riggerpaul

You guys... are assholes~!!! and your assholes are on the wrong gender for my liking. No issue with that but the only thing true in the statement is I am from NorCal

Not at all, just trying to learn what I can about the board's ability (or lack thereof) to influence HQ's execution of its decisions, and whether there has already been an attempt to address the issue directly. As for the topic at hand, the way the "TC" designation is defined in Parachutist - it appears to be "technically" accurate*, but also misleading and incomplete based on what I have read about the program and its stated goals (I can only go on what has been published, as I am not currently on the BOD, nor was I privy to the discussions that led to the creation of the program). As others have said, the definition implies that other GM DZs do not provide training beyond tandems. While indeed some may not, most do. * I say "appears" to be accurate because I certainly haven't gone to every DZ that has the TC designation and validated that they have a student program beyond tandems. Krisanne, please accept my public apology. Perhaps it was my knee that was jerking. Your terse response/question just made me feel that we might be descending into the bickering that we have seen amongst ourselves over the Jan issue. Make no mistake, I am no particular supporter of Jan's, but the last thing we need now is to start fighting amongst ourselves again. In my own defense, I'll point out that I even said that I hoped that what I was feeling wasn't the case, as apparently, it is not. In addition, others could not know that you and I have already had some discussion regarding this matter. The sense I got from you in those emails was that you didn't see the issue as being particularly troubling. That certainly was a factor contributing to the tone of my reply to you. But, whatever led me to that tone, I apologize and hope that you will accept my apology. Now, back to the original discussion. You admit that while it might be technically accurate, it is misleading. I have a hard time believing that whoever chose those words was not aware of the negative connotations they would imply for those who do not have their benefit. We are supposed to be trying to pull things together, not rend them apart. If it was really just a poor choice of words by a well meaning individual, then we need to correct it immediately. Based on the content of the magazine, I think it is entirely reasonable to think that a person who is researching the issue of getting skydiving training would be steered away from many perfectly acceptable group members based on what was written. After all, the national magazine is telling them right where they can find the training they seek. And, as I said, I tried to get information from HQ and got no response. So, unfortunately, the whole thing smacks of people playing politics in the leadership of USPA. And I don't like to think my organization would let personal agendas so taint its operations. There are businesses and people's livelihoods that could be adversely affected by stuff like this. If this is just an oversight, then I say we should not be so accepting of such a poor performance on the part of whoever chose those words. I will be happy to be proven wrong when I see the magazine published with more appropriate wording. That's all I want - a change in the wording. Otherwise, I will be forced to conclude that it was and remains intentional. That would make me very unhappy.

Has the BOD addressed this concern directly with Headquarters? Your response sounds disturbingly like a knee-jerk reaction to Jan's post. I sincerely hope that is not the case. Jan, a board member, apparently feels that it went beyond what she expected. But that's not really the issue here, is it? So, I'll ask you directly, do you think it appropriate for the "TC" to mean "These drop zones provide skydiving training beyond the first jump"? I think that describing the "TC" in that manner is, at best, misleading, and at worst, a ploy to strong-arm group members to participate in a program of which they do not approve. I would like that description of "TC" changed.

Not that I always agree with what you say, but in this matter, we are certainly on the same page. When the October Parachutist came out, I very quickly sent an email to HQ asking for more details about the program. I did this because, though my home dz has a very active student program, we did not sport the TC designation, and I wanted to understand why. HQ never responded. I talked with the DZ management and learned that we would not participate because there was some sort of requirement to send information about our students to HQ. I never got a clear idea of the exact nature of this requirement. If you could enlighten, please do. Anyway, our DZ declined to do whatever it was, preferring to protect the privacy of our students. I've talked with a number of people, including my RD, and essentially gotten no traction for my belief that designating some as TC did a serious disservice to other DZs who chose not to participate. I feel this way exactly because of the notation you mentioned, that TC means you are a DZ that offers more than first jump training. I believe that not having the TC designation carries the implication that you are only a "tandem mill", and that is far from the case for most of the DZs that don't have the TC. Personally, I would have no problem if the magazine said that TC indicated DZs that had chosen to participate in the Solo Challenge. But I feel strongly that what they did say is not in the best interest of a great deal of the Group Member dropzones. I invite persons of a like mind to start writing to HQ objecting to this divisive language. In fairness, I will say that some of the feedback I've gotten included the notion that the little note in Parachutist will not have a big impact on where students go, because not many will even see it for quite some time. Though there may be some truth to this, I still think that USPA is doing a divisive disservice to Group Members, and should at least change the magazine immediately.

Your links don't seem to work. Maybe because your markups used "u" and "/u" instead of "url" and "/url". I would have fixed it for you if it would have let me. I cut and pasted, and I got to the sites. So I know that the text you wrote is correct. -paul

That's the one!

Are you sure? I have found that there are several people here with variations of the "hook it" callsign. If you know the one who posted here a few posts ago, you might know me too. So, who the hell are you? You in NorCal?

Indeed. We are splitting hairs. But it is so much fun to become engrossed in the finer points of rigging that I cannot resist. Ask Hookitt. He knows me personally.

Hey! Who you callin' confused?!? I'm not confused!!! You confused? Didn't thin' so.

Actually, a) would only be true if b) is true first. If a bumper on the link isn't snug to the ring, it will not stop the metal slapping metal. I doubt that anybody would pay enough attention to that bumper, if the attention paid to slider bumpers is any example. I've seen more than a few rigs with a ring and a link for a long time without any damage to either the ring or the link. The way I see it, the real danger of the metal-to-metal contact is that a bit of canopy material will get in between the ring and the link. I've seen lots of really little abrasions on the fabric that ends up near this junction when the canopy is bagged. In designs where the ring pulls against the bag grommet (typically on a non-collapsible pilot chute) similar damage occurs when people don't take care to keep the fabric clear. Most kill line designs don't easily allow fabric to get pinched in the bag grommet, so I when I see these abrasions on a kill-line rig, I presume they are from the ring to link connection. A properly maintained bumper would help prevent this, but any secure non-metalic connector would work just fine. A Slink works great. I don't like using a soft link that has a metal ring here, just because we are trying to get rid of some metal, not add more. This sort of attachment point works great with a conventional pilot chute that typically will have a large loop at the end of the bridle that can be lark's headed to the ring. For a collapsible pilot chute, I recommend tossing the Rapide Link and using a soft link to attach the end of the bridle to the ring. I have seen a few collapsible pilot chutes where the loop at the end of the bridle is large enough to allow a lark's head to the ring. These cover all the bases.

Okay. My anecdote is really no better than your anecdote.

How would a bumper help?

That text was cut-and-pasted from the PIA document. Is that where you fixed it? (I totally missed that typo error when I was copying it from the doc. Thanks!)

The PIA document (http://www.pia.com/piapubs/PIA-180FAQ.pdf) has the following question and answer: Okay, I'll admit it doesn't actually answer as directly as I would like. I certainly would have preferred if the answer had been a simple "Yes". But I'm pretty sure they just said that it is, and always has been, legal to pack that rig.

Forgive me if I am dense so early in the morning. Are you saying your machine is sewing better now? Did you sew the knife sheath onto the jumpsuit successfully? If so, that's great. I feel good when I finally get something right.

I like your way better than mine. I think it could be more precise and repeatable. But you would still have to decide which size hemostat to use.

Here's a method I was taught for when you have a removable bobbin case. Wind a bobbin and put in the bobbin case in the normal way with a few inches of bobbin thread hanging out past the tensioning spring. Put the case on your open hand. With the other hand, see if gently pulling on the thread will lift the bobbin. If the thread pulls out of the case, you need a bit more tension. If a gentle pull lifts the whole bobbin case, good. Next, try a sharper pull on the thread. Now, some thread should come out. If it doesn't you need less tension. The drag from the bottom tension should be just enough so that the bobbin doesn't let too much thread come out too easily. The bobbin tension is far lower than the top thread tension. The top thread tension should be set so that the machine can pull up the needle thread and pull a bit of the bobbin thread into the stack of fabric. Too little top tension and you get a mess on the bottom of the work. Too much top tension, and you pull the bobbin thread all the way through the stack of fabric.

The bottom tension, on the bobbin case, should be enough that the thread must be dragged off the bobbin. The top tension must be enough to pull some of the bobbin thread into the seam so that the bobbin thread is not just laying on the bottom surface of the seam. Nylon E thread is quite slippery. You will probably need a significantly higher tension setting than the manual might call for with "regular" (cotton, cotton/poly, polyester) threads. If the thread is breaking, maybe it has slipped off the arm that pulls up the thread. I have that happen occasionally. Check that the top thread path is correct. It could also be that you are using the wrong size needle. For E thread, I use a 14 or a 16 or sometimes an 18 needle on my machine, depending on the material I am sewing. Is the thread bunching up at the eye of your needle? If so, use a bigger needle. Also check the needle for burrs. A burr on the needle can damage thread enough to break it. Has the needle possibly been damaged by striking the needle plate? Many "general purpose" sewing machines are adequate for lighter sewing tasks. Most of a jumpsuit is pretty light sewing. I have several "home grade" machines that can do the sewing that you mention. So, it is not just a given that the sewing machine isn't up to it. Will your machine put the needle down without trouble in the stack of material to be sewn? If so, the machine should be up to the task. If the machine will not punch the needle through the required stack of material without bogging down, then you might need a stronger machine.

So please put the whole issue to rest - tell us the FAR that supports your statement. If it isn't written, it isn't law. Anecdotes don't make it law. The opinion of any particular FAA representative doesn't make it law. A long history of doing it this way doesn't make it law. If it isn't written, it isn't law. Tell us which law which establishes the requirement and the discussion will be over. Please, ANYONE who says that the battery must stay legal through the cycle, tell us the law. I don't want to be breaking the law, honestly I don't. But I need to see the relevant law to believe it.

Can you tell me the FAR that says this? No one else has been able to so far. If you can point at the law, then the issue will be closed.

The issue has been unclear for a long time. It is just coming to a head again. Some riggers feel you cannot I&R a rig if the battery will not make it to the next repack. Others feel that you there is no such restriction. It becomes more important with the 180 day cycle because you can possibly be tossing a battery that has very nearly 6 months (of 24) life left. With the 120 day rule, you were only talking about 4 months wasted. It is true that this has not been changed, but exactly what the law is is as unclear as it ever was, so now we are discussing it again. People have cited various anecdotal evidence for both points of view. MEL has submitted these questions for FAA answers. Hopefully, whatever the answer is, it will cite the regulations that set the standards so that we can check.

I don't think that mounting the camera upside-down would account for the anomaly. The images of the first jump sequence seem to me to be some sort of mirror image, not inverted. You can tell by the face of the altimeter being switched right for left. The needle is winding down clockwise, not counter-clockwise as it really does. I don't think the camera mounting can account for this. Is there a switch on the camera or the recorder that gives a mirror image?

Here's what I believe is a synopsis of the current discussion in this thread. Actually the issue of "grandfathering" has been pretty well closed. MEL had a post about it some time back, and it is as you say. There will be some parachutes that are not legal to jump for a few days if they were packed more than 120 days prior to the effective date of the rule change. Then they become legal again for the remainder of the new 180 day interval. There are some side questions that are also being discussed as a result of the new ruling. These side questions are the current focus of the thread. Maybe new threads would have been appropriate, but for now, their home is still this thread. The first has to do with the question of packing a rig if the AAD battery will expire before the next repack is due. This will impact us by possibly making us put in new batteries up to 180 earlier than the actual battery expiration date. In the case of a CYPRES (1) battery, this is up to 25% of the useful life of the battery. Some riggers feel that they are not allowed to I&R a rig unless all the components will remain legal through the entire repack interval. Others do not fee the same way. The second has to do with the question of opening and closing a rig without doing a full I&R. This question comes into play if we are allowed to repack a rig with a battery that will expire before the next repack is due. Some riggers feel that the regulation only states when an inspection must have been performed, and it is legal to open and close a rig without doing all the work of a full I&R. Others say that if we open the rig, we must do a full inspection. This would mean that we could not change the AAD battery without doing a full repack. This discussion is a bit more academic than the first, as the closer you are getting to needing a full inspection in the first place, the less likely that anyone will be unhappy with doing one early. Likewise, if the batteries are due in 3 weeks and not 5.5 months, replacing them is less objectionable. Both these questions have been addressed with anecdotal evidence, but to date, no reference to actual written regulations have surfaced, MEL has made inquiries regarding these questions, and we are awaiting his posting the answers he gets.

Neither of your anecdotes speak directly to the issue of all components being legal until the next inspection. Anecdote #1 says only that we must faithfully record the date of the inspection. Anecdote #2 says only that if the rig is opened, it must be inspected and repacked. If the FAA is at the Symposium to discuss matters and questions, then it is important that we ask the correct question. The correct question to ask would be something like "can we inspect and repack a rig if the AAD battery will expire before the next inspection?". That's the question that we want answered. If they say, "no, you cannot", then the next question should be "what regulation sets forth that requirement?". They should be ready to back up their statements with referenced in the FARs. If they cannot state the regulation that sets forth the requirement, then their assertion is suspect. I will be happy to accept the law as you tell me it exists when someone shows me written regulations that support that position. For now, I want to ask you how you, personally, handle the 500 jump limit on a CYPRES (1) battery. If the regulations say that all components must make it to the next inspection, how do you, personally, enforce the 500 jump limitation? Do you ignore it? Do you insist that the battery be changed because you are sure it will have reached the 500 limit during the interval? If you do not change the battery, please explain why you don't think you must.

Of course I disagree with the first sentence. As far as the last part, I think the answer lies in performance standards. § 65.129 Performance standards. top No certificated parachute rigger may— (a) Pack, maintain, or alter any parachute unless he is rated for that type; (b) Pack a parachute that is not safe for emergency use; (c) Pack a parachute that has not been thoroughly dried and aired; (d) Alter a parachute in a manner that is not specifically authorized by the Administrator or the manufacturer; (e) Pack, maintain, or alter a parachute in any manner that deviates from procedures approved by the Administrator or the manufacturer of the parachute; or (f) Exercise the privileges of his certificate and type rating unless he understands the current manufacturer's instructions for the operation involved and has— (1) Performed duties under his certificate for at least 90 days within the preceding 12 months; or (2) Shown the Administrator that he is able to perform those duties. _____________________________________________ I think (e) is where the answer lies. Also remember that the FAA dictates the pack intervals, not the manufacturer when reading that sub-part. You also have to remember that when the FAR's were first developed, the pack intervals were only 15 days. ........then 30, 60,120. and now coming is 180. IMHO, the intent the FAR's wants the parachute system (at the time of sealing) to be ABLE to make the complete cycle. Of course things happen that make the system non-airworthy from time to time, but I think that is another discussion. BS, MEL Thank you MEL. I appreciate your help. (e) above does not actually say that the equipment must stay legal through the repack interval. What it says is that I should be able to find documentation regarding "procedures approved by the Administrator or the manufacturer of the parachute" to give us guidance in this area. I only know of AC 105-2c as an additional source of procedures approved by the administrator. If there is another I should check, please let me know. I found nothing in AC 105-2c that says all the components must stay legal through the inspection interval. I also carefully checked the CYPRES User's Guide. The only thing is says is that batteries must be replaced if: 1) the low battery codes are displayed on power up, 2) after 500 jumps, and 3) after 2 years. So, at this point, I still don't see anything that actually tells us not to repack a rig when the AAD battery will expire within the inspection interval. By the way, the 500 jump limitation is also a problem for your premise that the rig should make it through the repack interval. There is absolutely no way for a rigger to act on this restriction; the jumper himself is the only one who can make anything close to a meaningful decision in that regard. I don't think anybody ever refused to repack a rig with an in-date battery because he thought that the 500 jump limit would be reached during the repack interval. Do you? I regard this as precedent setting, even though our community has never had the disagreement on this issue that we are exploring now. The way I see it, what you are saying is that we, the riggers, should tell a jumper that he cannot jump his rig today even though all the components are legally allowed to be used. I don't think we have that privilege or responsibility. There have been many related discussion on dz.com over the years regarding questions like "can a rigger ground a rig" and things like that. I believe the final word on that one was that while any rigger can refuse to repack a rig for any reason, he is not given the authority to actually ground a rig. There is ample precedent in aviation law that an inspection does not say that everything stays legal throughout the inspection interval. The classic example of the ELT battery is a great one since it deals with the identical issue as applied to an aircraft. Actually, I think it is a better example than the AAD to show that the FAA does not expect component life to limit an inspection. An ELT is required equipment, and AAD is not. If your A&P says he will not sign off on an annual because your ELT battery will expire in 11 months, you go find another A&P. Why should the AAD battery be treated differently?