FAA should show some love to packers

[willPack4jumps 0]

I would like to be up front and tell you I am a packer, turned rigger, turned skydiver in that order. I became obsessed with parachute systems as soon as I stumbled into a small tandem DZ, and worked (packing) for the ability to move deeper into the community (became a rigger with my packing money) as well as start jumping. I now oversee a packing floor, and the FAA comes by once in a while to check up on the plane, as well as snoop around the loft and gear room.

The packers here are good at what they do, I've watched them countless times, and besides a sloppy pilotchute once in a while I have no complaints with their abilities. My personal opinion is that packers should have their own classification by the FAA so that if the rigger is out, or up on a load, they can continue to pack (legally). Maybe a practical and oral test that has to do with the main, and cutaway system, administered by any senior or master rigger. Then they can send in for their "junior rigger" certificate. Any thoughts out there on this subject?

Ps I know the classifications are different in other countries, but I was really just talking about in the USA.


- VNL

[mark 107]

As a packer, are you responsible for any of the TSO'd components?

Mark

[JohnMitchell 16]

Interesting idea. I would like to see no age restrictions on it, but that probably wouldn't fly.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Careful what you hope for. Very few things the government gets involved with end up better off.

[JerryBaumchen 1,368]

Hi Mark,

Interesting timing.

When I first read the OP's post, my first thought was that he should send his ideas to the Chairman of the PIA Rigging Committee.

And????



JerryBaumchen

[willPack4jumps 0]

Which components, and what do you mean when you say responsible? I agree with the age limit thing as well, so just add the ability to pack under a Jr rigger as well. And I also agree with keeping the government's reach small, but DZs are getting hit for not having their rigger on the mat. It's an iffy subject I know, and there would have to be a good balance of restrictions as well as privileges.

- VNL

[strife 0]

i know your talking US but here is a link to what the APF have with Packer A and Packer B ratings

http://www.apf.asn.au/default.aspx?ArticleID=748#Division 3 – Packer Ratings

[milehigheric 0]

The APF system always seemed logical to me...I would have thought USA would be similar,

[mr2mk1g 10]

And in the UK. You can pack your own rig but if you want to pack someone elses you must have a packing certificate. Simply a document signed off by an instructor which is specific to different rigs, canopies and opening systems. You tend to get one either as a student or shortly thereafter and tend to have to go through a test to get it. There's no real standardised test though and often it involves getting fucked with by the instructor to see if you can sort out a mess. After that I don' think I've ever seen anyone tested to update it with new canopies/rigs - it's simply "can you pack it" yes - signed... if it actually gets updated at all.

Then we have advanced packers who can pack reserves but not do any kind of work on the TSO'd parts, then grades of rigger who can do different types of work as in the US.

[piisfish 140]

or maybe the jumpers should suck it up and start packing for themselves ?

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[tdog 0]

willPack4Jumps...

What you ask for will become a nightmare... More FAA packing rules... FAA rules never help.

If there is this jr rigger rating you propose, next time my friend asks me to pack his rig, and I don't have a rigger ticket, I get in trouble... We all know that mains are often packed by friends, packers, teammates, etc... Let's bless that technique since it is not broken!

However, you have opened up a wonderful conversation as MANY packing floors don't have a rigger on the floor supervising, and the FAA could probably throw the book at 50%+ of the DZs if the local official interpreted "under the supervision of a rigger" to imply the rigger must be in the room.


Alternate idea.

How about clarifying the "under the supervision of a rigger" at the PIA level by a policy statement on what that supervision must mean so if the FAA snoops around the PIA policy statement can be used to protect the packing floor.

1) Define packers as someone who packs for hire for student, tandem, or rental rigs, where the next skydiver to jump the rig does not typically hire or choose the packer directly, or the rigs are typically not owned by the skydiver.

2) Allow a person to ask anyone they want to pack the rig for their next jump, with or without compensation, with no rigger supervision requirement.

3) Packers (per definition above) must be under the supervision of a rigger, with the following provisions:
*Rigger interviews packer before they are hired for skill, knowledge, and techniques to make sure they are qualified including a practical exam where the packer demonstrates their skills.
*A designated rigger or team of riggers will be assigned and documented to oversee and supervise the packers, and that person(s) name will be displayed in the packing area along with methods of contacting the rigger(s).
*Rigger should conduct ongoing inspections of the packers workmanship at a frequency the rigger deems appropriate.
*A rigger need not be available at all times packing is occurring, but must be reasonably available for consultations, supervision, and assistance.
*The supervising rigger(s) should document site specific squawk procedures for rigs with defects, and shall determine what procedures will be followed when a packer notices a defect that may affect airworthiness.


These policy statements could protect the packing concession or DZO from a FAA inspector who wants to interpret the current "supervision" rules to mean a rigger must be in the room, when in fact we know most of the time they are not. It would also allow a skydiver to have a trusted friend pack for them.

[tdog 0]

FYI - I forgot that the FAA has defined direct supervision, so maybe PIA would have to work with the FAA to clarify... Here are the words that matter:

Quote

105.3, definitions;

"Direct Supervision means that a certificated rigger personally observes a non-certificated person packing a main parachute to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly, and takes responsibility for that packing."

105.43a

"(a) The main parachute must have been packed within 180 days before the date of its use by a certificated parachute rigger, the person making the next jump with that parachute, or a non-certificated person under the direct supervision of a certificated parachute rigger."

I guess the definition of "observe" is important... Can a rigger observe in general (be onsite, be in the loft, be in a plane) - or must they stand over each packer and check every single line, stow, and closing loop???? It says to the extent the work is done properly. Perhaps that is once a week observing a packjob?

The truth is probably in the middle, depending on what the FAA local inspector wants it to be.

[stratostar 5]

The FAA has already made clear what "under supervision" means. And direct means just that, direct supervision, standing in the loft and available for consultations and able to observe to work being done, not in the AC putting out SL's or chucking drogues.

From FAA Advisory Circular 105.2d Sport parachuting May 18 2011. You can't find 105.2d right now, it's being revised to add the new PLA crap. However it says the same thing as quoted.

Quote

14. PARACHUTE PACKING.

a. Reserve Parachutes.

(1) The reserve parachute must be packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger. (See § 105.43(b).)

(2) Visiting foreign parachutists jumping parachute systems not approved by the FAA must have their reserve parachutes packed by someone acceptable to the foreign parachutist’s
civil aviation authority (CAA) or by an FAA-certificated rigger. (See § 105.49(a)(4)(ii).)

(3) The reserve parachute must be packed within 180 days before the date of use if the parachute system is made of materials substantially resistant to mold, mildew, or other rotting agents; or within 60 days of the date of use otherwise. (See § 105.43(b).)

(4) AADs must be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and service requirements. Riggers should note any maintenance or battery replacement due date(s) on the packing data card so that users are able to determine AAD airworthiness and ensure conformance to the regulations. (See §§ 105.43(c) and 105.45(b)(3).)

b. Main Parachutes. Main parachutes must be packed within 180 days before the date of use. They may be packed by any certificated parachute rigger or a person working under the
direct supervision of a certificated parachute rigger. The person making the next jump (including a tandem parachutist in command, but not the passenger parachutist) may also pack
the main parachute. (See part 65, § 65.111(b).)

Quit your bitchen already and go get a riggers ticket, fucking lazy ass packers, hell 75% of them out there I would not take responsibility for under my ticket. And a good deal of those teaching packing to students do a shitty job of it and that is why you see so many shitty pack jobs on student gear, that and the fact so many places will let slide, meeting the requirement of "under supervision", as long as that shit opens who cares right....

The people who bitch about this are most likely the ones who would not be working for me on the packing area. Oh and yes there is a test.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[tdog 0]

Quote

Quit your bitchen already and go get a riggers ticket

I did. Thanks for the advice. (And I hate packing, I could never be a packer, so I assume your reply is to other people and not me.)

Your suggestion does not solve the everyday practice where fun jumpers pack for other fun jumpers, a 4 way team video guy packs for a team captain as he manifests the team, etc..... All things brushed under the carpet in the real world...

In these cases the issue is not as you defined fucking lazy ass packers.

[pchapman 279]

Re: "Quit your bitchen already and go get a riggers ticket"

It makes no sense to need to learn to set up a sewing machine and sew a proper patch in a canopy, in order to pack for students or experienced jumpers.

That is required of someone getting their rigging ticket.

It is pretty clear (in most peoples' opinions) that the existing rule in the US is stupid. How to fix it is more complex. The FAA moves glacially slow, but occasionally things in skydiving do change (tandems not Experimental, new AC105, 180 day cycle, etc). Still, as Stratostar noted, when the FAA last clarified "under direct supervision" it looks like they showed no interest in easing the requirements of the rule by broadening the definition in any way. It would probably take a concerted effort by the USPA or PIA to have any hope of changing things in the long run.

[mark 107]

Quote

Alternate idea.

. . .

1) Define packers as someone who packs for hire for student, tandem, or rental rigs, where the next skydiver to jump the rig does not typically hire or choose the packer directly, or the rigs are typically not owned by the skydiver.

2) Allow a person to ask anyone they want to pack the rig for their next jump, with or without compensation, with no rigger supervision requirement.

3) Packers (per definition above) must be under the supervision of a rigger, with the following provisions:
*Rigger interviews packer before they are hired for skill, knowledge, and techniques to make sure they are qualified including a practical exam where the packer demonstrates their skills.
*A designated rigger or team of riggers will be assigned and documented to oversee and supervise the packers, and that person(s) name will be displayed in the packing area along with methods of contacting the rigger(s).
*Rigger should conduct ongoing inspections of the packers workmanship at a frequency the rigger deems appropriate.
*A rigger need not be available at all times packing is occurring, but must be reasonably available for consultations, supervision, and assistance.
*The supervising rigger(s) should document site specific squawk procedures for rigs with defects, and shall determine what procedures will be followed when a packer notices a defect that may affect airworthiness.

The PIA rigging committee has proposals along these lines; committee members are generally in favor. The FAA has not proposed a whole-sale rewrite of Part 65 Subpart F (which deals with parachute rigger ratings), but we will have something ready to go if they do, or we will be pushing the change ourselves.

I'd be happy to hear from the folks who have ideas on what they would change if they were king.

Mark Baur
PIA Rigging Committee Chair

[stratostar 5]

(t-dog) My comments were not directed at any posters directly, but I can think of a very long list of people that come to mind.....

Oh I see you guys want your cake and eat it too..... LOL It's called getting what you asked for. The industry made a choice to go "mainstream" yet try to be self regulating.

Quote

Direct Supervision means that a certificated rigger personally observes a non-certificated person packing a main parachute to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly, and takes responsibility for that packing.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=e05b8ea8c041e7a201131083a74510ea&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.17&idno=14

That only works so far and at some point the FAA steps in. We get turbine planes and resorts to visit with a bar and pool and wind tunnel.... everyone gets to pay their fair share to play in the sand box per government say so. Those were the most recent changes to the rules and were helped to be crafted by the industry.

And that bring me to my next point. (pchapman)

Quote

It is pretty clear (in most peoples' opinions) that the existing rule in the US is stupid. How to fix it is more complex. The FAA moves glacially slow, but occasionally things in skydiving do change (tandems not Experimental, new AC105, 180 day cycle, etc). Still, as Stratostar noted, when the FAA last clarified "under direct supervision" it looks like they showed no interest in easing the requirements of the rule by broadening the definition in any way. It would probably take a concerted effort by the USPA or PIA to have any hope of changing things in the long run.

Well, I hate to be the barer of bad news here... but there are a lot of stupid mofo's running around with their heads up their backsides and they are so worried about minor little petty bullshit, they can't see the pending pile of poo about to be dropped on them. You all think this packing thing is stupid, just wait.

105.2E DRAFT is online, there are only minor changes, but most notable is it's reference to AC 150/5300-13 on establishing an on airport PLA. What does that mean?

Can't tell you, the FAA published 150/5300-13 without the updated PLA info, because they are still drafting that, the fact that a new AC 105.2E is now out, would seem to say they are very close to publishing. Now we all get to sit back see what it says, could be a game changer for a lot of dz's, or not.

(IMHO) If you want to be operating at a professional level you need to have the ratings to do the jobs and meet the FAA requirements. It's not all that hard to find a person to supervise the packers. It's finding one that has a rating and will hang their ass on the line for little to no pay. And that is problem right there, the fact it swept under the rug is too many people see it as a PITA and they also don't want to pay for it. When in the long run it saves the gear by better maintenance.

And all this talk about teams.... PLEASE, it's skydiving, your not that special, fucking pack or hire a rigger, most teams I know do, hell can't swing a dead cat in the nationals without hitting a rigger, I know a shit load of them there.

Besides that, 90% of the industry is packing of tandem and student rigs, some of the larger dz's are now requiring that if you want to pack on the dz for bread, you gots to have your papers!

Pretty minor crap to be worried about, really, you all need to start worrying about another dropped PAX and the other really stupid shit people have been and are doing with TDM's and other skydiving, then posting that shit on the internet and youtube for everyone to see.... what you don't think that FAA reads shit here and watches those videos.... deet de dee!

If I can tell what dz it is from the AC or the airport (when you can see it) the FAA can too.

FAA issues a fine to a TI, first time that's happened. Wait till you bounce a student some how with unsupervised packers who can barely pack teaching packing... you all know who you are.... See if the FAA don't throw around some more fines. And I'll remind you that, the FAA don't fucking care if your on a team jump or not, if your names is tied to the operation in anyway, you can be held accountable.

Quote

Parachute operation means the performance of all activity for the purpose of, or in support of, a parachute jump or a parachute drop. This parachute operation can involve, but is not limited to, the following persons: parachutist, parachutist in command and passenger in tandem parachute operations, drop zone or owner or operator, jump master, certificated parachute rigger, or pilot.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=e05b8ea8c041e7a201131083a74510ea&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.17&idno=14

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[piisfish 140]

Quote

It makes no sense to need to learn to set up a sewing machine and sew a proper patch in a canopy, in order to pack for students or experienced jumpers.

That is required of someone getting their rigging ticket.

apparently not everywhere

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[willPack4jumps 0]

I didn't even think about redefining the key phrase that is the entire issue. I am so glad I started this thread. The (good) ideas here are really encouraging.

In response to "lazy fucking packers", not all floors are just a couple lazy asses humping through a couple packjobs on a 40 minute call. The packers I work with are efficient and anything but lazy. A couple have seen the leg up I've gotten in this industry by going out and getting my ticket, and some even have a few reserve packjobs in their logbooks, with my name and cert number on it. I'm not saying the rule should cover every packers ass, I'm saying the ones that deserve no punishment should receive no punishment.

- VNL

[Ron 10]

Quote

Careful what you hope for. Very few things the government gets involved with end up better off.

This

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JerryBaumchen 1,368]

Hi Mark,

Thank you for that post and what you are doing in the committee.

Quote

I'd be happy to hear from the folks who have ideas on what they would change if they were king.

OK: Take the FAA out of any authority over any product/component that is not certificated.

JerryBaumchen

[mark 107]

Quote

OK: Take the FAA out of any authority over any product/component that is not certificated.

JerryBaumchen

I'm generally in favor of that. Just to make sure we've considered all the possibilities, consider tandem mains, which are not certificated. Do we owe a higher "duty of care" (legal term of art) to tandem passengers than we do to experienced jumpers?

Mark

[JerryBaumchen 1,368]

Hi Mark,

Quote

Do we owe a higher "duty of care" (legal term of art) to tandem passengers than we do to experienced jumpers?

Let's go back to the origin of this thread. Today we have the same people packing tandems as packing experienced jumpers rigs. The 'supervision' is what it is.

IMO what I suggest will not make anything less safe.

I do look forward to what your committee will/can come up with.

Best of luck, and I really mean that,

JerryBaumchen