Cutting the loop or pulling the pin?

[masterrigger1 2]

  Quote

The instulation of the mentioned components may be accomplished by anybody according to FAA regs. They do not require any rigger license as they do not interfear with the normal operation of the reserve. This is the Prime Directive from the FAA. Anyone may do anything to the Certificated Parachute Assembly as long as it does not interfear with the normal certificated operation of that parachute system.

Total Hogwash!
Any maintenance (...except minor cleaning and assembly neccessary for transport...see attached) to any part of the system requires a riggers certificate and it needs to be appropriate to the work at hand.


f. Parachutist’s Handling of Equipment. The user of a parachute system may perform
simple assembly and disassembly operations necessary for transportation, handling, or storage
between periods of use if the parachute’s design simplifies such assembly and disassembly
without the use of complex operations

Also, you need to read the attached document carefully.

  Quote

AAD's are not certificated by anybody to any standard and their instulation need not be authorized or approved by the manufacturer unless they do interfear with the operation.

Absolutely True.
Not one manufacturer out there has documented "X" AAD to be included in their manual; thus basically they are not really approved by anyone out there except for a headshake or nod.

  Quote

PLI never approved or disapproved of any AAD's.

Exactly my point!

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[woppyvac 0]

This thread is jumping tracks... John did you get that Javelin/Puller video up on youtube? I'd like to see it when available.

Woot Woot!

[skytribe 17]

  Quote

There are lots of riggers that will pack a reserve for $70.00 and there is risk in that if they do not do what they are supposed to, but how much could they charge for installing a power ripcord, given the liability they “may” be assuming?? The reserve will need to be resealed after install, and personally I would never put my seal on someone else’s pack job (again I am not a rigger), so that would mean that the install would require a pack job as well, (which is not a big deal at the 180 day mark).

I doubt there would be any decent riggers that would want to trust someone else's pack job. Hence the installation would need to be handled as part of a repack or by a rigger.

  Quote

It just makes the most sense for John to take the Argus from Karel and offer a complete package so it can stand on it’s own.. He is already promoting Karel’s idea for the ripcord, so why not put his AAD behind it and see if it sells?

I as a rigger would not be happy installing a 3rd party solution to an AAD - maybe if the AAD and container manufacturers were all on board with this but that is really unlikely to happen.

But if it was sold as a complete system. Ie. THe solution was Argus AAD with pin pull/pusher and this was approved in containers then this is a different matter. As I would not be acting as a system integrator determining mix/match compatibility but rather installing a AAD solution.

Any solution would require a confidence level of reliability on the part of Container manufacturer to allow installations, Riggers to pack said solutions and Customers who are confident in its ability to function when needed.

So technically it may work but without all 3 you have a solution which would be unlikely to get any market adoption. What would be a motivator switching away from existing designs. Cost I would say was a big motivator. Make something half the price of existing designs and just as reliable and you would have a winner.

[JohnSherman 1]

  Quote

Total Hogwash!
Any maintenance (...except minor cleaning and assembly neccessary for transport...see attached) to any part of the system requires a riggers certificate and it needs to be appropriate to the work at hand.

I beg to differ. Anyone can hang a hook knife on a chest strap. Anyone can add anything they want to to the rig as long as it does not interfear with the normal operation off that device. This has been a long standing FAA policy. The FAA views AAD and anything else you hang or attach to a certificated assembly as a "Black Box"

Don't believe me. Ask you local FAA rep if you can afdd the cutter pockets (they don't interfear) then ask them if you can add the cutter after explaining the possible problems it might encounter such as the possible interfearance.

You paragraph "F" only says yoiu can detach a chest reserve. Nothing more.

Remember I have been living under these rules for over 50 years and I wrote many of them.

The document to which you refer is speaking to the certificated assembly not ot the attachment of a device which would not alter the function or operation of the certificated assembly. Remember it is not an alteration unless it affects the certification..

[JohnSherman 1]

  Quote

John did you get that Javelin/Puller video up on youtube? I'd like to see it when available.

The firing is at 4:00 this afternoon. I imagin it will be videoed from many angles. I expect reps from several other manufacturers who will probably also bring their cameras. I will post mine as soon as I can after that. Maybe by 6.

That is if everything works.

Now if that isn't intentionally hanging your butt out I don't know what is!

Many crossed fingers xxxxxxx

[masterrigger1 2]

  Quote

I beg to differ. Anyone can hang a hook knife on a chest strap. Anyone can add anything they want to to the rig as long as it does not interfear with the normal operation off that device. This has been a long standing FAA policy. The FAA views AAD and anything else you hang or attach to a certificated assembly as a "Black Box"

Don't believe me. Ask you local FAA rep if you can afdd the cutter pockets (they don't interfear) then ask them if you can add the cutter after explaining the possible problems it might encounter such as the possible interfearance.

Obviously you missed this paragraph:

This rule clarifies that the FAA
requires that a person must hold an
appropriate current parachute rigger
certificate or be under the supervision of
an appropriate current certificated rigger
to maintain or alteration of parachutes.

  Quote

You paragraph "F" only says yoiu can detach a chest reserve. Nothing more.

Exactly my point!

Yes you have me beat with the number of years in the sport as I only did my first jumps in 1976.

But I also have spent the last 10 years or so with a definite focus on the regulations; seven years and then some on the document that I just posted.

..and yes I did ask what Washington (not my local FSDO) the interpretation of part 65 and qualified maintenance personnel.

The only difference between certified components and non-certified components is paperwork and/or authorizations.

Both still require an appropriately rated rigger to maintain and assemble them.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[skytribe 17]

I'm glad to see other manufacturers present as getting them on board is crucial to any successful product.

[gowlerk 2,249]

Let's just see if the thing works. If it comes to market all you paperwork regulatory guys can obsess over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[JohnSherman 1]

  Quote

John did you get that Javelin/Puller video up on youtube? I'd like to see it when available.

The Video of the Javlin reserve being fired by the IOpener In-line Automatic Ripcord is now on You Tube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BTn3vxi50o
Here are 2 more views:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeYnFVBYAjQ

and:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxHRrXH-nkA

Enjoy

[skytribe 17]

Nice to see it working in a Javelin.

Have you any close up shots of how the Iopener was mounted ?

[woppyvac 0]

Nice.

Woot Woot!

[JohnSherman 1]

  Quote

Have you any close up shots of how the Iopener was mounted ?

Here is as close and as much as you can see. The end of the housing where the ripcord comes out is the end of the IOpener. Next to the housing to the right you can see a wire crossing under the open top flap. That wire is comming from the gas generator located about 2 inches back from the front of the housing. It is going to the AAD or actuator.
[inline Javlin_with_IOpener_in-line.jpg ]

[mjosparky 4]

  Quote

Not one manufacturer out there has documented "X" AAD to be included in their manual; thus basically they are not really approved by anyone out there except for a headshake or nod.

Infinity Manual page 34

Wings Manual page 24

Icon Manual pare 14/36

Dolphin Manual lists Cypres installation kit as standard.

---

Letters of Approval from:

Aerodyne

Jump Shack

Mirage

Sun Path

Vector

Velocity

Wings

---

Does that mean there was more than a hand shake?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[skytribe 17]

Oh this is interesting..

  Quote

Absolutely True.
Not one manufacturer out there has documented "X" AAD to be included in their manual; thus basically they are not really approved by anyone out there except for a headshake or nod.


Quote:
PLI never approved or disapproved of any AAD's.

So PLI Neither approve or disapprove of any AAD yet provide a letter of approval

and


Not one manufacturer out there has documented "X" AAD to be included in their manual

yet we see a number of manuals and approval letters from manufacturer clearly documenting X AAD.


So which is it ?


Clearly we are in a very grey zone here.

[JohnSherman 1]

  Quote

yet we see a number of manuals and approval letters from manufacturer clearly documenting X AAD.


So which is it ?

Read the words in the letters. They are ambigious at best. Ours is based upon the fact that they won't interfear. They did interfear therefore they were not approved.

JS

[masterrigger1 2]

  Quote

Does that mean there was more than a hand shake?

According to Washington ...NO!!

Again, it is not listed in any ACO manual which means absolutely nothing until it is.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[skytribe 17]

I did read the words.

  Quote

Jump Shack has issued a blanket approval for the installation of all AAD’s in Racer
Containers provided they do not interfere with the normal function of the system. Argus appears to meet the criteria, and is therefore approved

In this approval letter for the Argus and although the wording is rather wishy washy. It clearly is an approval letter and clearly does approve the installation of the Argus.

I'm trying to think of a letter which would approve of an AAD that would state it approves of an installation that Interferes with normal operation. I doubt that such a letter would exist.

All these letters clearly can be viewed on as a manufacturer approval letters. Albiet some of them were rescinded. And the manufacturer manuals showing how to pack containers with AAD's.

In the event of an issue do you believe you can use the I do not approve of AAD's installation with such a letter and your own manual showing how to pack them with an AAD. I doubt a judge/jury would buy that.

The reality is that you allow installation of AAD's. You have provided documentation to support that how it should be installed. Albiet you don't take liability for the function of the AAD.

[masterrigger1 2]

  Quote

All these letters clearly can be viewed on as a manufacturer approval letters. Albiet some of them were rescinded. And the manufacturer manuals showing how to pack containers with AAD's.

Letters to a AAD manufacturer are one thing.
Documentation in the ACO Manual is another.

Also there is a big difference between the Owners manual and the ACO manual. One is used for certification, the other is obvious.

Looking a the Aerodyne letter, it states that they have included the authorization in their ACO manual. If they did they would have been the first one to do so.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[RiggerLee 61]

I've been watching how this facet of the conversation has been developing.

You have made some very strong and unambiguous statements about your feeling concerning the legality of cutter instillations on TSO'd containers.

Just to be clear are you saying that it is illegal to install any cutter based AAD in a Racer sport or tandem rig? Are you saying that the presents of a cutter based AAD voids the TSO of the Racer and makes it un airworthy and illegal to jump? Are all Racers grounded till the cutters are removed? Since this has been your position for years ever since the Argus debacle. Why did you not make this announcement then, or did I miss the memo making rigs equipped with Cypreses and Vigils un airworthy? Please give us a clear policy statement on this.

Lee

Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

[JohnSherman 1]

  Quote

Just to be clear are you saying that it is illegal to install any cutter based AAD in a Racer sport or tandem rig? Are you saying that the presents of a cutter based AAD voids the TSO of the Racer and makes it un airworthy and illegal to jump?

I am saying that it is now and always has been (unbenonced to the industry/sport) illegal to install a cutter in any rig where it might interfear with the normal operation of the certificated reserve. I don't know of any instulations which do not violate this prime FAA directive about attaching things to reserves.

I have always installed, at the factory, accessories for installing AAD in my products. I believe that a rig with an AAD and a cutter is better than no AAD. I did not realize the problamatic nature of cutters until the Argus problems. This caused me to take another look.

As to the letter of "Approval": If you read the letter you will find that it authorizes nothing more than is allowed without the letter.

I am also saying that if a rigger were to pack a rig with a cutter and the cutter failed causing the rig to total then I believe that rigger would be in a world if hurt. The FAA could ask; "By what authority did you install the unapproved cutter into this Certificated rig?" What would your answer be?

JS

[skytribe 17]

  Quote

am also saying that if a rigger were to pack a rig with a cutter and the cutter failed causing the rig to total then I believe that rigger would be in a world if hurt. The FAA could ask; "By what authority did you install the unapproved cutter into this Certificated rig?" What would your answer be?

However much you want to think it doesn't say that it is authorizing anything. I believe it does. If your stance is that cutters are illegal and you don't authorize them. Come out and clearly state that "NO AAD WITH CUTTERS ARE AUTHORIZED IN RACERS" and remove all references from you manuals. Not you current ambigious wishy/washy letter with details in you manual and on you web site about how to pack your container with such devices.

As to the answering to the FAA. You don't think pulling out a manufacturers authorization Letter for an AAD and the packing manual with packing manual instructions for packing with said device and showing the rig was manufactured with pockets and cutter loops inplace is in any way indication that these devices are sufficient to show the authorized/approved installation in the container.

I would think the rigger would be on more solid ground with the above than you assume.

[-ftp- 0]

I dont understand, by your logic the cutter is interfering with the reserve system, how is this solution not?

You are sliding the ripcord through a housing, the same way a rigger is sliding the closing loop through a cutter.

Mind you, what if your device severs the rip cord? What if the pin is bent, weak, brittle and your device now renders the ripcord useless?

I would take my odds that a cutter will lock my container over something impeading my ONE AND ONLY ripcord. I might be more warm to the idea if it pulled the pin directly, IE not using the ripcord.

[RiggerLee 61]

That's actually a good argument for the micro puller design.

Lee

Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

[RiggerLee 61]

I hear serious tap dancing in you're reply. I think you are actually going to have to make a choice on your position here. I just don't see why this has to be made an issue. With the track record of the cypress and vigil cutter I don't believe there is a bases for you statement. But if this truly is your belief then stand up and own it and lead the whole industry in to a new era... Personally I think you would be cutting your own throat but you've never been adverse to falling on your own sword.

You are a major manufacturer. This is a public forum for the whole industry. It may not be on letter head but a lot of people are lessening to what you say. You can't just attack other peoples products and then compound the insult by trying to side step the consequences of such a statement. I'm sorry but you need to ether commit to and defend this statement or with draw it.

Lee

Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

[skytribe 17]

I've got to agree with Lee on this one

  Quote

I have always installed, at the factory, accessories for installing AAD in my products. I believe that a rig with an AAD and a cutter is better than no AAD. I did not realize the problamatic nature of cutters until the Argus problems. This caused me to take another look.

So to put it in very blunt terms.

You ( and the rest of the container manufacturers ) have knowingly facilitated the installation of illegal devices is you product.

Even though you are now aware of the problematic nature of cutters and your belief that they are in fact illegal - continue to facilitate through the installation of mounting hardware and documentation because "you believe and AAD with cutter is better than no AAD".

Where do you draw the line ?- expired AAD is better than no AAD. Its not a certified component.

Why bother producing an approval letter if you believe it neither approves or disproves of installation. If you believe it truly is illegal maybe you should you come right out and state that "any AAD with cutter are NOT Approved" in Racer.

The position you have is trying to have it both ways.