TSO? (was 113 DOM april 2008 maximum weight ?)

[Deyan 36]

IMO we should get rid of the TSO altogether. Since you can play games to first get it and then maintain it, what's the purpose of it, other than keeping the door closed for startups with a low budget? It seems a bit of an useless exercise. We will be better off without it. More players on the field will bring innovation faster and at lower cost. Just like the BASE industry.

And IMO, the limits in the manual should be the correct ones. The question is, should the manufacturer recall the products with the wrong labels?!

[pchapman 279]

I also emailed PD to ask about the discrepancy with manuals vs. data panels, without mentioning any names, just that "some skydivers are talking about this".

.... No response in over a week and a half.

So they ignore ordinary jumpers too, not just Eric Fradet who is more of a pain in the ass for them!  :-)

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,354]

19 minutes ago, Deyan said:

IMO we should get rid of the TSO altogether. Since you can play games to first get it and then maintain it, what's the purpose of it, other than keeping the door closed for startups with a low budget? It seems a bit of an useless exercise. We will be better off without it. More players on the field will bring innovation faster and at lower cost. Just like the BASE industry.

And IMO, the limits in the manual should be the correct ones. The question is, should the manufacturer recall the products with the wrong labels?!

Hi Deyan,

Re:  IMO we should get rid of the TSO altogether.

I agree completely.  It is somewhat inconceivable to me how an agency can monitor an industry that they know nothing about.

In 39 yrs of holding/using TSO's, I found that the FAA inspectors only wanted to see my records.

I once offered to show an FAA inspector a new container that I was developing; he did not want to even see it.

Jerry Baumchen

[gowlerk 2,190]

30 minutes ago, pchapman said:

.... No response in over a week and a half.

So they ignore ordinary jumpers too, not just Eric Fradet who is more of a pain in the ass for them!  :-)

Maybe someone could ask the FAA where to turn to for guidance.

[Deyan 36]

39 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Deyan,

It is somewhat inconceivable to me how an agency can monitor an industry that they know nothing about.

 

Just so I'm clear, my idea is to get rid of it and not give it in the hands of some other non government body to be regulated . Like PIA for example. That's gonna be equally bad or even worse!

[JerryBaumchen 1,354]

21 minutes ago, Deyan said:

Just so I'm clear, my idea is to get rid of it and not give it in the hands of some other non government body to be regulated . Like PIA for example. That's gonna be equally bad or even worse!

Hi Deyan,

I agree.  Let the marketplace decide.  In the real world, that is what is happening.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  It my understanding that France no longer regulates sport jumping equipment; only PEP rigs.  Back in the '60's France was just about the toughest country in the world to get equipment certificated.  The federal gov't took the equipment, did the testing & let you know the results.  The builder was not involved in any of the testing.

 

Edited July 31, 2024 by JerryBaumchen

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Deyan,

I agree.  Let the marketplace decide.  In the real world, that is what is happening.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  It my understanding that France no longer regulates sport jumping equipment; only PEP rigs.  Back in the '60's France was just about the toughest country in the world to get equipment certificated.  The federal gov't took the equipment, did the testing & let you know the results.  The builder was not involved in any of the testing.

 

There is no regulation of skydiving gear in Canada. Land of the free.

[JerryBaumchen 1,354]

8 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

There is no regulation of skydiving gear in Canada. Land of the free.

Hi Ken,

I know that.  I listed France because of such a 180* turn-around for them.

I am sure that there are quite a few countries with no regulation of skydiving gear.

Jerry Baumchen

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 minute ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Ken,

I know that.  I listed France because of such a 180* turn-around for them.

I am sure that there are quite a few countries with no regulation of skydiving gear.

Jerry Baumchen

It is highly annoying to me that my seal is no longer accepted on my customer's gear if they visit the US with it. I could get FAA credentials, but screw that hassle. Bunch of whiny homers down there.

[JerryBaumchen 1,354]

38 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

It is highly annoying to me that my seal is no longer accepted on my customer's gear if they visit the US with it. I could get FAA credentials, but screw that hassle. Bunch of whiny homers down there.

Hi Ken,

And, this is another area where I disagree with the FAA and their 'wisdom.'  IMO if the gear is legal in your country of residence, it is your gear, you are the one using it; it should be legal in any country that you might want to use it.

Where is the PIA when they are needed?

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Many yrs ago, I used to communicate ( via letter; remember those ) quite a lot with Dan Poynter on gear 'stuff.'  As the '72 World Meet was getting closer, and it was to be held here in the USA, I wrote to him to ask what were they going to do about all of that non-TSO'd gear that would be used at the World Meet.  He wrote back that 'like minds think alike' and that they were working on it.  As I recall, the FAA issued a blanket, one-time waiver so the competition could take place.

 

[riggerrob 643]

On 7/31/2024 at 1:50 PM, Deyan said:

IMO we should get rid of the TSO altogether. Since you can play games to first get it and then maintain it, what's the purpose of it, other than keeping the door closed for startups with a low budget? It seems a bit of an useless exercise. We will be better off without it. More players on the field will bring innovation faster and at lower cost. Just like the BASE industry.

And IMO, the limits in the manual should be the correct ones. The question is, should the manufacturer recall the products with the wrong labels?!

Dear Deyan,

I disagree because we still need minimum standards for reserve opening times, distances and descent rates.

As for your confusion over certified weights on PD reserves …. There are really two issues here. The first is whether a reserve will survive a high-speed opening with 254 pounds suspended weight.

The second question is about whether your ankles will survive landing a PD113R with a suspended weight of 254 pounds. I doubt it. And please remember that docile 7-cell reserves do not flare as well as the latest 21-cell, Schumann planform mains.

[JerryBaumchen 1,354]

2 hours ago, riggerrob said:

Dear Deyan,

I disagree because we still need minimum standards for reserve opening times, distances and descent rates.

As for your confusion over certified weights on PD reserves …. There are really two issues here. The first is whether a reserve will survive a high-speed opening with 254 pounds suspended weight.

The second question is about whether your ankles will survive landing a PD113R with a suspended weight of 254 pounds. I doubt it. And please remember that docile 7-cell reserves do not flare as well as the latest 21-cell, Schumann planform mains.

Hi Rob,

Re:  we still need minimum standards for reserve opening times, distances and descent rates.

Yet, a lot of the modern world does just fine with out these standards.  People who have never worked with the FAA, as a TSO-holder, have this strange sense that the TSO system actually works.

Re:  And please remember that docile 7-cell reserves do not flare as well as the latest 21-cell, Schumann planform mains.

Having drop tested squares, I can tell you that you do NOT want to land any square canopy without input from the user. 

Those uncontrolled landings are not a pretty picture.

I agree with Deyan 100%.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Ask Bill Booth what he thinks about getting rid of the TSO req'ment.

[riggerrob 643]

20 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Rob,

........

Re:  And please remember that docile 7-cell reserves do not flare as well as the latest 21-cell, Schumann planform mains.

Having drop tested squares, I can tell you that you do NOT want to land any square canopy without input from the user. 

Those uncontrolled landings are not a pretty picture.

I agree with Deyan 100%.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Ask Bill Booth what he thinks about getting rid of the TSO req'ment.

i agree with Jerry B.'s statement that squares are best landed fully flared.

I also believe that it was silly of the FAA to grant PD a waiver for PD113R that descend too fast without precisely flared landings.

Obscure side-note ...

The only square canopy that I have landed without control input is the P124A-290 canopy installed in the Aviator pilot emergency parachutes made by Rigging Innovations. I weighed 190 pounds (naked) so was only loading them at 0.74 pounds per square foot ... the same as modern student canopies.

P124As deploy with the brakes set at 3/4. That is the highest that the brakes will ever go. Even with the brakes set that deep, they still have enough forward speed to avoid medium-sized obstacles. You can pull the toggles enough to steer them, but turns are slow. One day I did 6 jumps on a P124A. By the fourth jump, I was bored with testing turn rates, so I did the last 3 landings down-wing with my hand off the toggles. Vertical descent rate was slow, so most of the remaining velocity was horizontal I slid a few meters int he toulie (sp?) bushes but was otherwise unscathed. P124A touched down softer than most of the rounds that I have jumped. I think the improvement  was primarily the difference in angle of arrival.

Again, the P124A ws designed primarily for pilots making their first parachute jump while suffering a lot of stress ... e.g. just dis-mantled an airplane in mid-air.

Edited August 7, 2024 by riggerrob
add a paragraph