scdrnr

I would contend that the FAA, despite the FAR's, is taking the official position that manufacturer instructions, including SB's, are only recommendations. And recommendations aren't mandatory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to respectfully disagree. A jump pilot got his license suspended (for 6 months) - for lipping off an FAA inspector - but the citation read "failure to have aircraft operating handbook on board." Meanwhile, there was a large stack of genuine DeHavilland manuals under the co-pilot's seat. *** Sounds familiar.

I just recieved a "Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin" from the FAA on the Omega/Quick groundings. While I appreciate the FAA sending me this "Urgent: Information Critical to Flying Safely" notice 5 months after it being old news, I am surprised by the language it contains. Right there in bold italics it says: "This is information only. Recommendations aren't mandatory." It then "strongly recommends that you comply" with Performance Variable Service Bulletin SB-0-200501. Strongly recommends? Recommendations aren't mandatory? Are these the same people who wrote FAR 65.129. Why should anyone feel legally obligated to pull-test PD reserves, check boxes, remain within TSO weight-speed limits, make width adjustment folds or dress a tail one way or another when the FAA uses such lukewarm language on what is obviously a critical safety directive issued by a manufacturer? I would contend that the FAA, despite the FAR's, is taking the official position that manufacturer instructions, including SB's, are only recommendations. And recommendations aren't mandatory. This is similar to the widely held consensus among aircraft maintenance professionals, which is that contrary to FAR 43 and 91, engine TBO's, cycle limits, service intervals (other than annual or hundred hour inspections), and SB's are optional unless you are subject to some kind of operating certificate (ie, 135, 121, etc.) If it ain't an AD (Airworthiness Directive) it ain't required! The FAA seems to agree. So I guess my point is, why doesn't the FAA just drop all these rules they don't seem interested in enforcing. Riggers and jumpers should spend less time and energy debating what's legal instead of whats safe. Any thoughts?

Agreed. My preference is to not attach them and let the owner decide. I think it is good to keep the old cards but I don't see the advantage of retaining them all together. When I start a new card, I make an entry verifying AAD inspection and battery dates along with verifying the dates of any Service Bulletins. I do this more for the owners sake than for future riggers since most of these things can and SHOULD be determined by inspection of the gear itself anyway.

Just to simplify my long winded answer: During deployment you may enter a turn more severe than you could induce with risers brakes stowed. Even if the condition that caused it clears, leaving you with neutral controls, there may be more inertia than you can control with risers in any useful amount of time/altitude. Increasing airspeed by releasing toggles will give your wing more aerodynamic control to counter the inertia.

I think in this situation I would call the toggles your "elevator" - they are being used for pitch/airspeed control. We need to throw away the concept of "a canopy cannot turn without an aerodynamic control imput". Now that may be true most of the time, but in some instances inertia can be more powerful than aerodynamics. With the brakes stowed you have a limited range of aerodynamic control. Releasing brakes increases your airspeed giving you more aerodynamic control. Can you stop a high speed turn with risers brakes stowed? Eventually, yes, because no matter how much inertia there is, an turn sustained by inertia will eventually correct itself, unless you are in a vacuum, and any counter-turn control imput will only help it.. The question is can you stop it before you reach your hard deck, or the ground? Take a cessna 172 in straight and level flight, now give sudden full aieleron deflection to one side, then neutralize the controls. The airplane quickly comes back to straight and level. Now take an Extra 300 and do the same thing. It will keep rolling. Eventually, it will stop but the only way to stop it quickly is with full opposite stick. Even 1/2 opposite stick won't stop it promptly. The higher performance the canopy, the more inertia you can create. Normally, opposite control imput will stop that. But lets say during deployement you have a severe tension knot or line over that creates a larger control imput than brakes stowed risers can counter. Even if it clears itself you may have more inertia than risers can control in any useful amount of time/altituded. I have used flaps by themselves to recover an aircraft from a spin. I have also used just elevator, just rudder, and just power changes to recover from spins (not all in the same plane). It depends on the plane. Universal stall recovery is power off, aielerons neutral, stick forward, opposite rudder, almost simultaneously. Most planes will recover if you simply return to neutral, or even let go of the controls all together. I once spun a Cessna 310 with full fuel in the tip tanks, 300 lbs a side. The inertia was so great after a 3/4 turn that full stall/spin recovery imputs did not stop the rotation until I had alot more airspeed than normal. I went way past redline on the recovery (lesson learned). The point is you can easily create a situation where inertia will, at least temporarily, overcome aerodynamics. And, in general, more airspeed means more aerodynamic control. So if you are spinning and risers aren't having the desired effect, I can see how going to full flight may help.

I have experienced this phenomenon as well, and while I generally agree with Hooknswoops theory that a canopy with symetrical control inputs will fly straight and level, I think something else is going on here. I know for a fact that it is possible to make an airplane remain in a spin with the controls neutralized. Stick forward breaks this condition. Essentially, I suspect that what happens is that the spin is initiated by line-twists, uneven harness, etc., but under a high performance canopy the rotational speed develops to a point where inertia overcomes the canopies now neutralized control imputs. Going to full flight allows the canopy to increase its aerodynamic authority.

Any DZ open here? If so I need contact info. Thanks.

Okay, since you just have to know: The prop will be back from the shop soon. Please excuse the inconvenience, I know you were really looking forward to jumping here, but it will just have to wait a moment. Need more info? Ask us in person. Feel better?

Couldn't agree more. Of course, the issues they are concerned about have never been against the rules. But thank goodness there are concerned skydivers out there to tell them otherwise.

You guy's talk about our rule-breaking a lot more than we do.

There are rules to prevent people from harming others and rules to prevent people from harming themselves. I think even you can understand the difference. I don't think that what happens at Brush is any different than what happens at alot of other DZ's. The only difference is the level of denial. Some say "industrial haze", we say clouds. But we all jump just the same.

Just bought 2000 gallons wholesale for 2.40 USD per gallon. Two years ago we were paying .89 per gal.

He also came extremely close to a couple of people on the ground that had no idea he was swooping them. Also, crossing the runway (not to mention the parking lot and spectator area) on landing is considered poor form at this particular DZ, although not strictly enforced. I think that sets a bad example.

Airplane and glider pilots have long known that landing distances increase with altitude. I'm not sure what the big mystery is, lift is related to indicated airspeed, which will remain constant. It is the TRUE airspeed that is increased with altitude resulting in higher groundspeeds and longer distances covered.

I have heard this argument before and I don't buy it. There are lots of non-USPA dropzones in existence and I don't think it has been proven that they are more dangerous than USPA DZs. I don't believe the governement stays out of skydiving merely because the USPA has it all under control. And I don't think trading the FAA for the USPA is necessarily a great thing. It has its pros and cons. I'm not saying that pencil whipped instructors are a good thing. I am saying that under the present system an instructional rating is not a guarantee of quality instruction. And overall I don't think it is a big problem, because the majority of instructors (both rated and unrated) are doing a good job. I never said training wasn't important. What I am saying is that you don't need to attend a 3 day USPA sanctioned course in order to put out static lines safely. If there are DZ's that have been successfully using other students to hook up static lines (and there are) then certainly a coach, AFF/I or TI can be trained to do it as well. Its not rocket science. Again, I compare it to packing. We all accept a system where some kid learns to pack from someone at the DZ (often times not even a rigger), demonstrates that they can do it safely without constant supervision, and then they are turned loose to pack tandems or sport rigs for whomever in direct violation of FAR's. Most people don't consider this to be unsafe, and I have never heard of the USPA pulling a GM for this violation. Incidents do happen at both USPA and non-USPA DZ's and I don't think the public or government cares one way or the other. Media reporting of skydiving accidents is already so distorted that it doesn't matter if an instructor was rated or unrated, current or uncurrent, current parachutist subsrcriber or not, all the public hears is "chute didn't open". Yes, I do have a chip on my shoulder for the USPA. And I have my reasons and just because I disagree with you or Tom doesn't make me a troll. Skydiving can be a cutthroat industry and I have seen businesses and livelihoods destroyed by the USPA over non-existent "safety issues". I think it is wrong to immediately jump to the conclusion that students lives are being put at risk by using non-rated SL/I's without closer examination of the specific situation.

I have read your posts in the past and while I generally agree with and respect your opinions, on this I have to disagree. The USPA should not be the "safety police". The USPA is a political organization, and as such, often enforces their rules in a particularly selective manner. Remember, the USPA has a monopoly on the certification of skydivers in this country and they know it, and sadly being a Group Member is becoming a requirement at more and more public airports. Instructional ratings don't mean nearly as much as the instructor behind them. Ratings can be pencil whipped and often are. Interestingly, I know of many "pencil whipped" instructors who are far better and more effective teachers than other instructors who "earned" their ratings. If a DZ is using coaches as SL/I's then they are way ahead of the curve. I have seen 5 jump students put out static lines (successfully), and while I don't necessarily agree with the practice, I can't deny that it has worked thousands of times over many years with a safety record better than most student programs. Another case in point - I know of a DZ where two respected, long time (20-30 year) static line instructors who meet all the IRM requirements to hold a SL/I course were prevented from registering their course with the USPA by a Regional Director. So they held it anyway, to a group of rated coaches, AFF/I's, and TI's. I don't think student safety is being jeopardized just because the USPA didn't collect their licensing fee. The whole nonrated static line instructor issue is just a tool for the USPA to hammer down on DZ's for political reasons - usually at the behest of other DZ's that don't even do static line. Need more convincing - how come the USPA never cracks down on non-rated tandem packers? If the USPA is so concerned with the letter of the law (in this case an FAR) then they should insist upon direct rigger supervision at all times. But we all know that doesn't happen, because every DZ relies on unrated tandem packers and can't always provide a full time rigger to watch them every minute. But look out if you are a DZ that relies on static line income to make ends meet, and you decide to allow an adequetley briefed Coach put out a student. The USPA is a fucking joke. I don't understand why you have to have a current magazine subscription to be a safe skydiver.

A climb at Vx or Vy may activate the stall horn momentarily in gusty/turbulent conditions. If the stall horn is sounding continously in the climb then there are two possibilities. Either you are below Vx (inefficient) or the stall horn is not calibrated properly (very common on Cessna's). Personally, I think Angle of Attack Indicators are much better devices than the stall warning systems on most GA aircraft, which in theory rely on AOA but in actuality are affected by airspeed as well. Inexpensive AOA indicators are made for experimental aircraft, and they work very well, and provide much more useful information, but, unfortunately they aren't a option for replacing existing technology on "certified" aircraft. Pilots need to remember that Vx and Vy change with weight and balance and density altitude conditions as well. It is possible to be at published Vx and be much closer to a stall than you realize - and not getting max performance.

Anyone have any experience with tandems out of helicopters (or balloons)? Any issues with throwing the drogue too soon? I was thinking that if you leave stable getting the drogue out quick would be good, so you don't have a chance to get unstable as the relative wind increases, but I'm not sure how the drogue will behave at those speeds. If it doesn't generate enough force it could be even worse to have the drogue out as you accelerate if you get taken for a ride. I just don't know. Any tips on good exits? Or do you just chunk out and get stable once you are in some wind? Any advice from people who have done it would be greatly appreciated.

Death and the airlines seem to be a common theme for bad pilots. Of course, plenty of good pilots end up the same way too. Good airmanship is hard to define, but I know it when I see it. Some of the worst pilots I know adhere to checklists and procedures religiously. Some of the best pilots I know have wrecked several airplanes. The rule for drinking and flying is 8 hours. I don't think that a few drinks at the end of a hard days work is being too "loose".

PM sent.

Make that two votes for the Garmin III Pilot. They can be had these days for $400-$500 brand new and as low as $300 used. They are small, so they don't clutter up the yoke or windshield. The display, while not the largest, is easy to read, and allows for vertical or horizontal orientation. All the data fields are customizable so you can display the exact information you need. I use the HSI mode exclusively and I display the off-course deviation, distance to, time to, and groundspeed in the data fields. The only thing the database does not have compared to the more expensive aviation handhelds are instrument approaches, but it is very quick and easy to set up to "monitor" existing ground-based approaches, and with a little preparation, you can program stand alone gps approaches into it manually. Rechargeables or a lighter plug are the way to go.

There are 3 trim specs for crossfire 1's. The original, CF0102 (dated 2/2001) and CF0110 (dated 10/2001). As I understand it the difference is in the length of the B lines with the original being the longest and CF0110 being the shortest. It shouldn't affect overall performance, just feel, with front riser pressure being most noticable. I know many who had their crossfires relined and noticed a change, but adapted and are very happy. There were two related problems with the original crossfire. First, they could collapse or become unstable if the trim was out of tolerance, so in Feb 2001 they instituted CF0102 to give slightly more margin and started requiring vectran lines. This change was completely transparent, and not required initially. Then canopies manufactured in the US started having problems that they attributed to sloppy canopy construction. A service bulletin was issued with a range of serial numbers. Some canopies were worse than others, but most canopies were "fixed" by installing trim spec CF0110. Some canopies were still not right and got replaced, others never had any problems before or after, but are part of the serial number range requiring retrim to CF0110. Crossfire 1's now get relined with either CF0102 or CF0110 trims depending on serial number. The crossfire is still a great canopy with either trim. Lots of people (who don't even use their front risers) have sold them cheap because they heard others say it isn't as high-performance anymore. The fatality at the Ranch was likely due to turbulence, but since it happened just after the service bulletin was issued, and she was jumping a crossfire, everyone blamed the canopy. I think people just like to assign blame to something tangible like a canopy that they don't own, rather than accept that random things out of their control can kill them.

I think it is silly for someone with no training to reline their canopy. I think it would be very silly to make your first jump on a velocity 79 with no goggles or altimeter or aad. I think it is even sillier for the government to make laws about our parachutes. The FAA does have things to say about ultralights, but nowhere does it say who can build them, maintain them, or fly them. Just some operating rules, and definitions. If the word parachute wasn't already defined by the FAA, I'd call it an ultralight.

Wear an altimeter if you want, but don't forget to look down. Wear an AAD if you want, but remember to pull. Wear an audible if you want, but be in the habit of taking actions BEFORE the warnings. For example: I normally breakoff at 4500-5000 I normally pull at 2500-3000 My decision hard-deck is 1500 I set my dytter warnings at 2000 and 1500. I don't use a "breakoff alarm" but if I did it would be 4000. I don't always wear it, but when I do I rarely hear it, (occaisionally as I snivel). Its just a back up, plus all that beeping annoys me. Some people don't breakoff or pull until they hear their dytter. Big mistake.

A DPRE is not the one who should ultimately be giving the interpretation, although many FSDO's will rely on their DPRE's for an opinion if they don't have anyone with the applicable knowledge on their staff. If they don't have a rigger on staff or a DPRE, it is up to you to make your case and get them to agree with you in writing. If you want an interpretation of 65.111, show them the text and ask them to tell you what it means. It may help if you provide evidence that the Denver FSDO, which has an Airworthiness Inspector on staff who is a Master Rigger, has made a ruling on the issue in question.