My proposed changes to FAR Part 105
GW Galloway
By this posting I would like to stimulate discussion of possible changes
to FAR 105. It is difficult to change the FARs fast enough to keep up
with changes in the various disciplines and applications of Sport
Parachuting. Some of the changes I would like to see would include:
1. Main canopies could be packed by anybody.
Currently the law requires that "The main parachute must have been
packed by a certificated parachute rigger, or by the person making the
jump, within 120 days before the date of its use." I seriously doubt
that this law is properly observed at most drop zones in the USA. In
some cases, hired packers _do_ happen to be rated riggers, but for the
most part, the rule is completely disregarded and is, in fact, dangerous
from the perspective that the first jump student may legally pack
his/her main, but their highly experienced instructor/jumpmaster with
multiple ratings and years of experience cannot legally do it for them.
In many cases, I have seen total whuffos develop into excellent packers
just to become positively involved in a dz environment. That
participation is a good thing. You don't have to be a jumper or a rigger
to learn to pack parachutes properly. Let's lose this law.
2. Reserves could be packed by either a certificated rigger OR by the
person making the jump. Riggers probably won't like this one, but in
many other countries the person making the jump is allowed to pack their
own reserve. Most riggers do an excellent job and our sport has a
definite need for their expertise, but I think if an experienced jumper
owns and controls his own rig, (s)he should be able to legally pack
their own reserve canopy. I would suggest that this rule not apply to
any commercial application, but be more of a private personal liberty
exercised strictly by the person making the jump when (s)he chooses to
do so provided they control the custody of their own container.
3. Pilots should not responsible for jumpers who violate placards on
parachutes regarding weight limitations. This is another widely
disregarded rule in which it is not practical for the certificated pilot
of the jump aircraft to be responsible for comparing and screening the
weight of the jumpers with the harness/container/reserve combination of
every jumper who boards the aircraft. The pilot should take
responsibility to see that the aircraft is operated within the approved
weight and balance envelope, of course, but it is unrealistic to think
that the pilot can inspect every packing data card, cross reference it
with a chart of manufacturer's maximum and/or minimum exit weight
limitations, and weigh each participant prior to their boarding the
aircraft. Determination that the aircraft is being operated below gross
weight limitations does not require weighing each individual jumper. For
example, when was the lase time you were weighed before boarding a
commercial flight?
4. Delete the Pilotchute Assist requirement. Part 105.43[b] says No
person may make a parachute jump using a static line attached to the
aircraft and the main parachute unless an assist device[...]
(1) The assist device must be long enough to allow the container to open
before a load is placed on the device.
(2) The assist device must have a static load strength of--
(i) At least 28 pounds but not more than 160 pounds, if it is used to
aid the pilot chute in performing its function; or
(ii) At least 56 pounds but not more than 320 pounds, if it is used to
aid in the direct deployment of the main parachute canopy.
I think a pilot chute assist on static lined ram-air canopies is a bad
thing, causing canopy damage and malfunctions on squares.
5. Extend reserve repack cycle to 180 days. Here's another thing that
some riggers will disagree on, because they might perceive an
interruption to their revenue stream, but I see no reason that a reserve
repack cycle couldn't be extended to 180 days. For those who would want
to remind me of the old acid-mesh situation, I firmly believe that any
canopy which might have been affected by acid mesh would not necessarily
have been "more affected" if the repack cycly had been 180 days vs 120
days. I won't go into the data here, but I will be happy to discuss it
with anyone who cares to call me.
6. Delete main repack cycle. I have jumped mains which have been packed
for more than 2 years. I have a couple of canopies which have been
packed for more than 25 years. Someday I will document the deployment of
these canopies. If anyone wants to donate old packed canopies to this
purpose, I will gladly return the equipment to you with a complete
report after the drops. Anyway, with the materials used in today's
equipment, there is no practical reason to have a main repack cycle
requirement. OK, maybe 1 year, but no less.
7. Delete Single Harness/Dual Parachute rule. I have saved this one for
last, because I think if you are still reading my ideas you will be
serious enough about what I have to say to correctly understand my
perspective. The current law says that when you jump from an aircraft,
[except in an emergency] you have to be wearing a harness, a reserve,
and a main containers included of course]. This rule dates back to the
barnstorming days when airshow freaks were wooing crowds with multiple
canopy deployments from multiple containers mounted on multiple
harnesses. In most cases, they were chest-mounted military reserves
which were deployed without the benefit of either airspeed or pilot
chutes. [see the movie Gypsy Moths, with Gene Hackman and Burt
Lancaster] The resulting entanglements resulted in a danger to the
crowds below. The way the FAA operates is to focus on the Public Safety
without unduly restricting the liberties of the participants. That's why
there are no FARs relating to pull altitudes. They [FAA] don't even say
that you can't go around throwing stuff out of airplanes... you can...
you just can't do it where there is a danger to the public below. (check
out Skydive AZ Junk Day)
In any case, when the Tandem environment was conceived & invented by Ted
Strong, the single-harness-dual-parachute rule seemed to be an unforseen
restriction to this new mode of operation. It wasn't intentional, it
just turned out that way. The rule was written long before Tandem was
ever conceived. That might have been a good thing, actually, because
Tandem is "not just another skydive". Tandem is indeed special, but now
that it has been in practice for over a decade, it can hardly still be
called "experimental".
"Experiments" yield "experience", and subsequently "experience"
yields "experts". If a certain discipline is still "experimental" then
there can be no "experts". We have many, many tandem "experts" nowadays.
Tandem masters with literally thousands of tandem jumps. They are
experts. You know it. I know it. They know it. Just ask 'em. Let's ditch
the exemption to Part 105.43. It is not right for our Federal Law to
apply to 249,000,000 Americans, less 4. Why should the Strong
Enterprises, Jump Shack, Relative Workshop, and Eclipse be exempt from
the same federal law which we all must follow. If I wanted an exemption,
I could have it issued in a few week's time, using boiler-plate language
which has set the precedent. I don't want an exemption. Let the Tandem
Manufacturer's control their own respective programs, but let's dump the
rule rather than keep "exempting" people from following it.
Let the discussion begin...we have a long winter ahead of us.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If you can pack all of those parachutes, then you can fold your own
shirts and make up your own bed"! [What Mom told me when I was still
living at home at age 23, absolutely obsessed with skydiving] c.1972
George Galloway <g...@precision.net> http://precision.aerodynamics.com
Precision Aerodynamics 423-949-4688 Parachute Industry Assn V Pres
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trying2Fly
OK. You have my support on all the issues except # 2. We are always borrowing
or lending our rigs to each other. And we do it knowing that the reserves are
packed right and inspected by someone who knows what he or she is doing. We
know that if the gear isn't airworthy it wouldn't have that little lead seal.
We feel safe.
Look how we treat our mains. We pack them in the sun; we drag them in the
dirt. We jump them with little rips and tears. We wait untill a line breaks
before we replace them. We misroute our pilot chutes. We pack line twists. We
hook them up backwards. We clip the RSL to one of the three rings. We pay
$1,200 for a little black box and then forget to turn it on.
And you want to trust us for timely and proper reserve care and packing. I
think not. I have personally packed thousands of mains with zero malfunctions.
Knock on wood. But I prefer to leave the reserve packing and inspections to
those who have spent the time and effort to gain the knowledge to do it right.
MMannel
GW Galloway “By this posting I would like to stimulate discussion of possible
changes....Some of the changes I would like to see would include:”<<
Some thoughts:
>>1. Main canopies could be packed by anybody.<<
qualification it is still an impetus for monitoring at most DZ’s. In worst
case you don’t generally have a student with 2 jumps off in a corner packing
with no supervision, simply stuffing it in the container and then putting it
back for someone else to jump.
It is seldom followed to the letter, but in my opinion it carries enough
weight and constant reminder that at least students are monitored by
experienced packers.
person making the jump<<.
equipment to repack, test or inspect a reserve. Most don’t have a clue as to
how to pack a reserve--they aren’t just another pack job. They use freebags
(some people have a few hundred jumps and don’t know what a free bag is much
less any concept of how to pack one). The lines, risers and pilot chute are
critical in their orientation. Your reserve is your last chance--it is not
something to practice on the first few times to see if you can get it right.
parachutes regarding weight limitations.<<
responsible for maximum weight limitations and proper CG. As students we trust
our JM/I’s to do all in their power to advise us and get us down safely. When
we enter an aircraft we enter the domain of the pilot, and fully trust his
judgment to operate his craft in accordance with safety regulations. Whether
certain aspects are disregarded by some or many is not a basis for removal of
the restriction (most Hiway Patrolman will attest to that in relationship to
speeding and speed limits).
I generally have use only of a Cessna and we do pay attention to fuel load and
jumpers weight--we don’t fill and then load up the biggest jumpers on that
load. Hopefully when I go to another DZ and get in a plane I am unfamiliar
with the pilot will monitor his fuel load and whether not only if the proper
NUMBER of jumpers got on, but if all of them are members of the “I Am Really
Too Fat To Skydive But Still Do It Club” he may request a few to stand down.
As for commercial flights--the margin of weight loaded vs. capacity is much
wider, and the effect of 40 lbs on a 727 is not as critical as 40lbs in the
back of a Cessna.
>>4. Delete the Pilotchute Assist requirement.<<
anyone still on static line is less likely, on average, to recognize and
properly react to a malfunction it is a precautionary, second chance for full
deployment. I am not a rigger nor an expert but so far I have not seen damage
when they are done properly as to spec, nor have I observed a malfunction
created by them.
If, in the event, we let ANYONE pack a main and ANYONE pack their reserve the
pilot chute assist may become more important than ever.
>>5. Extend reserve repack cycle to 180 days.<<
>>6. Delete main repack cycle.<<
deleted. The main purpose of a parachute is to allow you to intentionally jump
from a high altitude, and then use it to keep you from being killed as you
land. In my opinion that “system”, from the three rings, to the risers, to
the lines and the fabric deserve a look occasionally.
in skydiving of deleting this is “If you delete it they can, & some will jump
without reserves”. (cuts down drag, reduces weight, increases speed for
freeflying, get better hook turns--whatever)
I do feel, however, it is about 11 years past due for the tandem to be moved
from the “experimental” status. Doing so would not necessitate deleting this
rule only changing it to include “approved dual harness, dual parachute with
all dual harness attachments being secure at any time the door of the aircraft
is open” or so.
Mike
D-17464, PRO, JM/I
Scott Chew
> 1. Main canopies could be packed by anybody.
>
> 2. Reserves could be packed by either a certificated rigger OR by the
are frequently borrowed. I disagree. A person who wants to pack his
own rig
should know enough to be able to obtain a senior rigger ticket.
>
> 3. Pilots should not responsible for jumpers who violate placards on
for weight and balance of aircraft. I believe this is frequently
neglected.
>
> 4. Delete the Pilotchute Assist requirement. By all means, out of date.
>
> 5. Extend reserve repack cycle to 180 days. Should be one year. Common sense
still dictates that rigs that get wet, are stored in trunk of hot car or
have battery acid spilled on them require repack immediately. I may
have
close personal knowledge of several skydivers that repack reserve only
after
it has been used. At 300 to 500 jumps per year this occurs on average
about
every 18 months. NO problems or even hesitations.
>
> 6. Delete main repack cycle. Absolutely.
> 7. Delete Single Harness/Dual Parachute rule. For the preservation of the
sport TSO'd containers and reserves should still be mandatory.
NEW POINT
8. Delete all references to parachute lofts. Ignored anyways.
Responsibility for
having proper tools and following proper procedures included in holding
rigger's
certificate.
Scott Chew, MD D-14325, PRO, AFF Tandem S/L JM/I, Senior Rigger, Private
Pilot, BASE 321
gg
Scott Chew wrote:
> NEW POINT
> 8. Delete all references to parachute lofts. Ignored anyways.
This has already been done. There is no Part 149 anymore, although some
former Parachute Lofts still advertise their Loft Number and ratings.
From the perspective of the FAA, parachute "Lofts" were done away with
several years ago.
Andy and Beth
GW Galloway wrote:
> By this posting I would like to stimulate discussion of possible
> changes
> to FAR 105. It is difficult to change the FARs fast enough to keep up
> with changes in the various disciplines and applications of Sport
> Parachuting. Some of the changes I would like to see would include:
>
> 1. Main canopies could be packed by anybody.
How 'bout: Main canopies can be packed by anyone certified, using USPA
standards, to pack main parachutes. That way, any *licensed* jumper or
non-jumper that took the trouble to learn and get certified could do
it. Solves the problem, maintains some defined level of sanity that
prevents students and whuffos from straying into dangerous territory.
> 2. Reserves could be packed by either a certificated rigger OR by
> the
> person making the jump. Riggers probably won't like this one, but in
I would think that as soon as we had fatalities that could even remotely
be traced to an improperly packed reserve we would have the FAA and
public opinion down on us like stink on shit. I think the "riggers pack
reserves" rule is a reasonable balance between safety and freedom for
the individual. I wouldn't really want to deny anybody the ability to
pack their own reserve but it doesn't seem unreasonable, given the
severe ramifications, to make them get a rigger's ticket first.
Otherwise, their personal quest for freedom may seriously, negative
impact my ability to enjoy the sport once they start bouncing (and you
*know* it will happen).
> 3. Pilots should not responsible for jumpers who violate placards on
> parachutes regarding weight limitations. This is another widely
Absolutely. Pilot is responsible for his/her aircraft. Jumpers are
responsible for theirs. Makes sense to me.
> 5. Extend reserve repack cycle to 180 days. Here's another thing that
That would be cool. Seems reasonable to me. How 'bout a survey of
riggers and manufacturers to validate this? Is there any hard data that
would help evaluate the effects of this?
> 6. Delete main repack cycle. I have jumped mains which have been
> packed
While the existing rule does seem kind of short, I'm not sure this is
worth fighting for. I'm mean, what is the real harm done by this rule
in practice?
> 7. Delete Single Harness/Dual Parachute rule. I have saved this one
> for
How 'bout just a updating of the language that explicity enables tandem
or other situations where there are 2 parachutes for some defined,
effective "unit" underneath. (Heh heh. He said "unit").
Just my 2 cents. Thanks for asking.
AFC
B-19700
Ken
GW Galloway <g...@precision.net> wrote in article
<snip>
> 2. Reserves could be packed by either a certificated rigger OR by the
> person making the jump.
Yikes! Will the average skydiver take the time to learn to correctly pack
his/her reserve, then take the time to do it right? Would this promote the
thinking of "hell, I've got two parachutes, one of 'em is bound to work so
I can fudge this or that a little?" Or, is he/she willing to invest in
the tools some containers require for reserve repacks? I can't picture
riggers loaning tools.
I've seen skydivers that can't pack their mains worth a......., do they
really need to be jacking with their reserves too? I'm for individual
responsibility, but..... In contrast, I knew a skydiving engineer who took
over an hour to pack his main, its was the prettiest pack job I've ever
seen (funny thing, his clothes always looked rumpled like they were never
folded ), I can just imagine how meticulous he would be packing his own
reserve.
I'm not sure if this will make a difference either way, the DZ closest to
my house has a larger packing staff than instructor staff most of the time
anyway.
Blue Skies
Ken
bil...@qualcomm.com
In article <19971213070...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mma...@aol.com (MMannel) wrote:
> >>2. Reserves could be packed by either a certificated rigger OR by the
> person making the jump<<.
> The problem here is it has many downfalls. Most people do not have the proper
> equipment to repack, test or inspect a reserve. Most don’t have a clue as to
> how to pack a reserve--they aren’t just another pack job.
you could use the same argument with mains. if people were not allowed
to pack their own mains, they wouldn't have drag mats or pull-up cords or
rubber bands. they learn that they need these things when they learn to
pack. similarly, when they learn to pack their reserve, they will be
taught that they need molar straps, multiple pull-up cords, thread for
tacking toggles, soft bodkins, whatever. if they don't want to learn,
they can have a rigger do it, just like they can have a rigger pack their
main now (if they want.) and some do.
> >>3. Pilots should not responsible for jumpers who violate placards on
> parachutes regarding weight limitations.<<
> Whether carrying skydivers, newspapers or your family a pilot must be solely
> responsible for maximum weight limitations and proper CG.
i think he meant the parachute weight limits. a pilot should not lose
his license because a 260 lb jumper is jumping a TSO C23C rig, placarded
for a maximum exit weight of 254 lbs.
> >>4. Delete the Pilotchute Assist requirement.<<
> May, in most instances, be an unnecessary requirement, but considering that
> anyone still on static line is less likely, on average, to recognize and
> properly react to a malfunction it is a precautionary, second chance for full
> deployment.
i think the problem with this requirement is that it was written to
regulate round parachute deployment using sleeves and breakcord. we
don't use them any more, and there are much better ways to do a pilot
chute assist (or do away with it completely, as in direct bag
deployment.) by getting rid of this requirement we could come up with
better ways of ensuring SL deployment.
> >>7. Delete Single Harness/Dual Parachute rule.<<
> Disagree. Old saying--“If you build it they will come”. Most likely outcome
> in skydiving of deleting this is “If you delete it they can, & some will jump
> without reserves”. (cuts down drag, reduces weight, increases speed for
> freeflying, get better hook turns--whatever)
> I do feel, however, it is about 11 years past due for the tandem to be moved
> from the “experimental” status. Doing so would not necessitate deleting this
> rule only changing it to include “approved dual harness, dual parachute with
> all dual harness attachments being secure at any time the door of the aircraft
> is open” or so.
i think that's what george meant. change the rule to something like
"you must use a TSO'ed harness(es), a compatible TSO'ed reserve and a
main canopy" and take out the part about the single harness and dual
parachutes. there's no reason a 3-canopy system should be illegal, and
there's no longer any reason to require a single harness.
-bill von
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Bill Will
MMannel wrote:
> GW Galloway “By this posting I would like to stimulate discussion of possible
> changes....Some of the changes I would like to see would include:”<<
> Some thoughts:
> >>1. Main canopies could be packed by anybody.<<
> Although most associated with this sport do disregard the ‘rigger/jumper’
> qualification it is still an impetus for monitoring at most DZ’s.
Nobody is going to have people pacing rigs for others..nuless they know how to do so....
Its a good thought
> >>2. Reserves could be packed by either a certificated rigger OR by the
> person making the jump<<.
> The problem here is it has many downfalls. Most people do not have the proper
> equipment to repack, test or inspect a reserve.
So???.....Are you qualified to put new brakes on your car??....Do you have the proper equipmet
to test or inspect brakes??
Yet, you could fly down the road at 100 mph and slam into a Luby's.....no regulation there
.....
Make people responsible for their own actions. If they can pack a main, they can pack a
reserve.
> >>3. Pilots should not responsible for jumpers who violate placards on
> parachutes regarding weight limitations.<<
> Whether carrying skydivers, newspapers or your family a pilot must be solely
> responsible for maximum weight limitations and proper CG. As students we trust
> our JM/I’s to do all in their power to advise us and get us down safely.
Leave the pilots out of this loop. Most have no clue on the limits of the rigs.....do we need
a scale at the airplane ???
> .
> >>4. Delete the Pilotchute Assist requirement.<<
> May, in most instances, be an unnecessary requirement, but considering that
> anyone still on static line is less likely, on average, to recognize and
> properly react to a malfunction it is a precautionary, second chance for full
> deployment. I am not a rigger nor an expert but so far I have not seen damage
> when they are done properly as to spec, nor have I observed a malfunction
> created by them.
Wrong.
Pilot Chute Assist were spec'd for T-10 canopies. THey damage, and cause many malfunctions on
current
canopies.
>
>
> >>7. Delete Single Harness/Dual Parachute rule.<<
> Disagree. Old saying--“If you build it they will come”. Most likely outcome
> in skydiving of deleting this is “If you delete it they can, & some will jump
> without reserves”. (
Let'em it will weed them out eventually.
Bill
--
_=______________________- bill...@ionet.net
|-----==(____)--- ------| or
|//////_________________| bill...@aol.com
\ /| ( )/ ** Phoenix, Arizona USA **
/ /) ----- http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/3326/
/ o /) *Ted Kennedy killed more people with his
/P7M13 /) car than I have with my guns
/o_____/) *gun control is hitting your target
*those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it
*SAVE YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, JOIN THE NRA TODAY!!*
http://www.nra.org
Sandy Wambach
GW Galloway wrote:
> By this posting I would like to stimulate discussion of possible changes
> to FAR 105. It is difficult to change the FARs fast enough to keep up
> with changes in the various disciplines and applications of Sport
> Parachuting. Some of the changes I would like to see would include:
>
> 1. Main canopies could be packed by anybody.
> <SNIP>
> 2. Reserves could be packed by either a certificated rigger OR by the
> person making the jump. <SNIP>
Here's another "proposal," George......
Main bedsheets could be modified by anyone, regardless of his/her status (or
non-status) with the FAA or any other federal agency. (Heck, just ask
Beezy.... you could probably even train a chimpanzee to modify
bedsheets.....) Now, as for RESERVE bedsheets, well, that's another story
all together. I think proper certification from Martha Stewart herself
should be necessary before allowing an individual to mess around with
reserve bedsheets.
I recognize that we have to balance these "inconveniences" against the
general safety of the skydiving community. I'm sure my proposal will
generate tremendous controversy in the linen industry (not to mention the
rec.skydiving community....) I hope you will give some serious thought to
this idea and let me know what you think about it.
Thanks and have a nice day!
Sandy Wambach
Timasch
In article <34921EB8...@precision.net>, GW Galloway <g...@precision.net>
writes:
This would only work if there were a sign off procedure to make sure the person
is compitent to pack that reserve/main/container. Obviously the person can not
attain this expertise unless he/she has been instructed and has packed a
certain number of times under the care of a rigger (or maybe just an instructor
in the case of the main). The instruction would not have to be as full as the
full rigger training, due to the fact that it only needs to be for a specific
Reserve/Container combination. I suspect that riggers could make some of their
_lost_ income back doing this instruction, sign offs and whatever periodic
updates needed for equiment changes.
In Europe they can do this because there is a strict procedure and program that
is followed. Could some of our Non-USA jumpers post the procedures that their
country uses?
IMOHO What we want to avoid is a procedure that legalizes _Pencil Packing_.
Tim Aschmann D-9813
CRWMike
Timasch wrote:
> country uses?
>
> IMOHO What we want to avoid is a procedure that legalizes _Pencil Packing_.
You say that like it is a bad thing :^)
--
Blue Skies,
Michael
D-6139, I/JM(Retired)
"Here's tae us; wha's like us ?
Gey few, and they're a' deid."
FREFALLGUY
<Deleting name of poster I am responding to, because my
comments aren't aimed directly at him> :
IMHO, "pencil packing" is_somewhat_acceptable, because
the US has a 120 day repack cycle requirement. I wouldn't
care if my reserve went 240 days, but if I really_bit_some
sand/mud/water/etc on a landing, I'd make sure to have the
system checked out whether it was "due" or not. I guess I
just take responsibility for my own life that way. I support
a 180 day (6 month) repack cycle (or even 1 year).
I also agree with everything George says about changes
to FAR Part 105, except the suggestion that anyone
should be able to pack their own reserve.
Marc
dale southard
In article <34921EB8...@precision.net> GG wrote:
> By this posting I would like to stimulate discussion of possible changes
> to FAR 105.
<snip>
>
> 2. Reserves could be packed by either a certificated rigger OR by the
> person making the jump.
Jumpers can already pack their own reserve...under the supervision of
an FAA rated rigger. That is how most of us became riggers in the
frist place. The rigger probably has access to any special tools or
materials that might be needed to do the job correctly. He/she can
also help educate the person doing the packing and prevent mistakes.
Once completed, the rigger can seal the reserve, making it OK for
anyone to jump the rig.
If the jumper wants to buy the tools, aquire the knowledge, and
practice the skills needed to pack his/her reserve, why don't they
get a riggers ticket? Isn't it still something like a whopping three
dollars through a FSDO?
I also don't think that the ``by the person making the jump'' clause will
be enforcable in the real world. Noone will be able to say for sure
WHO packed a rig last since it will not be sealed. They cannot prove
WHEN it was packed since there is no paper trail other than the pack data
card. If you remove the certificated rigger requirement, you might as well
remove ALL the packing requirements (or was that the intent?)
Of course getting rid of reserve seals will make life easier for
the low-life that has been sabotaging reserves....Just think of the
subtle malfunctions they can create once they'll be able to open and
reclose the entire reserve container without any detectable trace.
/* Dale Southard Jr. [http://www.nd.edu/~dsouth] AFF/I SL/I T/I */
/* Science Computing Associate, [pgp on www page] S&TA D-11216 */
/* University of Notre Dame, 202B NSH Sr. Rigger NCB#194 */
/* south...@nd.edu 219/631-7326 "I'd rather be skydiving" */
Robert Haig
In article <4ADE8B1E8A73401E.8F05F340...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>standards, to pack main parachutes. That way, any *licensed* jumper or
>non-jumper that took the trouble to learn and get certified could do
>it. Solves the problem, maintains some defined level of sanity that
>prevents students and whuffos from straying into dangerous territory.
See, now we're getting USPA involved with FAA regs. How about
"... packed by anyone authorized by the owner of the main, or authorized by
the person intending to use the main canopy on it's next deployment."
If I hire someone to pack my main, it's because I know they can pack it.
Either I see them jump their own main every weekend, or I see many others
jump the packers pack jobs without any problems. This would make the regs
state what is actually happening now. (except when the packing fairy visits)
--
Rob
PWGIBBS
Certified in WHAT?, and by what STANDARDS?
How about:
"Main parachutes shall be packed by an FAA certified rigger, by the owner, or
by a responsible person designated by the owner, using appropriate method(s)
designated by the owner or person using the parachute.
Ann Poblenz
CGilb39696 wrote:
The other
> side to that coin is, their
> equipment isn't stored in the trunk of a car parked in Florida.
Hmmm, just an innocent question..
Where exactly is that car parked???
;-)
GeneD5446
Regarding "My proposed changes to FAR Part 105, Sandy Wambach wrote:
<<Here's another "proposal," George......
Main bedsheets could be modified by anyone, regardless of his/her status >>
I say......
IMHO, I think anyone who is folding or modifying a bed sheet, whether it is
single, twin, double, queen or king -- fitted or not fitted -- should be able
to fold or modify that sheet, if the sheet which are folding or modifying, goes
to the bed upon which they are going to lie. And that person should be able to
fold or modify that sheet, not under the direct supervision of a certified
maid or housekeeper. However, that person(s) may prefer to hire a maid to fold
or modify that bed sheet for them; I am sure we have all heard that old
saying, "You've made your bed, now lie in it." Well, in this case, one may
prefer to lie in the bed, not between the sheets, but on top of them, in which
case it doesn't take a professional bed-maker to fold or modify the sheets,
because the sheets aren't actually being used for the purpose for which they
were designed, but for other purposes. But, if that purpose is to
intentionally jump out of the window or off of the roof, then that sheet may be
packed by the person jumping out of the window, provided they have a backup or
reserve sheet folded by a professional. If that jump is due to an emergency,
such as a fire on the first floor, and the sheet is yanked from the bed and use
as an emergency sheet, then only one sheet need be used -- and I would hope
that that sheet were folded by a certified housekeeper, or at least under the
"direct" supervision of a certified housekeeper....Or, perhaps in that case, I
will just grab a quilt from the closet, and hope that it was folded properly.
In any event, sheets sometimes pull up from the corners of the bed, even if
those sheets have been modified and folded by a certified housekeeper.
The moral of the story is...... sleep close together, in the middle of the bed,
under a sheet big enough for two (preferably a queen- or kingsized sheet, and
the probability is that you won't move one inch during the night, because you
will be so contented and so close that you will want to remain as one....and
you will never have to worry about the corners of your sheet pulling up, the
mattress pad showing, or your pillows falling off the edge of the bed onto the
floor..that is of course, unless you use them for other purposes, and then all
bets are off.
gene
Trying2Fly
In article <19971218011...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, gene...@aol.com
(GeneD5446) writes:
>>The moral of the story is...... sleep close together, in the middle of the
bed,
under a sheet big enough for two (preferably a queen- or kingsized sheet, and
the probability is that you won't move one inch during the night, because you
will be so contented and so close that you will want to remain as one....and
you will never have to worry about the corners of your sheet pulling up, the
mattress pad showing, or your pillows falling off the edge of the bed onto the
floor..that is of course, unless you use them for other purposes, and then all
bets are off.
gene<<
Gene must be single. Ahh, I remember those days.
GeneD5446
Regarding GeneD5446's response to thread: My proposed changes to FAR Part 105,
tryin...@aol.com (Trying2Fly)
wrote:
<< Gene must be single. Ahh, I remember those days. >>
GeneD5446 replys:
Ah, ummmmm...I don't think so.......but I do remember the days when I
was.....The one thing Gene must be however, above all else, is a hopeless
romantic (or is that helpless)........and all that goes along with
that.........<wink>
G.
ChutnGalry
>1. Main canopies could be packed by anybody. Currently the law requires that
>"The main parachute must have been packed by a certificated parachute rigger,
>or by the person making the jump, within 120 days before the date of its
>use."
We ignore the letter of this reg every day. I agree with the concept except if
this reg is deleted, there would be no accountability for anyone packing a
main. How about adding the statement "...unless supervised by or packed by the
person making the jump".
>2.Reserves could be packed by either a certificated rigger OR by the
>person making the jump.
Ain't no way. If a jumper wants to pack his own reserve, he can do it under my
supervision. By the time a jumper has learned enough to pack his own reserve
without me around he is about ready to take written, oral, and practical for
the riggers ticket.
>3. Pilots should not be responsible for jumpers who violate placards on
>parachutes regarding weight limitations.
Agree totally. I've always thought that responsibility was placed
unnecessarily on the pilot. Jumpers who violates a FAR ought to be responsible
for the consequencies. This includes boarding an aircraft with an out-of-date
reserve.
>4. Delete the Pilotchute Assist requirement.
Don't delete it entirely. Just add the statement "Except for ram-air
parachutes ..." It covers the rounds and addresses currently used canopies.
>5. Extend reserve repack cycle to 180 days.
Mixed feelings about this one. The majority of the rigs I work on are in
excellent shape after 120 days. However, I will get the ocassional rig that is
flat unairworthy after 120 days. Student gear is a prime example. The stuff
get hammered by students landing in mud, getting drug down the runway, etc.
Aircraft maintenance schedules are set so that any descrepancy is discovered
before the descripancy becomes a safety of flight issue. Going to 180 days
could turn a little descripancy into a safety of flight issue. Meaning you
could bounce.
>6. Delete main repack cycle.
This one we could get rid of. Deleting this would not affect safety of flight.
That's why you have a reserve packed by a rated and certificated rigger.
>7. Delete Single Harness/Dual Parachute rule. This rule dates back to the
>barnstorming days when airshow freaks were wooing crowds with multiple
>canopy deployments from multiple containers mounted on
>multiple harnesses.
I agree that this reg needs to be restated so that tandem systems do not have
to operate under an exemption. The tandem manufacturers need to get together
to write a reg that still covers the SH/DP rule but allows them to operate
without an exemption.
------
Personal observations about parachute maintenance.
As an A&P I hold a very high standard to aircraft maintenance. I don't think
twice about grounding an aircraft for an unairworthy condition or an aircraft
that doesn't comform to it's type design. That's what I'm trained and paid to
do.
Unfortunately many riggers don't hold parachutes to this same standard. Go to
Quincy and look around when hanging out at the loading tent. I guarantee that
you will see at least one rig that is unairworthy.
Why is this? I believe that it's a mindset of "It's only a parachute." That
parachute is a system that comforms to a type design approved by a Technical
Standard Order, maintained by an appropiately rated and certificated parachute
rigger. There are only 5 people that can maintain aeronautical equipment.
Airframe mechanics, Powerplant mechanics, certified repairmen, the manufacturer
of the component, and parachute riggers. Parachutes are specialty devices that
require knowledge and skills that are not commonly available in avaition.
Hence, riggers are certificated in their own catagory. A rigger is no less an
aviation maintenance professional than the A&P who maintains a million dollar
helicopter or the repairmen who ply their specialty craft at a certified repair
station.
When you look at FARs, you are looking at regulations that are written in
blood. Yes, a human had to die to put that FAR in the books. This is
something that a Fed told me years ago during a seminar and it stuck with me.
I blew it off as a bureaucrat blowing hot air, but he's right. As George point
out, the SH/DP rule was written due to people dying. All the FARs were. So
when we decide that a FAR change is due, we must temper our emotions with the
fact that the current FAR is there for a reason and that reason may still exist
under certain circumstances. For example, the main repack rule. I'm sure that
it was needed in the silk canopy days but today one would be hard pressed to
even see a silk canopy much less jump one. However, extending the repack cycle
to 180 days may result in unairworthy gear being jumped without the jumper
knowing it.
I agree that Part 105 needs an update to current technology. However lets not
do it so that safety of flight is comprimised.
Till later
Hank Ellis
The Chuting Gallery
Purveyor and Maintainer of Fine Aerodynamic Decelerators
www.chutinggallery.com
Tim
GeneD5446 <gene...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971218011...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Regarding "My proposed changes to FAR Part 105, Sandy Wambach wrote:
>
> <<Here's another "proposal," George......
> Main bedsheets could be modified by anyone, regardless of his/her status
>>
>
> I say......
>
> IMHO, I think anyone who is folding or modifying a bed sheet, whether it
is
> single, twin, double, queen or king -- fitted or not fitted -- should be
able
> to fold or modify that sheet, if the sheet which are folding or
modifying, goes
> to the bed upon which they are going to lie. I am sure we have all
heard that old
> saying, "You've made your bed, now lie in it."
I don't usually lie in my bed, though sometimes I do... I usually lie to
get SOMEONE ELSE into my bed... but I fear that is another topic...<waiting
for flames here>
Tim
c-20037, CCR 1719
Excel Rep (Long distance 10 cents a minute 24/7/365)
GWGalloway
SKYMONROE wrote:
> One other change should be that Pilots should not have to notify the atc there
> in contact with that all jumpers are on the ground prior to getting a radio
> frequency change.
>
Next time they ask you (it's Atlanta Approach, right? or maybe Atlanta Center
above 10 grand?) respond by saying "Estimate jumpers down in X minutes". They want
to preserve your block of airspace for that estimated period of time. I am not
aware of any FAR which specifically requires that a jump pilot report "jumpers
down" to ATC. It is occasionally requested, though, but they might not understand
that the aircraft will land before the jumpers. In my particular geographic
location because of the mountains, I cannot even communicate with ATC below 3000
agl, and they accept my response "Estimate jumpers down in X minutes" as compliance
with that request.
SKYMONROE
In one way i agree.The problem is i'm still getting pilot rigs for gliders and
aerobatic that are in poor shape or are not taken care of between repacks. So
how would you propose riggers deal with that. The pilots of these a/c don't
want to learn to pack.
.
Main canopies should be left to whoever can should.
Agree wit pilots should not be responsible for weight limits on harness or
canopies.
Agree pilots should not liable for people jumping from their a.c.
TomBuch
>I am not
>aware of any FAR which specifically requires that a jump pilot report
>"jumpers
>down" to ATC. It is occasionally requested, though, but they might not
>understand
>that the aircraft will land before the jumpers.
Actually, read Pt. 105.14(a)(2)(ii): "...Advise ATC that the jumping activity
is ended for that flight when the last parachute jumper from the aircraft
reaches the ground"
You are correct that ATC is attempting to keep the airspace clear, and that
telling them "Estimated jumpers down in X minutes" will assist them in doing
their job. However, it is not just a nice thing to do, but is mandatory in any
controlled airspace.
-tom buchanan
D-8514
PP (IASEL,G)
Rrrrrrhino
In article <19971228021...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, tom...@aol.com
(TomBuch) writes:
>Actually, read Pt. 105.14(a)(2)(ii): "...Advise ATC that the jumping
>activity
is ended for that flight when the last parachute jumper from the
>aircraft
reaches the ground"
there is not a whole lot of "uncontrolled airspace" left guys.
ryan
d-14513