Mark4 0 #1 October 24, 2005 Hey, my first new thread! Although I have seen lots of discussion about how dumb it is to overload a reserve, I have never seen it mentioned that it is illegal. I was reading this PD article http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/Reserve-Flight-Char-v3.pdf QuoteMany jumpers exceed the maximum weight limit for their main canopies. While this may be foolish, it is not illegal. The maximum exit weight for a reserve is a legal limit. In the United States, it is a violation of federal law to jump a reserve if your exit weight exceeds this limit This is academic from my point of view, but I was curious if anyone knows if this fact or marketing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #2 October 24, 2005 Quote This is academic from my point of view, but I was curious if anyone knows if this fact or marketing? Until I see the FAR, it is marketing. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AFFI 0 #3 October 24, 2005 QuoteHey, my first new thread! I do believe this means you owe BEER!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nicknitro71 0 #4 October 24, 2005 Quotea. Parachute Equipment. FAR Section 105.43 requires a parachutist making an intentional jump to wear a single harness dual pack parachute having at least one main parachute and one approved auxiliary/reserve parachute. The main pack need not be an approved type, but the auxiliary/reserve pack and the harness are required to be an FAA-approved type. The FAA issues a TSO which specifies the minimum performance standard for materials, parts, processes, or appliances used on civil aircraft. (See FAR Part 43, Appendix A(4).) The following are examples of approved parachutes as explained in FAR Section 105.43(d). (1) Parachutes manufactured under a type certificate (an early method of approval). (2) Parachutes manufactured under TSO-C23. This TSO, the most recent version of which is TSO-C23c, prescribes the minimum performance and quality assurance standards for a parachute which is carried aboard civil aircraft or by skydivers for emergency use. The manufacturer must meet these standards before labeling its parachute or components as complying with the TSO. So by the definition of the regulation it's a fact.Memento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #5 October 24, 2005 Doesn't that statement you quote completely contradict itself? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #6 October 24, 2005 Quote So by the definition of the regulation it's a fact. I guess I missed it, where in there does it say a jumper cannot exceed the TSO certified max weight or speed of a reserve canopy of harness? Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nicknitro71 0 #7 October 24, 2005 Again it comes down to interpretation. It's my understanding that the MAX susp. weight is part of the TSO standards so violationg the TSO standards in turn is violating a FAR.Memento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #8 October 24, 2005 The material you quoted doesn't mention maximum weights or jumpers. It addresses minimum performance standards and manufacturers. That definition is like saying a car has to be able to obtain XX mph to be approved to drive on the highway. That does not also mean it is illegal to exceed the speed limit. That is an entirely different law. Just because the manufacturer must meet minimum performance standards does not mean it is illegal to exceed the max TSO'd weight of a reserve. Apples and oranges. If you look through the FAR's, there is very little requirements put on the jumper. There is nothing mentioned about exceeding max weights or speeds. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mark4 0 #9 October 24, 2005 Thanks for digging out the FAR... I had no idea where to look. So I guess it comes down to interpretation.... as it so often does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mark4 0 #10 October 24, 2005 Ha! There speaks an experienced instructor ... sniffing out that free beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nicknitro71 0 #11 October 24, 2005 It's my understanding that the MAX sus. weight is the max weight used to meet the min. standards dictaded by the TSO. By operating the parachute above the MAX sus. wieght the TSO is by definition not met. I could be wrong but this is my interpretation. I guarantee you that if somebody's family sues a manufacture because their reserve have failed because it was operated above the tested parameters disctated by the TSO they won't have much of a case...Memento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AFFI 0 #12 October 24, 2005 QuoteHa! There speaks an experienced instructor ... sniffing out that free beer Nono, net FREE beer, but OWED beer... Believe me, before I have days of freefall time and gold wings plus I bought more than my share of beer due to the tradidion of what I hve gotten myself into - buying your beer is a matter if character as much as it is an obligation to the skydiving community... Besides, I dont even drink beer... At least not when I am asleep...Mykel AFF-I10 Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat… Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 643 #13 October 24, 2005 Yes the FAA sets minimum performance standards for parachutes, primarily to ensure that they survive opening shock (i.e. 254 pounds at 150 knots). However canopy manufacturers usually set lighter limits for their canopies because they do not expect a 240 pound jumper's ankles to survive landing a Micro Raven 108. Hee! Hee! By the same token, the FAA frequently reminds riggers, mechanics, pilots, etc, to follow manufacturers' instructions ... This is a polite way for the FAA to say that Boeing knows far more about the finer points of airliner operations than the FAA ever will. ... ergo, any time you ignore manufacturers' instructions, you are ignoring a Federal Air Regulation. Rest assured that if an airline pilot crashes an over-loaded (according to density altitude, runway length, air temperature, etc. specified in a Boeing manual) airliner, the FAA will fine him for operating outside published limits. The FAA will fine him as heavily (or suspend his pilot's license) as if he had ignored a FAR. Reminds me of a case a few years ago when a commercial pilot tore up a Raven Dash-M reserve. His uncle - the lawyer - was getting all excited about suing Precision Aerodynamics, until some one reminded him that the defense would remind the judge that a commercial pilot knowingly exceeded the gross weight written on the canopy. That lawsuit never got to court. In conclusion, while exceeding a maximum suspended weight may not be specifically prohibited in FARs, it is definitely ignoring manufacturers' instructions which is almost as bad (in the eyes of the FAA). On a practical note, if you over-load a reserve, you vastly increase the chances of breaking a leg, which will earn you ZERO sympathy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #14 October 24, 2005 Quote It's my understanding that the MAX sus. weight is the max weight used to meet the min. standards dictaded by the TSO. It isn't. There are 3 weights usually. 1) The actual test weight, which is higher than the TSO'd certified weight. 2) the TSO'd max weight. 3) the manufacturer's max exit weight. QuoteI guarantee you that if somebody's family sues a manufacture because their reserve have failed because it was operated above the tested parameters disctated by the TSO they won't have much of a case... I agree, but it isn't prohibited by the FAR's. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #15 October 24, 2005 QuoteBy the same token, the FAA frequently reminds riggers, mechanics, pilots, etc, to follow manufacturers' instructions ... Right, riggers have to follow the manufacturer's instructions for packing the reserve. There is no legal requirement for the operator to follow any instructions. There is a lot of myths and mis-understanding of the FAR's and TSO's. For example, you can certify a reserve to a lower weight under TSO-C-23D (220 lbs) than you can under TSO-C23C (254 lbs). Or that there is a minumum descent rate for the test weight, which is higher than the max certified weight that applies to all sized TSO'd. Or that technically Raven-M's are not legal to pack because their label does not include the average peak force from TSO testing as required by the TSO. Or that you can't legally pack a PD-113R into a Mirage because it produced more force on opening during tests than the harness is certified to. What is smart isn't always legal and what is legal isn't always smart. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sweep 0 #16 October 24, 2005 I see what you're saying hook, but my train of thought would suggest that the document which grants the canopy the status of "approved" under the law states within it the maximum certified weight. Therefore if the parachute is carrying a weight higher than this, it is no longer "approved" since the approval is void. And the law requires the parachutist, and the Pilot-in-command, to ensure that all parachutists are using an approved reserve canopy. So although it doesn't specifically say that you can't overload the canopy, it's still illegal to do so because by jumping an overloaded canopy you are jumping a non-approved canopy. Same reason it would be illegal to jump a canopy with holes cut in it, or suspension lines replaced with string, or in any other way operated outside the parameters of the TSO. Or am I wrong? Sweep---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #17 October 24, 2005 No where in the FAR's does it say you have to stay within the TSO max weight or speed, both of which are frequently exceeded. Just because it is TSO'd to a max weight and speed does not mean the jumper must stay within those limits. If a vehicle must be able to travel at 65 mph to be legal to drive on the freeway, does that mean you are breaking the law if you drive 66 mph? Not on a 75-mph speed limit road. The FAA wants to make sure that reserves and containers meet minimum qualifications and certify the gear up to a maximum weight and speed. Just because it is TSO'd to a max weight and speed does not mean it is illegal to exceed those parameters. If someone can show me an FAR that says a parachutist must not exceed the max TSO'd exit weight or max TSO'd speed of their reserve or harness, then I'll be wrong. Until then, there is no FAR that says that. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #18 October 25, 2005 Unfortunately your argument doesn't hold water. While we must (in the USA) jump TSO'd equipment, we are not required to use it within the confines of the TSO. If we were, most freeflying would be illegal. (The higher than TSO'd speeds.)---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sweep 0 #19 October 25, 2005 QuoteIf a vehicle must be able to travel at 65 mph to be legal to drive on the freeway, does that mean you are breaking the law if you drive 66 mph? Not on a 75-mph speed limit road. But that depends on how the "must be able to travel at 65mph" is written. If it's a "must be able to achieve a minimum of 65mph" then I agree with you. If on the other hand it was a question of the vehicle being approved for use on the road, and the approval said that it had adequate braking performance and road handling up to a maximum of 65mph then you could be breaking the law by driving at 66mph since you have voided the approval. The two are very different. QuoteThe FAA wants to make sure that reserves and containers meet minimum qualifications and certify the gear up to a maximum weight and speed. The key word there for me is up to. Above that maximum weight and speed the gear is uncertified. And therefore using it is illegal the same way as is using gear that's never been tested at all. I'd be interested to know how the law is worded regarding aircraft. For example does it say that it is illegal to fly with the doors off, or make other specified modifications, or exceed the weight limits? Or do the FARs simply say the aircraft must have a valid type approval certificate (which is void if you change the aircraft from the description in the certificate). Regarding freeflying (from Diablo's post), I thought the TSO referred to deployment speed and hence so long as you go back to belly before deploying you would be OK. Intentionally deploying above the max deployment speed might also be considered to void the TSO since again you are operating the equipment outside it's certified limits. Sweep---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #20 October 25, 2005 >The key word there for me is up to. Above that maximum weight and >speed the gear is uncertified. And therefore using it is illegal the same way >as is using gear that's never been tested at all. Not quite. Let me use an example from aviation. Most aircraft have a maxiumum demonstrated crosswind component; it is the maximum crosswind component the aircraft has been tested to. Now, if you try to land with a stronger crosswind than that, it's perfectly legal, just dumb. The reason? There is no FAR saying you can't land in higher crosswinds than the plane has been tested to. Now, that is not at all the same as landing in an aircraft that does not have an airworthiness certificate, because there IS an FAR that says you have to have one of those. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tombuch 0 #21 October 25, 2005 Quote Let me use an example from aviation. Most aircraft have a maxiumum demonstrated crosswind component; it is the maximum crosswind component the aircraft has been tested to. Now, if you try to land with a stronger crosswind than that, it's perfectly legal, just dumb. The reason? There is no FAR saying you can't land in higher crosswinds than the plane has been tested to. Now, that is not at all the same as landing in an aircraft that does not have an airworthiness certificate, because there IS an FAR that says you have to have one of those. Oh crap, I've been trying to stay out of this one, but... Correct. The maximum demonstrated crosswind is not a limiting factor. The maximum weight is, as is the balance part of weight and balance. Read FAR 91.9 that says in part: Quote ...Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry..." Part 91 deals with aircraft. There is no similar regulation under part 105. In fact, when part 105 was reworked in 2001 several parties, including USPA, suggested that with regard to tandem operations manufacturers directives be made mandatory. The FAA rejected those comments because they were outside the scope of the rulemaking process. The FAA had their chance to make manufacturers directives mandatory, but they declined. When I read all of that, I am left with the impression that pilots MUST follow manufacturer guidelines, but that there is no regulation or intent for skydivers to do the same. With that said, if a student is killed jumping an overloaded reserve (or main), it will be tough to avoid financial liability, and there is the potential for criminal liability. If an experienced jumper is killed jumping an overloaded reserve there is always the "gottha" of 105.5 that deals with creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface. .Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #22 October 25, 2005 QuoteThe key word there for me is up to. Above that maximum weight and speed the gear is uncertified. And therefore using it is illegal the same way as is using gear that's never been tested at all. You guys keep making up FAR's and inferring things. If the FAR's don't say it, then they don't say it. No where in the FAR's does it say anything about a jumper exceeding the max exit weight or speed or that they must follow the manufacturer's instructions or exceeding the max weight or speed voids the TSO. It isn't in there. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pilotdave 0 #23 October 25, 2005 I think people just need to keep in mind what a TSO is. It's the minimum acceptable properties of something that gets manufactured, as defined by the FAA. It's not a set of operating rules. The FAA decided that parachutes must meet certain criteria (defined in AS8015B), just like they decided that aircraft seatbelts need to meet some certain standards and so do many other aircraft components. The TSO says nothing about how the item must be used. That's up to the FARs. Like where it talks about seatbelt usage in aircraft. FARs: when to use seatbelts. TSO: how the seatbelt must be made/what it needs to be able to do/how it is tested. You don't violate the seatbelt TSO by not wearing your seatbelt while taxiing. You do violate a FAR. If the TSO says the seatbelt must hold a 200 lb occupant at 50 mph (which it doesn't), driving at 60 mph doesn't violate the TSO. On the other hand, modifying the seatbelt does violate it. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #24 October 25, 2005 Perfect.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sweep 0 #25 October 27, 2005 OK. I agree. I'm used to working with lifting equipment, some of which is certified in a way that the law considers it "uncertified" if you use it in a way outside the scope of its test certificate. In that circumstance it's actually in the wording of the test certificate which basically says the test certificate is only valid under particular conditions etc and for any other conditions the certificate is invalid. The law itself is worded much the same as the skydiving law ie a simple "you must use certified equipment". I thought perhaps the same applied here - ie the FAR passed responsibility onto the TSO for determining operating conditions. But after reading your and Tom's post I see it doesn't. My bad. Sweep---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
nicknitro71 0 #4 October 24, 2005 Quotea. Parachute Equipment. FAR Section 105.43 requires a parachutist making an intentional jump to wear a single harness dual pack parachute having at least one main parachute and one approved auxiliary/reserve parachute. The main pack need not be an approved type, but the auxiliary/reserve pack and the harness are required to be an FAA-approved type. The FAA issues a TSO which specifies the minimum performance standard for materials, parts, processes, or appliances used on civil aircraft. (See FAR Part 43, Appendix A(4).) The following are examples of approved parachutes as explained in FAR Section 105.43(d). (1) Parachutes manufactured under a type certificate (an early method of approval). (2) Parachutes manufactured under TSO-C23. This TSO, the most recent version of which is TSO-C23c, prescribes the minimum performance and quality assurance standards for a parachute which is carried aboard civil aircraft or by skydivers for emergency use. The manufacturer must meet these standards before labeling its parachute or components as complying with the TSO. So by the definition of the regulation it's a fact.Memento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #5 October 24, 2005 Doesn't that statement you quote completely contradict itself? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #6 October 24, 2005 Quote So by the definition of the regulation it's a fact. I guess I missed it, where in there does it say a jumper cannot exceed the TSO certified max weight or speed of a reserve canopy of harness? Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicknitro71 0 #7 October 24, 2005 Again it comes down to interpretation. It's my understanding that the MAX susp. weight is part of the TSO standards so violationg the TSO standards in turn is violating a FAR.Memento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #8 October 24, 2005 The material you quoted doesn't mention maximum weights or jumpers. It addresses minimum performance standards and manufacturers. That definition is like saying a car has to be able to obtain XX mph to be approved to drive on the highway. That does not also mean it is illegal to exceed the speed limit. That is an entirely different law. Just because the manufacturer must meet minimum performance standards does not mean it is illegal to exceed the max TSO'd weight of a reserve. Apples and oranges. If you look through the FAR's, there is very little requirements put on the jumper. There is nothing mentioned about exceeding max weights or speeds. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark4 0 #9 October 24, 2005 Thanks for digging out the FAR... I had no idea where to look. So I guess it comes down to interpretation.... as it so often does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark4 0 #10 October 24, 2005 Ha! There speaks an experienced instructor ... sniffing out that free beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicknitro71 0 #11 October 24, 2005 It's my understanding that the MAX sus. weight is the max weight used to meet the min. standards dictaded by the TSO. By operating the parachute above the MAX sus. wieght the TSO is by definition not met. I could be wrong but this is my interpretation. I guarantee you that if somebody's family sues a manufacture because their reserve have failed because it was operated above the tested parameters disctated by the TSO they won't have much of a case...Memento Audere Semper 903 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AFFI 0 #12 October 24, 2005 QuoteHa! There speaks an experienced instructor ... sniffing out that free beer Nono, net FREE beer, but OWED beer... Believe me, before I have days of freefall time and gold wings plus I bought more than my share of beer due to the tradidion of what I hve gotten myself into - buying your beer is a matter if character as much as it is an obligation to the skydiving community... Besides, I dont even drink beer... At least not when I am asleep...Mykel AFF-I10 Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat… Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #13 October 24, 2005 Yes the FAA sets minimum performance standards for parachutes, primarily to ensure that they survive opening shock (i.e. 254 pounds at 150 knots). However canopy manufacturers usually set lighter limits for their canopies because they do not expect a 240 pound jumper's ankles to survive landing a Micro Raven 108. Hee! Hee! By the same token, the FAA frequently reminds riggers, mechanics, pilots, etc, to follow manufacturers' instructions ... This is a polite way for the FAA to say that Boeing knows far more about the finer points of airliner operations than the FAA ever will. ... ergo, any time you ignore manufacturers' instructions, you are ignoring a Federal Air Regulation. Rest assured that if an airline pilot crashes an over-loaded (according to density altitude, runway length, air temperature, etc. specified in a Boeing manual) airliner, the FAA will fine him for operating outside published limits. The FAA will fine him as heavily (or suspend his pilot's license) as if he had ignored a FAR. Reminds me of a case a few years ago when a commercial pilot tore up a Raven Dash-M reserve. His uncle - the lawyer - was getting all excited about suing Precision Aerodynamics, until some one reminded him that the defense would remind the judge that a commercial pilot knowingly exceeded the gross weight written on the canopy. That lawsuit never got to court. In conclusion, while exceeding a maximum suspended weight may not be specifically prohibited in FARs, it is definitely ignoring manufacturers' instructions which is almost as bad (in the eyes of the FAA). On a practical note, if you over-load a reserve, you vastly increase the chances of breaking a leg, which will earn you ZERO sympathy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #14 October 24, 2005 Quote It's my understanding that the MAX sus. weight is the max weight used to meet the min. standards dictaded by the TSO. It isn't. There are 3 weights usually. 1) The actual test weight, which is higher than the TSO'd certified weight. 2) the TSO'd max weight. 3) the manufacturer's max exit weight. QuoteI guarantee you that if somebody's family sues a manufacture because their reserve have failed because it was operated above the tested parameters disctated by the TSO they won't have much of a case... I agree, but it isn't prohibited by the FAR's. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #15 October 24, 2005 QuoteBy the same token, the FAA frequently reminds riggers, mechanics, pilots, etc, to follow manufacturers' instructions ... Right, riggers have to follow the manufacturer's instructions for packing the reserve. There is no legal requirement for the operator to follow any instructions. There is a lot of myths and mis-understanding of the FAR's and TSO's. For example, you can certify a reserve to a lower weight under TSO-C-23D (220 lbs) than you can under TSO-C23C (254 lbs). Or that there is a minumum descent rate for the test weight, which is higher than the max certified weight that applies to all sized TSO'd. Or that technically Raven-M's are not legal to pack because their label does not include the average peak force from TSO testing as required by the TSO. Or that you can't legally pack a PD-113R into a Mirage because it produced more force on opening during tests than the harness is certified to. What is smart isn't always legal and what is legal isn't always smart. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sweep 0 #16 October 24, 2005 I see what you're saying hook, but my train of thought would suggest that the document which grants the canopy the status of "approved" under the law states within it the maximum certified weight. Therefore if the parachute is carrying a weight higher than this, it is no longer "approved" since the approval is void. And the law requires the parachutist, and the Pilot-in-command, to ensure that all parachutists are using an approved reserve canopy. So although it doesn't specifically say that you can't overload the canopy, it's still illegal to do so because by jumping an overloaded canopy you are jumping a non-approved canopy. Same reason it would be illegal to jump a canopy with holes cut in it, or suspension lines replaced with string, or in any other way operated outside the parameters of the TSO. Or am I wrong? Sweep---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #17 October 24, 2005 No where in the FAR's does it say you have to stay within the TSO max weight or speed, both of which are frequently exceeded. Just because it is TSO'd to a max weight and speed does not mean the jumper must stay within those limits. If a vehicle must be able to travel at 65 mph to be legal to drive on the freeway, does that mean you are breaking the law if you drive 66 mph? Not on a 75-mph speed limit road. The FAA wants to make sure that reserves and containers meet minimum qualifications and certify the gear up to a maximum weight and speed. Just because it is TSO'd to a max weight and speed does not mean it is illegal to exceed those parameters. If someone can show me an FAR that says a parachutist must not exceed the max TSO'd exit weight or max TSO'd speed of their reserve or harness, then I'll be wrong. Until then, there is no FAR that says that. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #18 October 25, 2005 Unfortunately your argument doesn't hold water. While we must (in the USA) jump TSO'd equipment, we are not required to use it within the confines of the TSO. If we were, most freeflying would be illegal. (The higher than TSO'd speeds.)---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sweep 0 #19 October 25, 2005 QuoteIf a vehicle must be able to travel at 65 mph to be legal to drive on the freeway, does that mean you are breaking the law if you drive 66 mph? Not on a 75-mph speed limit road. But that depends on how the "must be able to travel at 65mph" is written. If it's a "must be able to achieve a minimum of 65mph" then I agree with you. If on the other hand it was a question of the vehicle being approved for use on the road, and the approval said that it had adequate braking performance and road handling up to a maximum of 65mph then you could be breaking the law by driving at 66mph since you have voided the approval. The two are very different. QuoteThe FAA wants to make sure that reserves and containers meet minimum qualifications and certify the gear up to a maximum weight and speed. The key word there for me is up to. Above that maximum weight and speed the gear is uncertified. And therefore using it is illegal the same way as is using gear that's never been tested at all. I'd be interested to know how the law is worded regarding aircraft. For example does it say that it is illegal to fly with the doors off, or make other specified modifications, or exceed the weight limits? Or do the FARs simply say the aircraft must have a valid type approval certificate (which is void if you change the aircraft from the description in the certificate). Regarding freeflying (from Diablo's post), I thought the TSO referred to deployment speed and hence so long as you go back to belly before deploying you would be OK. Intentionally deploying above the max deployment speed might also be considered to void the TSO since again you are operating the equipment outside it's certified limits. Sweep---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #20 October 25, 2005 >The key word there for me is up to. Above that maximum weight and >speed the gear is uncertified. And therefore using it is illegal the same way >as is using gear that's never been tested at all. Not quite. Let me use an example from aviation. Most aircraft have a maxiumum demonstrated crosswind component; it is the maximum crosswind component the aircraft has been tested to. Now, if you try to land with a stronger crosswind than that, it's perfectly legal, just dumb. The reason? There is no FAR saying you can't land in higher crosswinds than the plane has been tested to. Now, that is not at all the same as landing in an aircraft that does not have an airworthiness certificate, because there IS an FAR that says you have to have one of those. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #21 October 25, 2005 Quote Let me use an example from aviation. Most aircraft have a maxiumum demonstrated crosswind component; it is the maximum crosswind component the aircraft has been tested to. Now, if you try to land with a stronger crosswind than that, it's perfectly legal, just dumb. The reason? There is no FAR saying you can't land in higher crosswinds than the plane has been tested to. Now, that is not at all the same as landing in an aircraft that does not have an airworthiness certificate, because there IS an FAR that says you have to have one of those. Oh crap, I've been trying to stay out of this one, but... Correct. The maximum demonstrated crosswind is not a limiting factor. The maximum weight is, as is the balance part of weight and balance. Read FAR 91.9 that says in part: Quote ...Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry..." Part 91 deals with aircraft. There is no similar regulation under part 105. In fact, when part 105 was reworked in 2001 several parties, including USPA, suggested that with regard to tandem operations manufacturers directives be made mandatory. The FAA rejected those comments because they were outside the scope of the rulemaking process. The FAA had their chance to make manufacturers directives mandatory, but they declined. When I read all of that, I am left with the impression that pilots MUST follow manufacturer guidelines, but that there is no regulation or intent for skydivers to do the same. With that said, if a student is killed jumping an overloaded reserve (or main), it will be tough to avoid financial liability, and there is the potential for criminal liability. If an experienced jumper is killed jumping an overloaded reserve there is always the "gottha" of 105.5 that deals with creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface. .Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #22 October 25, 2005 QuoteThe key word there for me is up to. Above that maximum weight and speed the gear is uncertified. And therefore using it is illegal the same way as is using gear that's never been tested at all. You guys keep making up FAR's and inferring things. If the FAR's don't say it, then they don't say it. No where in the FAR's does it say anything about a jumper exceeding the max exit weight or speed or that they must follow the manufacturer's instructions or exceeding the max weight or speed voids the TSO. It isn't in there. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #23 October 25, 2005 I think people just need to keep in mind what a TSO is. It's the minimum acceptable properties of something that gets manufactured, as defined by the FAA. It's not a set of operating rules. The FAA decided that parachutes must meet certain criteria (defined in AS8015B), just like they decided that aircraft seatbelts need to meet some certain standards and so do many other aircraft components. The TSO says nothing about how the item must be used. That's up to the FARs. Like where it talks about seatbelt usage in aircraft. FARs: when to use seatbelts. TSO: how the seatbelt must be made/what it needs to be able to do/how it is tested. You don't violate the seatbelt TSO by not wearing your seatbelt while taxiing. You do violate a FAR. If the TSO says the seatbelt must hold a 200 lb occupant at 50 mph (which it doesn't), driving at 60 mph doesn't violate the TSO. On the other hand, modifying the seatbelt does violate it. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #24 October 25, 2005 Perfect.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sweep 0 #25 October 27, 2005 OK. I agree. I'm used to working with lifting equipment, some of which is certified in a way that the law considers it "uncertified" if you use it in a way outside the scope of its test certificate. In that circumstance it's actually in the wording of the test certificate which basically says the test certificate is only valid under particular conditions etc and for any other conditions the certificate is invalid. The law itself is worded much the same as the skydiving law ie a simple "you must use certified equipment". I thought perhaps the same applied here - ie the FAR passed responsibility onto the TSO for determining operating conditions. But after reading your and Tom's post I see it doesn't. My bad. Sweep---- Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
