riggerpaul

I've seen some Wings rigs with white harnesses. So, if all else fails, give Sunrise Manufacturing a call and see if they can help.

Hi Ficus, nice to see you in the forum. I agree with the other poster that the legal way to interpret what Airtec has said is to toss the battery after 3 years on the shelf. If Airtec had worded it the way I suggested, I would record the DOM of the battery on the packing data card and it would time out when either 5 years since DOM, 2 years in service, or 500 jumps had occurred, which ever comes first. We already have to apply similar limitations when we are packing a PD reserve. They can become unairworthy at different times depending on what has happened to them. But your question points out that we commonly return rigs to service with insufficient information to guarantee that the rules have been followed. Nobody tells me how many jumps they've made on their CYPRES battery. If it has been more than 500, I cannot legally return it to service. We have people at our DZ that make more than 500 jumps in the possible 2 year service life of a CYPRES battery. The units may still work, but technically, they should not be returned to service until the battery has been replaced. I want to say that I understand this is a pretty meaningless discussion in the first place because it is unlikely that anybody has a 3 year old battery on the shelf. It gets even less interesting as more of the CYPRES AADs reach end-of-life. The CYPRES2 has no jump count limitation, and we riggers in the field don't change the batteries.

There's more information I'd want to have to make a firmer statement - I'd really liked to have seen the canopy in flight, but it is probably safe to move the toggles the entire distance to the factory setting. You might, in fact, see little difference in the overall handling of the canopy. At the factory brake setting, there is usually around 4 to 6 inches of slack in the brake line. When you pull the down the toggle, the first 4 to 6 inches results in very little deflection at the tail. Once those 4 to 6 inches has been exceeded, the action at the tail is pretty much direct from the toggle - an inch of depression at the toggle results in an inch of deflection at the tail. The 3.75" is just a bit less than this normal slack, so the canopy is still flying nearly at full glide. That is, the brake lines are nearly full length and there will be little deflection at the tail. Any shorter might result in the canopy not achieving its full glide speed. This might be most apparent in landing, where your flare power might be decreased. But I wouldn't expect your 3.75 inches short to have a huge effect on the canopy. One possible advantage of having your toggles a bit on the short or tight side is that the stall point at the bottom of the toggle stroke comes up a bit. If you have short arms, you might get a bit more flare power, but you can also be getting closer to really stalling the canopy. When you use the front riser while holding the steering toggle even the factory brake setting might not be long enough to stop all the bucking. Some jumpers lengthen their brake line past the factory setting to allow more front riser input without dragging on the steering. One possible disadvantage of setting the brake lines long is that you might lose some of your flare at the bottom of the toggle stroke since you won't be able to pull down the line as far as when the brake line is shorter. Some people take a wrap of steering line around their hands to take the extra length out of the brake line. But this is not without its down side as well. There have been cases where "taking a wrap" caused problems for the jumper when he got stuck in the line or dropped one side while flaring, for example. (The other responses weren't posted yet while I worked on mine. I agree with all that has been said. Nice to see us all saying pretty much the same thing!)

Yes, that's the predictable answer. But if an unused battery today has an expected service life of 2 years, it seems unlikely that its service life tomorrow should be zero. At least, not because of the physics of the battery. It is clear that Airtec implies the battery physics allows for a 5 year total usable life. You can find a battery in a rig that is up to five years past the battery date stamp without anything being wrong at all. Even according to the way the documentation is currently written. Why should that same battery only be good for 3 years if it had never been used at all? I believe that the predictable answer is not about battery physics, but is about how hard it is to describe and talk about. I believe that according to the physics of the battery, they could just as well have said "the battery has an absolute life of 5 years, and a maximum service life of 2 years or 500 jumps". That wouldn't have the problem that an unused 3 year plus 1 day old battery would have to be tossed.

Just to be PAINFULLY clear, the 3 year shelf life is completely separate from the 2 year or 500 jump service life. After being on the shelf for a full 3 year shelf life you will still get a full service life of 2 years or 500 jumps out of your CYPRES battery. So a CYPRES battery might be in service up to as long as 5 years past the date stamp. But another question comes to mind. Is a battery that has been on the shelf for 4 years good for 1 more in service? Or does Airtec expect us to toss out a battery that has been on the shelf for 3 years and a day? I've never seen any discussion of this, and I suppose it would be pretty unusual to have a 4 year old never installed CYPRES battery. I know I've never had one on the shelf for more than a few months. If SSK is listening, can you answer these questions?

I'll try to answer both Shlomo's and Marc's questions in a single post. Many people confuse simple zigzag stitches with bartacks. I find this to be especially true when it is a center start-stop oversewn zigzag like the one PD uses on the linesets I have taken apart. But "true" bartacks have the straight stitching underneath the oversewn zigzag. I mentioned this in the paragraph above where I said "true bartacks", so I though it was clear what I meant by "true bartack". The OP was talking about the stitching securing the fingertraps on his new lineset. In my post I especially pointed out that you could see a bartack on the line attachment tab in the picture. The Dash-M fix was to add a second bartack to the line attachment tab. It didn't have anything to do with the line itself. The bartack on the line attachment tab is not subject to longitudinal stretching the way the stitching on the fingertraps is.

I know it will sound a bit strange, but I have carefully picked open the stitching on main canopy lines many times, and what I usually find is a zigzag, not a bartack. Bartacks have a couple of rows of straight stitching underneath the zigzag. The zigzag is sewn over the straight stitching. What I have been taught is that a true bartack should not be used in an area where stretching along the length of the bartack will be needed. The explanation was that the true bartack, having straight stitching under the zigzags, does not have the ability to stretch, and damage to the material or the stitching can occur when you load the line. You can easily see true bartacks attaching the line attachment tabs to the bottom skin of the canopy. The photo supplied has a great example. Now, I'm not trying to say that all canopies are this way, but I have seen lots that are. I have never picked open the lines on a reserve, so I don't presume to tell you which stitches are used there. As far as why some lines look one way and others look different, that's because the factory lineset comes with about half of the stitching already done. Different manufacturers may choose differently what to sew and what to leave for the installer. For example, a typical PD main lineset has the A-B lines (and C-D lines too) already cascaded and sewn, as well as pre-sewn loops at the A (and C) canopy attachment ends and at the link end of the line. The installer needs to larkshead the B (and D) lines to the canopy and sew them. I have also seen linesets where the loops are all sewn, but the B and D lines need to be cascaded into the A and C lines. With this sort of design, the installer needs to stitch the cascades, not the attachment loops. All this is because when you are using cascaded lines, something must be sewn after the line is installed on the canopy. Canopies that do not use cascaded lines do not have this problem. All the sewing on non-cascaded suspension lines can be done at the factory (except for where the stabilizers are attached to the outside lines, of course).

Has the DZ management discussed the matter with the management of the ATC facilities involved? Unless you are talking about stuff like Class B airspace, ATC does not have the authority to deny entry to the airspace. They have the authority to delay entry and sequence us in within the flow of traffic, but we have every bit as much right to be there as an airliner. I jump at Bay Area Skydiving, about 60 miles east of San Francisco. We are, depending on weather, in or near the traffic streams for San Francisco International, San Jose International, and Oakland International airports. We have, from time to time, had misunderstandings with ATC, usually the result of a controller overstepping his bounds. I know our DZO and DZM have spoken with the people who manage the facilities involved, and there has never been a question, at that level, of our right to use the airspace. Now, ATC delays might sometimes make it attractive to take the lower altitude. But that's OUR choice, not theirs.

They are different types of h/c systems. The names come (loosely) from where you will find the actual parachute in a container. The typical piggy-back systems sport jumpers use, with the reserve and main both on your back are "back" systems. Also, the common single parachute bail-out systems our jump pilots wear are "back" systems. When you look at some old skydiving pictures where there is a bundle on the front of the skydiver, that's a chest system. Unlike our piggyback systems where both containers are integrated with the harness, chest containers are (usually?) detachable from the harness. They were attached to the harness with hardware similar to the top attachments you see on a tandem student harness. The seat type is often used in "warbird" aircraft. The container/parachute is the seat cushion for the person wearing the h/c system. The lap system doesn't really exist anymore. It was used in a situation where there was no other place to carry a parachute. The parachute container was held on the lap of the user. I don't know the manner of attachment of this container to the harness.

My first post said "solid tab" not "non-metal." A Cypres washer is a good example of a metal solid tab with holes in it to pass line proven not to cut lines taking sharp bends around it. Just move the hole. Problem solved. First off, I have seen a link that was made with an actual CYPRES disk. Moving the hole is not absolutely necessary, and the extra holes do not hinder the functionality. Secondly, sorry, but I also have a comment about RTFM. For a (USA) rigger, RTFM is not just a suggestion. It is required by law. FAR 65.129(f) states that we may not "Exercise the privileges of his certificate and type rating unless he understands the current manufacturer's instructions". Failure to take the time required to obtain and digest the appropriate documentation violates that requirement. So while ignorance may be an excuse for a non-certified individual, it is not an acceptable excuse for a certified rigger. tdog, please don't misconstrued this post to be a criticism of your valuable comments regarding the improper use of the Aerodyne soft link. I totally agree with what you have said about the failure mode of the existing design. I agree that the design would be greatly improved by replacing the ring with a solid disk that has small hole. Such a change would, as you point out, eliminate the possiblity of this particular error. By the way, the ring is really just a disk with a *big* hole in it. All we are really saying is that the hole needs to be smaller to eliminate the possiblity of incorrect assembly. Anyway, thanks for bringing this problem to the limelight.

(not really responding to riggerrob, but just posting after his post) According to conversations I've had with PD people, there is also the problem that not all HMA is the same. There are different factories producing the stuff, and not all make their lines exactly the same way, or with exactly the same coatings etc. So finding a reliable source and second source presents a problem. Again according to PD, some of this is because the skydiving industry represents a tiny fraction of the market for lines and therefore has little sway or say in the production of the lines.

As the first reply mentions, anytime you have something hung up on your body, your chances of a clean reserve deployment are greatly decreased. I have seen videos of reserve pilotchutes doing the strangest things to find something with which to tangle. That said, the skyhook system "chooses" whichever "pilotchute" is creating more drag, and that one will deploy the reserve. If the cutaway main is clear and at least partially open, then it will generally create more drag than the reserve pilotchute and it will "win", dragging the freebag out. As an added benefit, the freebag will often stay attached to the main via the rsl lanyard and be recovered with the main. It the cutaway main canopy is not generating more drag than the reserve pilot chute, the skyhook lanyard will come off the hook and the regular pilot chute will try to do its job. So, if the main somehow hung up on you, and the reserve pilotchute finds air in the first place, the skyhook lanyard will come off the hook and give you a chance at getting a reserve deployed. Exactly how that deployment progresses can be a crapshoot.

I voted to drop the GM program and inspect DZs. I think we should drop the GM program so we will not be considered a trade association. I believe USPA should be a membership organization, not a trade organization. I think we should inspect so we will have a reasonable understanding of how the DZs operate wrt the BSRs. The inspections could be done by Instructional Rating Holders (though maybe not Coach rating holders), and/or by USPA Directors. Regional Directors often spend at least some time at many or most of the DZs in their regions. S&TAs should be able to do this, so long as they are not fiscally affiliated with the DZ under inspection. (I generally believe that S&TAs who are DZOs or DZMs have great opportunity for conflict of interest.) USPA should provide guidance to the inspectors so that there is a hope of evenhandedness in the process. Or there could be a USPA Inspector rating, if you think that would give a better hope for uniform standards in inspection. The output of the inspection program need not be black and white approval or disapproval. It could be more along the lines of a scale to indicate how much compliance is witnessed. We all know that there are group members who wiggle on the BSRs. The practical question is how much do they wiggle. Some of the input could also be based on jumpers submitting personal reports. If most reports say that a DZ complies with law and the BSRs, then it is likely that the DZ does. All other questions aside, a lone jumper can still choose to follow the law and the BSRs more strictly than the DZ itself, should he desire to do so. It seems that a lot of people think that it is the sole responsibility of the DZ to enforce compliance with the law and the BSRs. I think this s a flawed logic. If the jumpers don't violate the FARs and BSRs, the DZs won't be either. That is, if nobody will jump when it is not legal and appropriate, the DZ isn't going to be forcing you into the airplane. True compliance is a personal thing. It is silly to expect that businesses are going to take care of us in this manner. Tandem programs and other student programs are a whole different ball of wax, as they involve unsuspecting individuals who can easily be abused by a DZs failure to comply with applicable law and standards of operation. As the FAA regulates flight schools, so too they should be involved with regulating tandem programs and student programs. I believe that the regulation of these sorts of activities needs the weight of law to give it teeth. USPA does not and should not have that weight. But, of course, this is as much a matter of taking back our government as it is of taking back the USPA. (No, I don't really want the FAA more involved. But this is a hypothetical discussion, and I believe that if things worked the way they are supposed to, this would be part of the result. But I also believe that FAA should be LESS involved with regulation of licensed jumpers, so I hope that some reasonable balance could be struck.) I am surprised that the whole GM program hasn't come under scrutiny for its inherent tendency towards restriction of trade. For instance, why should it be required that a GM DZ instructional staff be rating holders? Sure, it helps to create a uniform standard for the DZ, but it is not the only way to do it. Again, I think USPA should be a membership org, not a trade org. All this requires more participation of USPAs membership in the process. I believe this is how it should be. I read a lot of stuff that says we should "take back the USPA", but there is little attention given to the fact that this implies we the membership must be more involved than we typically are. Failure to be involved is how we "gave away" USPA in the first place. There is no great conspiracy among DZOs to take USPA away from the membership. If it was "taken", it is because we let "them" take it. If we "take it back", then we had better be willing to do something with it, or it was a useless exercise in the first place.

Hell, even Poyntes does not agree with you. History doesnt agree with you. Though I am not at all pleased by it, and Poynter notwithstanding, my research has shown me that councilman24 is correct. That is, FAR 65.111 has always contained language that called for an FAA Rigging Certificate to work on mains. I have old manuals that contain the pre-2001 text of 65.111, and they are clear that this requirement has been around for a long time. This isn't new. It didn't happen in the 2001 rewrite. And, just as councilman24 mentions regarding his training, my training also included people telling me that anyone can work on mains. So, while Poynter may disagree, I have to say that *history* does support Terry's (councilman24) statement. And, just to be clear, Poynter was NEVER law, while 65.111 has always been.

I 'think' that probably Sunpath had determined that it is not a modification. And I accept that this is theirs to determine, not you or I. To me, this is the real grey area. If two mfrs say that it is not a change and no documentation submitted to the FAA; they why cannot some rigger ( or his wife/gf/etc ) add the SkyHook???? Think this will get some comments? JerryBaumchen Just continuing the discussion a bit. I can easily see where UPT claims it is a minor change. A Vector already has an inside top flap (#2), so adding an additional inside top flap (2a) doesn't really change things much. The basic operation of the system is not significantly altered. But the Javelin had no such inside top flap in the first place. IIRC, the new Javelin flap in inside the side flaps, directly atop the freebag. If Sunpath had added the new flap as an additional side flap, that might be different. I liken this change to changing the internal structure of an aircraft wing. If it is a certified aircraft, such a change would require additional documented testing to ensure that the new structure still meets the requirements of the original approval. How much depends on how significant the change is. Adding a doubler to a rib could be minor, but moving ribs around of adding or removing them would require significantly more work for documentation and approval. Sunpath claims that removing an RSL lanyard violates the TSO, even if you leave the guide rings etc alone. How can they say that adding a completely new flap inside is not as serious as this? Maybe we should just chuck the whole TSO thing for parachute equipment. I don't really expect that any manufacturer would really want to do that, as a TSO approval actually helps shield them from many liability issues, as, of course, it should. It seems to me that failure to complete the existing process exposes Sunpath to a whole new sort of legal liability. I hate to think what might happen if this ever gets tested in the courts. Thanks for the discussion! I find it most interesting!

This reply is NOT to cast any aspersions on you. Last year, in Reno, Bill Booth stated that he did not submit any documentation regarding the SkyHook to the FAA as a Minor Change. Also, when I asked Derek Thomas ( also, last year in Reno ) about whether he had submitted the SkyHook as a Minor Change ( I had noticed that they had added an inner top reserve flap to the Javelin where there had not been one prior ) and he said that they added the flap as a Minor Change saying something about it being there to 'control' the reserve bridle. People seem to continue to think that the SkyHook is part of the TSO'd rig; and I do not believe that it is. This is just to, hopefully, clarify this. Now, if I am wrong, I will gladly admit it. The above is based upon two face-to-face conversations that I had in Reno. JerryBaumchen No aspersions cast or caught.

The Skyhook is a type of RSL. If you have a Skyhook, you have an RSL. Make sense? You can't seperate the 2 because they are one thing. I can't see how a Skyhook (properly installed) would have any impact on force needed to pull your reserve handle one way or the other. I'm a sport camera jumper with 2 unplanned Skyhook deployed reserve rides and the thing functioned perfectly both times. I'm really comfortable with it. (Sorry I am a little late with this response. I've been away for a couple of days.) What I am about to say is not meant to imply that I think anyone should do this, merely that it is possible. There is some current thinking that doing what I am about to mention would be illegal, as it would be an alteration of the approved system that was granted the TSO. Again, I am only trying to clarify the notion that you could still have the RSL without using the Skyhook. The first quote asks the question if you could hook up the RSL without using the Skyhook. The simple answer is "yes", it is possible to use only the RSL and Collins release without using the Skyhook. The Skyhook system is a combination of an RSL, Collins release, and a hook. If you did not attach the red loop to the hook on the reserve bridle, then the RSL and the Collins release would still operate while the Skyhook itself would not. The first quote also questions an increase in force required to deploy a reserve in a reserve-only situation when a Skyhook is present. The second poster is correct when he says that the force to pull the reserve handle would be no different. But I believe the first question refers to the additional force required to break the red loop free of the skyhook in the case where the main had not been deployed first. (The first quote mentions a low altitude emergency exit. I presume that to mean that there was no main deployment before pulling the reserve handle.) The red loop is secured to the Skyhook with a loop of seal thread. There is a small additional force needed to break that seal thread if you deploy the reserve without first deploying the main. Seal thread has a tensile strength of about 4.5 pounds. While some additional force is needed to break this thread, the amount is so small as to be negligible - the reserve pilot chute is generating many times over the force needed to break this thread. It is also important to realize that this additional force to break the seal thread is *before* the pilot chute is extracting the bag from the container. Breaking the seal thread occurs before you reach full bridle stretch. So the forces are not additive. I have several customers who have Skyhook-equipped rigs. One has had a reserve ride after a spinning mal. His system worked as intended. He had his reserve open over his head before he had even pulled the silver handle.

I too would like to customize my top level forum listing better. But the suggestions I found here don't quite fill the bill. The "Subscriptions" thing seems to be about sending email to my email address. I don't want more email. The [-] button blocks the entire category. There are categories that I want to see some of the forums, so this doesn't do it. What I'd like to do is enable or disable the presentation of any particular forum in any particular category. I envision something similar to the subscription control page. But it would control what is presented in the top level Forum page, as opposed to generating email to me. Or am I still missing something? Thanks! -paul

Thanks for your highly detailed explanations. It wasn't that I didn't believe you, but I'd never experienced the problems as you described them. I am generally considered a packing snob and an anal retentive rigger, so I am not too surprised that others might have some difficulties that I don't usually encounter.

[reply Im not sure if i can explain it here but Ill give it a shot. The distance for the main cover tuck is a certain amount to the tucking point. If you create more bulk in the tray then the distance is now increased due to the bulge. The main flap now has to go up and over the buldge then back down. Now the flap is too short to tuck all the way under the "tucking" point.... Thus it doesnt saty. This can also affect the riser covers. They did have design problems in the early 90's and early 2000's with the odyssey. The wrong reserve or impropery packed reserve can do the same to the reserve flap as well. Does that make sense??? Not sure if I explained it right... I'm still not quite getting it. When I put a big main in the container I lengthen the main closing loop. My rig has the long closing loop attached to a tab at the bottom of the reserve container. When I lengthen the loop, the biggest change is the position of the bottom flap. The fit of the top, sides and closing flap stays about the same, all mostly controlled by the location of the grommet in the top flap. So even if there is a bit of a bulge, the top flap and the cover flap still fit about the same as with a smaller main. I try to keep the bulge to a minimum by keeping the bulk of the larger canopy in the longer space created by the longer closing loop, as opposed to letting the bulk build up a bulge in the middle. I will say that you have to be able to adjust your main pack job to make this happen. I've seen many newbie packers who don't fill the d-bag properly to the corners resulting in a pack where all the bulk is in the middle, causing a big bulge as you describe. This isn't, of course, limited to Javelins, but is a general packing problem that I see. When I see this, I usually try to show them how properly filling the d-bag will make things better. Either way, this rig has never stayed closed for freeflying. Additionally, if I am front float on the King Air and the pilot doesn't pull back the left engine enough, I have also occasionally had the reserve cover flap open.

The '94 Javelin still has the old style flaps that tend to open in freefly. The changes that were made later include tucking the reserve cover flap into a slot in the reserve bottom flap. I believe the main flaps were changed so that the top and cover flaps are wider and the tuck tab tucks deeper to be more secure. I'm not sure what you mean about the main sizing affecting the main cover flap. I have put mains from 190 to 282 into this container without main flap problems (for flat flying, of course). Now, the 282 was a Raven 4 that is known to pack small for its size. The 190s were Spectres, Sabres, and Sabre2s. My "main" main is a Spectre 210, and there are no problems with size or flaps.

As others have said, this was not a good idea. Minimally, the tuck tab on the cover flap should be repaired if that is the source of the problem. The rig is obviously used if the tuck tab is worn out. How old is the rig? My experience with some older Javelins is that they won't always stay closed even when the tab is new/repaired. Personally, I have a 1994 Javelin J4 that won't reliably stay closed during freeflying, so it is still not suitable for freeflying even after the tab was replaced. Removing your modification may be tricky to do without damaging something. I suggest you take the rig to a rigger and let them decide how to proceed. A local master rigger may be able to get the rig into shape, or he may suggest letting Sunpath do it. Letting the manufacturer fix it is a bit of a bother, but they will have the final word on what will or will not work to fix your rig. For your peace of mind, this is probably the best route, especially if the winter weather has you stuck on the ground in the first place.

The Argus certainly does have an automatic shutoff feature. Section 1.6 of the Argus manual begins, "The Argus will automatically shut off after 14 hours, or you can do it yourself by the following procedure: ..." How did you determine that the Argus lacks an auto-shutoff feature?

I have no doubt that what you say is true, or certainly has been true in our experiences to date. But that doesn't really answer the question of what is actually required to be in compliance with the regulations. I've tried to get answers to this and other questions like it from the Sacramento FSDO, but they have been essentially unresponsive. Maybe somebody out there has dealt with a FSDO that is more responsive, and if so, I hope they can ask on our behalf and post the answer. Terry (Councilman24), you seem to be as well connected as anyone, do you and/or PIA have something to say on this question. Can you get the FAA to clarify things any?

I am not really replying to any particular post here. So, while the website might say I am replying to deadwood's post, I don't intend it to be interpreted that way. I want to mention some aspects of the regulations that haven't been touched on so far, and though they might be considered small things by some, I think they should be given some time and attention. The currency requirement as set forth in FAR 65.129.f.1 says "Performed duties under his certificate for at least 90 days within the preceding 12 months". This regulation specifically mentions "duties" as opposed to "privileges". FAR 65.121 "Certificates: Privileges" does not define duties. As the title says, it defines privileges. (Definition, "privileges" are things I am allowed to do; "duties" are things I shall or must do.) I don't know of any section that defines duties specifically, except possibly FAR 65.131 which says "Each certificated parachute rigger shall keep a record of the packing, maintenance, and alteration of parachutes performed or supervised by him. He shall keep in that record, with respect to each parachute worked on, a statement of...". So, it may be that the only "duty" we have is to log our work, and for the purpose of compliance with FAR 65.129.f.1, it may be that only logged work contributes to currency. If the only things we are logging are reserve repacks and maintenance on the gear involved, it might be than anyone who doesn't log work on 90 days of the last year might be considered by the FAA to be non-current. Logging 90 repacks on 60 days, for instance, also might not meet the currency requirement as put forth in FAR 65.129.f.1, because it doesn't actually mention how much work is required, but only mentions that you need to have "performed duties" on 90 days of the preceding 12 months. Now, I don't like the implications of this train of thought any more than any other rigger does. But if any rigger certificate action went in front of the FAA review board or the NTSB, I believe they could very easily interpret the regulations in the manner that I have here. It is well documented that people (mostly pilots, I'll grant you) have had certificates revoked for smaller details than this. All it takes is a little reading of "AOPA Pilot" magazine to find horror stories about what happened to pilots and other certificate holders for seemingly tiny misinterpretations of the rules. FAR 65.129.f.1 has some other implications that haven't been discussed. For instance, riggerrob pointed out that "If you want to be picky .. the American Federal Air Regulations require main parachutes to be packed by licensed riggers or "the next person who intends to jump it." Actually, there's a little more to it than that. It is also allowed that a main can be packed by a non-certified individual who was *supervised* by someone with a certificate. But 65.129.f.1 also says that supervision must be logged. There are a lot of paid packers out there who are not certificated riggers. Many DZs suggest that nearby riggers are supervising these people, but according to 65.129.f.1, if it isn't logged, it isn't supervision. The rewrite of the parachuting regs a few years ago greatly expanded the list of people who might be held responsible when parachuting regulations are broken. So, for example, while many DZOs choose to take the attitude that the paid packers in the packing area are independent of their control, that might not fly if the FAA gets involved. I understand that all this presupposes that the FAA chooses to take some action, and that doesn't often seem likely. But I worry that a great deal of what we consider normal could be "actionable" if anyone in the FAA decided to start taking shots at us.