Service Bulletins and Equipment Bannings

[pchapman 279]

So we've already seen 65.127e...

  Quote

FAR Part 65.127 ( ) No certificated parachute rigger may -
(e) pack, maintain or alter a parachute in any manner that deviates from the procedures approved by the administrator OR the manufacturer of the parachute;

(my emphasis)

I'd think usually this is taken to mean currently approved procedures, not just ones that had at one time been approved. But one could still try to argue the latter.

They say "approved" but don't specify "are approved" vs. "were approved". Thus both could be considered valid.

Then also look at the next paragraph:

  Quote

(f) Exercise the privileges of his certificate and type rating unless he understands the current manufacturer's instructions for the operation involved.

(my emphasis)

Again one could take this two ways. The most logical is that it is reinforcing the idea that a rigger must use procedures currently approved.

On the other hand, one could argue, if they have to specify "current" instructions in (f), that suggests that in (e), it isn't about currently approved procedures, just ones that have been approved at one time.

So read the current instructions to be up to date in knowledge, then pick any that have been approved at one time.

This is really rules lawyering though.

But it is an attempt to stick it to the manufacturers, who on the one hand disclaim any liability for their product, yet also retain the ability (for US residents in the US) to impose any procedure, or ban the use of any of their products, for any reason, at any time. If a company decided to get out of the civilian market entirely, or declare all of their 10 year old equipment grounded, they could do so.

[tetra316 0]

  Quote

I am of the opinion that the mfr, since they made the device ( in this case, the rig ), can legally declare their equipment un-airworthy.

I thought when it comes to aircraft manufacturers, they are not allowed to ground or declare any of their aircrat un-airworthy. Only the FAA is allowed to do that. So why is this not the case with parachute equipment? I thought this was not allowed in the aviation industry in order to prevent a conflict of interest.

[rhys 0]

  Quote

The Argus issue has to do with the AAD locking the container closed! That is not a container issue, that is an AAD issue.

So I think you're mistaken when you conclude the V3 video is related in any way to the Argus issue.

Whether it is the AAD, the design onf the container or the locton of the cutter, is irrelevant.

The fact is that the system (all these things together) did not work as designed and at terminal from 750 feet you have about 6 seconds until impact.

That videos clearly shows that the reserve will not be deployed fast enough to save a life in that particular instance.

Argus' have saved lives, cypres' have saved lives, vector reserves have saved lives... but we have discoverd a scenario where this may not be the case.

What was the result from the manufacturers from this video? I remember it being posted some time back...

As far as I am aware it has been treated as a non issue, do we wait until someone goes in until it is considered an issue???

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[theonlyski 8]

While people will argue this till they're blue in the face, I am more worried that you said this info came from a DZO, who also didn't comply with the Mirage SB changing the cutter location.



I wouldn't put my seal on a rig that's not up to date with the SB's for it, no idea why anyone would!

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[JerryBaumchen 1,426]

Hi Tara,

I said: I am of the opinion

You said: I thought

You could always write a letter to the FAA and ask them.

IMO the left hand of the FAA has not a clue as to what the right hand is doing. They simply have too many chefs in the kitchen.

Peter Chapman posts, directly above you:

FAR Part 65.127 ( ) No certificated parachute rigger may -
(e) pack, maintain or alter a parachute in any manner that deviates from the procedures approved by the administrator OR the manufacturer of the parachute;

From my personal experience with the FAA, I have not a clue as to what these 'procedures approved' are. I do know, in my 30+ yrs of working with the FAA regarding my TSO-authorizations, that I have never submitted any 'procedures' to them.

Last year I went around & around with my FAA Aviation Safety Inspector because she insisted that I had to have any Minor Changes approved by the FAA. I know of one other mfr ( who you may know of since they are located here in Oregon ) who also went around & around with their FAA Aviation Safety Inspector on this same issue.

We both found the excerpt from Part 21 and sent to our respective inspectors; that finally convinced them 'I think.'

Have fun out there,

JerryBaumchen

[tetra316 0]

  Quote

While people will argue this till they're blue in the face, I am more worried that you said this info came from a DZO, who also didn't comply with the Mirage SB changing the cutter location.



I wouldn't put my seal on a rig that's not up to date with the SB's for it, no idea why anyone would!

The DZO and the one with the Mirage SB are two separate people.

[billvon 3,063]

>So what this means, is that there are no legal grounds to enforce service bulletins or
>manufacturer recommendations, unless also backed by the FAA.

You are technically correct - and if you can get a rigger to pack and sign off on a rig, and get a DZO to let you jump it, you can jump it legally. Finding such a rigger may be difficult, though.

[Bertt 0]

Just to throw my 2 cents worth in:
At least in the case of tandems, I would disagree with some of the conclusions in this email.
The IRM, under Tandem Instructor Rating Course, part A.4.f, says that a tandem instructor must have an FAA class 3 medical or equivalent, so that's probably why some DZO's think a tandem instructor has to have a medical.
In FAR part 105.45.b.3, there is a requirement that tandem rigs be equipped with an operational AAD approved by the manufacturer of the tandem equipment. So, at least here, a parachute manufacturer can decide whether a certain AAD is acceptable.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[mjosparky 4]

  Quote

The agrument meant you have to follow the manual that is in effect at the date of purchase for it's intended use. Any other manuals that come out after you purchased your equipment do not apply since the equipment may have been modified by the manufacturer since you purchased yours thereby leading to the subsequent bulletins. So effectively any service bulletins and whatnot issued after you purchase your equipment do not apply, unless approved by the FAA.

The last AD issued by the FAA against parachute equipment I think was in 1993 on Rigging Innovations Skyhook PC. That was at the request of the manufacture. The FAA no longer issues AD’s on parachute equipment. Service Bulletins issued by the manufacture are considered binding at to, what where and when. It then becomes part of the required “data and information” under the TSO.

Sparky

---

c. Data Requirements.

(2) The manufacturer must furnish to the user of the article one copy of the data and information specified in paragraphs c(l)(ii) and c(l)(v). This data and information is necessary for proper installation and use and for continued airworthiness of the product or article.

(ii) Operating instructions and limitations, to include donning, retention, adjustment, and deployment.

(v) Detailed maintenance instructions, including specific guidance on the limits of wear and damage permissible to webbing material that would warrant replacement.

---

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[pchapman 279]

FWIW, MJO's quote is from TSO C23d, which mainly references all the drop test etc rules from AS815B, but does have some text on what info must be supplied to the FAA and the user.

As for furnishing maintenance information to the user, has any original owner of a TSO C23d rig rig received a letter from the manufacturer saying that an Argus may not be used? Or is any owner on a mandatory email list for updates?

If not, it is possible that someone could try to argue that the information "furnished to the user" is the original manual only, and thus that manual applies, even if things later added to the company web site might be useful suggestions.

[firemedic 7]

  Quote

He was saying that yes installation must be approved by the manufacturer at the time you purchased the AAD. Any subsequent changes do not apply because the "contract/requirement" is only valid at the purchase date. If it's legal then it remains legal until an AD is issued by the FAA revoking that approval.

If I'm understanding you correctly, it would mean that the approval is set in stone at the time of manufacture until such time the FAA officially revokes it by issuing an AD.
I think that's reading into the regulation. The regulation is merely stating the fact that those who use an AAD should ensure it is approved by the manufacturer or FAA. There is nothing stated or inferred about time of purchase or reference to a contract/requirement.
The reg also states approval is by the manufacturer OR the FAA. It leaves the door open to one, the other, or both to grant , deny, or rescind approval.

[Hooknswoop 19]

For each harness/container, which AAD's are approved?

Derek V

[mjosparky 4]

  Quote

For each harness/container, which AAD's are approved?

Derek V

Most of the major manufactures refer to the Cypres in their manuals which I would think is implied approval. Argus has approval letters from some of the manufactures, most of which have been suspended by SB.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Hooknswoop 19]

  Quote

Most of the major manufactures refer to the Cypres in their manuals which I would think is implied approval. Argus has approval letters from some of the manufactures, most of which have been suspended by SB.

What about the other AAD and harness containers? Where is there is a list of of what is approved?

Derek V

[mjosparky 4]

  Quote

  Quote

Most of the major manufactures refer to the Cypres in their manuals which I would think is implied approval. Argus has approval letters from some of the manufactures, most of which have been suspended by SB.

What about the other AAD and harness containers? Where is there is a list of of what is approved?

Derek V

To my knowledge there is none. Its piece meal at best. I have approval letters on some and like I said some manuals cover the Cypres. Like so many other areas of the CFR’s it isn’t covered of very vague. I do think it would be a smart move for the manufactures of TSO’s harness/containers systems to issues SB’s outlining which AAD’s are approved for their system and proper installation.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Hooknswoop 19]

So we can determine compatibility of components and put an AAD into a container without any approval form the container manufacturer? At best there is 'implied' approval?

Can a container manufacturer issue a SB that says you can only put main canopies made by xyz company into their container and it would be legally binding as if the FAA had issued an AD? What about reserves?

Where does the manufacturer's authority end and the FAA's begin?

Derek V

[mjosparky 4]

  Quote

So we can determine compatibility of components and put an AAD into a container without any approval form the container manufacturer? At best there is 'implied' approval?

Can a container manufacturer issue a SB that says you can only put main canopies made by xyz company into their container and it would be legally binding as if the FAA had issued an AD? What about reserves?

Where does the manufacturer's authority end and the FAA's begin?

Derek V

In most cases I think the FAA will defer to the manufacture, at least with parachute equipment. I know at one time some canopy manufactures restricted their reserve canopies from some container systems because of the reserve riser configuration. But you know the regs as well as I do and you can be sure. It depends on who you are talking to and what phase the moon is in.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Hooknswoop 19]

  Quote

In most cases I think the FAA will defer to the manufacture, at least with parachute equipment.

Right, we don't know exactly what the FAA would try to do. Until the FAA comes out and actually says that manufacturer's SB's are as good as an FAA-issued AD, I will continue to believe that skydiving SB's are the same as a Cessna-issued SB (non-mandatory).

Derek V

[firemedic 7]

  Quote

  Quote

In most cases I think the FAA will defer to the manufacture, at least with parachute equipment.

Right, we don't know exactly what the FAA would try to do. Until the FAA comes out and actually says that manufacturer's SB's are as good as an FAA-issued AD, I will continue to believe that skydiving SB's are the same as a Cessna-issued SB (non-mandatory).

Derek V

I agree with the line of thought here. I suppose we will never know. At least until someone goes in and happens to have a "banned" AAD in their rig. I suppose then we'll see who gets blamed.

[mjosparky 4]

  Quote

  Quote

In most cases I think the FAA will defer to the manufacture, at least with parachute equipment.

Right, we don't know exactly what the FAA would try to do. Until the FAA comes out and actually says that manufacturer's SB's are as good as an FAA-issued AD, I will continue to believe that skydiving SB's are the same as a Cessna-issued SB (non-mandatory).

Derek V

And then you have the manufactures confusing the issue more by issuing a least 3 types of SB’s.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggerrob 643]

I disagree.
Manufacturers can ground any of their products.

When Cessna decided to get out of the helicopter market, they bought back all the Skyhook helicopters they had made and cut them up.

Similarly, when Beechcraft decided to get out of the canard market, they bought back all the Starships and cut them up.

[riggerrob 643]

  Quote

  Quote

In most cases I think the FAA will defer to the manufacture, at least with parachute equipment.

Right, we don't know exactly what the FAA would try to do. Until the FAA comes out and actually says that manufacturer's SB's are as good as an FAA-issued AD, I will continue to believe that skydiving SB's are the same as a Cessna-issued SB (non-mandatory).

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

If any of your rigging customers dies - and it can be proven that you ignored a Service Bulletin, Airworthiness Directive, etc. - you stand alone in court.

Derek V

[HSPScott 0]

  Quote

When Cessna decided to get out of the helicopter market, they bought back all the Skyhook helicopters they had made and cut them up.

Similarly, when Beechcraft decided to get out of the canard market, they bought back all the Starships and cut them up.

I don't see any of the H/C manufacturers buying back any rigs and destroying them??

[riggerrob 643]

  Quote

  Quote

When Cessna decided to get out of the helicopter market, they bought back all the Skyhook helicopters they had made and cut them up.

Similarly, when Beechcraft decided to get out of the canard market, they bought back all the Starships and cut them up.

I don't see any of the H/C manufacturers buying back any rigs and destroying them??

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

It is called a "courtesy trade-in" when you mail your old rig back to the factory and they give you a discount on a replacement rig. Then they quietly chop up your old rig.
I chopped up a bunch of (faded, frayed and filthy) old rigs when I worked for Butler and Rigging Innovations.

[RiggerLee 61]

Strong has had such a programfor many a year.

Lee

Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com