I was envolved in all since 1999 except the last one.

Quote

Also again, I have yet to attend one of those PIA Symposium 'trainings' that I considered being actual training. It is usually just sit, watch & BS with the guy sitting next to you. Then you pickup your paperwork goodie and, then VOILA you're trained.

While not 'excellent' training I've certainly learned a lot at the symposiums. From molar straps to pull testing to packing a Preserve V. A whole lot that I would have had a hard time figuring out from a manual or discussion with another rigger. And a lot of that I"ve brought back and shared/taught other local riggers including the master who trained me, who never attended a PIA symposium.

Quote

As a case in point, many years ago I read one of the Parachuting Poynters on patching, I took some scrap fabric & started practicing, then I did some patching on my own main. It was only after I was completely satisfied with my abilities that I did a patch on a reserve.

Now, was that Poynter's patch or Rag's patch. Learning how to do Rags patch with no pins and little measuring added a very important skill. And that was learned solely at the PIA symposiums. Many now learn it at Dave's and other rigging courses.

Quote

And if I consider myself incapable of completing a task in the proper manner, I will not take on the work.

As I hope all of us would.

Quote

Now given all of that, I would not be averse to attending some additional training on numerous aspects of rigging as I will be the first to say that any of us could use it ( I feel that there is still a lot of rigger knowledge that I lack ). IMO the best type of additional training is in rather small groups ( no more than 5 people ) where there is a lot of one-on-one interaction and time to get the necessary practice in. IMO training means getting your hands dirty.

I don't have an issue with this at all. But it is very inconvienent for most of us to go to UPT to learn skyhook packing, and to PD to learn Rag's patch, or to Sunpath to learn the best way to close a Javelin. The symposium allows us to at least get some level of exposure to those things at a convenien, single place.

Quote

OK, down off of my soap box. Your regular programming will now continue.

Okay off my neighboring soap box.

And I hope I can sew a container as well as you can sometime.

Quote

PS) Now that I have been all nasty towards PIA that does not mean that I have changed my mind about getting the FAA out of regulating riggers & having PIA take it over ( for the USA only, the other countries around the world can do as they
wish ). I know that it would be a huge undertaking for the PIA but, IMO, the FAA does a rather poor job of regulating riggers; but that is a discussion for another time.

The problem with this is that up until recently the only biggest give back to the customer was the symposium. Now PIA is issueing PIA specs since MIL specs for fabric and hardware are no longer maintained or updated. PIA is also writing the new TSO test standard since SAE no longer wanted to do it. It was issued once only to be withdrawn after some issues between PIA and FAA. Those should soon be resolved. But all of this has been with volunteer effort. PIA had one part time employee a number of years ago for a short time. And now has another one to aid in clerical type duties. But no way does PIA have a business model to regulate riggers. Perhaps we should develope one. But instead of the license being 'free' with only payment to the test givers it would surely have to support at least one and probably more full time staff.

And PIA for all its good is still an organization of people with personalities and politics envolved. IF we could come up with a model, both financial and governance that might allow PIA to regulate riggers perhaps we should.

I recently asked Rob about some other things related to CSPA regulating rigger in Canada. Maybe I need to ask some more questions.

BTW we still need to talk.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[riggerrob 643]

Sorry councilman, I saw some sort of FAA logo on a PIA certificate and assumed that the FAA recognized refresher training done at PIA symposiums.

Silly me!

[riggerrob 643]

Surprisingly Jerry,

I agree with you.
Sitting through a seminar is only the first step in learning a new skill, because lectures should be closely followed by hands-on practice to burn the skill into long-term memory.

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

including the FAA-approved re-education program

Rob,

Hate to burst your bubble there is nothing FAA approved other than permission to hand out a piece of paper. It has no meaning so they didn't care if we gave out that certificate.

If that screws up it qualifying for the CSPA continuing ed requirement, sorry.

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

Don't worry councilman, because Canada has no formal requirement for rigger refresher training.
CSPA's Technical Committee tried - circa 2000 - to ask riggers to send in reports of how many reserves they packed in the last year. The Technical Committee quit asking as soon as they realized how huge a pile of paperwork it created.

I see rigger refresher training as more of an ethical question.
The good news is that most riggers quit after they get a few years behind the power curve.

• Quote

[riggerrob 643]

" ... The problem in the U.S. with requiring continuing education is that the PRIMARY education is undefined and un-regulated. The analogy is a private pilot teaching anyone else to fly. A senior rigger is the only instructor required for a new senior rigger. No equivalent to a CFI is required. So, how to mandate and define continuing education when the initial training is undefined?

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

That is the biggest difference between the FAA and CSPA.
CSPA has a formal rigger training program.

For example, new Canadian Rigger As can only earn the rating during a formal course taught by a CSPA Rigger instructor. Those Rigger Instructors need to follow a specific course outline, assign specific homework exercises, correct exams and submit a large pile of paperwork to CSPA headquarters before anyone earns a rating.

Similarly, aspiring CSPA Rigger Bs must do all the repairs in the S.O.L.O. Program and submit a large pile of sewing samples to the Technical Committee before they can earn a new rating.

Becoming a Rigger Instructor requires teaching two courses - under supervision - etc.

Rob Warner
FAA Master Rigger
CSPA Rigger Examiner

[feuergnom 29]

none-rigger 0,2's:

Quote

I see rigger refresher training as more of an ethical question.

great attitude

Quote

The good news is that most riggers quit after they get a few years behind the power curve.

I'd like to see this attitude in my little part of the world

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[fcajump 164]

I feel that, like with any skill, you're always forgetting things. The question is, are you replacing/adding/refreshing things faster or slower than you're forgetting them?

I very much like the PIA seminars, BUT you get out only what you choose to put into attending. I've learned much at them, but I've also seen folks present that I'm sure from the glazed look in their eyes took nothing away from them.

My Brother-In-Law is an RN, and MUST take a certain number of days of training to stay legal. As a pilot, I must prove that I can still identify a CFI on sight every other year.

While the US has currency requirements for our riggers, to my knowledge enforcement would be only after the fact (or due to a whistle blower).

Personally, I would like to see some kind of refresher training required... but the devil is in the details and it could very quickly drive all but the factory riggers out of business.

JW
(who is still aspiring to be as good as either Jerry or Terry )


PS for the poll, I would have liked a multiple selection option as I (and others) have done several of the items.

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...