Longer parachute repack cycle petition (USA)

[Eric Greenwell]

I just read in the October Soaring that the FAA will issue a NPRM in
response to a petition from many organizations, including the SSA. The
petition asks the repack cycle be changed from 120 days to 180 days, a
worthwhile improvement, I think. To view the petition and the FAA's
response, go to

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm

and enter docket number 21829.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Dave Martin]

Evidence to support this claim could come from NASA.
A recent TV programme showed details of the project
to land a probe on Titan one of the Saturn moons

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/index.cfm

The landing was controlled by parachute. They appeared
to perform well as the probe is now sending back data.

The journey took the best part of 7 years........

Dave
PS Some stunning photos on the web site.


At 19:48 28 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>I just read in the October Soaring that the FAA will
>issue a NPRM in
>response to a petition from many organizations, including
>the SSA. The
>petition asks the repack cycle be changed from 120
>days to 180 days, a
>worthwhile improvement, I think. To view the petition
>and the FAA's
>response, go to
>
>http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm
>
>and enter docket number 21829.
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>

[Dave Martin]

Further evidence if required of longer repack times.

My own club in the UK use sports parachutes made by
Thomas Sports UK and following negotiations with the
manufacturer the recommendation for club 'chutes is
6 months.

The 'chutes are stored in a warmed cabinet and inspected
before each days use. The are used on a daily basis
and as club equipment they get some rough handling.
Any faults and the equipment is sent for a repack.

This practice has been in use for well over 10 years.
Does it work?

About 4 years ago a member of the club had a problem
with an ASK 18 and jumped at around 1500 max AGL.
Eye witnesses suggest that is was lower. The chute
did its job and the pilot landed with no injuries.


The incident was documented as is the repack history
of the parachute, which incidentally is back in service.


Dave.

At 19:48 28 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>I just read in the October Soaring that the FAA will
>issue a NPRM in
>response to a petition from many organizations, including
>the SSA. The
>petition asks the repack cycle be changed from 120
>days to 180 days, a
>worthwhile improvement, I think. To view the petition
>and the FAA's
>response, go to
>
>http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm
>
>and enter docket number 21829.
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>

[M B]

Whether you are for or against this petition, I encourage
you to respond. I'd like to see as many responses
to this as possible which emphasize emergency chutes
for pilots/passengers instead of sport parachutists.

I'd like FAA to recognise clearly that choices for
emergency chutes for pilots/passengers is very different
from the choices sport parachutists make.

Sport parachutists are required to wear emergency reserves.
Pilots and passengers in aircraft are not (generally).
So cost reductions for solo glider pilots (for example)
mean more pilots will choose to wear 'optional' chutes.

Undoubtedly there will still be the Art Scholls of
the world who will still refuse to wear a chute. But
if even a few more are encouraged by lowered cost to
wear them, this may be significant. Of the 23,000+
aviation fatalities in the NTSB database, how many
would have worn lifesaving chutes if the repack cost
was reduced over 30%?

At 19:48 28 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>I just read in the October Soaring that the FAA will
>issue a NPRM in
>response to a petition from many organizations, including
>the SSA. The
>petition asks the repack cycle be changed from 120
>days to 180 days, a
>worthwhile improvement, I think. To view the petition
>and the FAA's
>response, go to
>
>http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm
>
>and enter docket number 21829.
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>
Mark J. Boyd

[Eric Greenwell]

We should wait for the NPRM to come out before making comments, as the
petition comment period is closed, and further comments probably won't
be accepted.

M B wrote:

> Whether you are for or against this petition, I encourage
> you to respond. I'd like to see as many responses
> to this as possible which emphasize emergency chutes
> for pilots/passengers instead of sport parachutists.
>
> I'd like FAA to recognise clearly that choices for
> emergency chutes for pilots/passengers is very different
> from the choices sport parachutists make.
>
> Sport parachutists are required to wear emergency reserves.
> Pilots and passengers in aircraft are not (generally).
> So cost reductions for solo glider pilots (for example)
> mean more pilots will choose to wear 'optional' chutes.
>
> Undoubtedly there will still be the Art Scholls of
> the world who will still refuse to wear a chute. But
> if even a few more are encouraged by lowered cost to
> wear them, this may be significant. Of the 23,000+
> aviation fatalities in the NTSB database, how many
> would have worn lifesaving chutes if the repack cost
> was reduced over 30%?
>
> At 19:48 28 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>>I just read in the October Soaring that the FAA will
>>issue a NPRM in
>>response to a petition from many organizations, including
>>the SSA. The
>>petition asks the repack cycle be changed from 120
>>days to 180 days, a
>>worthwhile improvement, I think. To view the petition
>>and the FAA's
>>response, go to
>>
>>http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm
>>
>>and enter docket number 21829.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[M B]

Whether you are for or against this petition, I encourage
you to respond. I'd like to see as many responses
to this as possible which emphasize emergency chutes
for pilots/passengers instead of sport parachutists.

I'd like FAA to recognise clearly that choices for
emergency chutes for pilots/passengers is very different
from the choices sport parachutists make.

Sport parachutists are required to wear emergency reserves.
Pilots and passengers in aircraft are not (generally).
So cost reductions for solo glider pilots (for example)
mean more pilots will choose to wear 'optional' chutes.

Undoubtedly there will still be the Art Scholls of
the world who will still refuse to wear a chute. But
if even a few more are encouraged by lowered cost to
wear them, this may be significant. Of the 23,000+
aviation fatalities in the NTSB database, how many
would have worn lifesaving chutes if the repack cost
was reduced over 30%?

At 19:48 28 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>I just read in the October Soaring that the FAA will
>issue a NPRM in
>response to a petition from many organizations, including
>the SSA. The
>petition asks the repack cycle be changed from 120
>days to 180 days, a
>worthwhile improvement, I think. To view the petition
>and the FAA's
>response, go to
>
>http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm
>
>and enter docket number 21829.
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>
Mark J. Boyd

[[email protected]]

For me this comes down to what is your life worth? Use that chute just
once and the cost seems to be no longer be a factor.

[[email protected]]

Quite right. We should be required to pack chutes weekly, just to be
on the safe side.

Of course, it's actually illegal to fly with an out-of-pack-date chute.
If we were legally required to pack weekly, then the practical reality
is that many more pilots might choose to fly without their chutes. The
result of a one-week requirement would not be that everyone would carry
better safety equipment (parachutes repacked recently), but that many
of us would carry no safety equipment at all. One pilot dead because
of a law like this would be one pilot too many.

We already have a law like this. The regulation currently reads, "No
pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for
emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless...it has been
packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger
within the preceding 120 days"

That's right: it is illegal to carry something that might be used in an
emergency. Before I lose the rule's supporters, I can suggest an
alternative that may satisfy their objections (below). However, I
really strongly object to a rule that restricts a pilot's right to be
prepared for an emergency. I don't much care about the fact that
there's an exception (the 120 days). The basic rule ("no parachute for
emergency use") simply philosophically and logically shouldn't exist in
the first place.

I used to be with a glider community where everyone repacked once a
year, or once every two years (taking grief from their buddies for
that) - but to fly without a parachute was considered nuts. Here, we
repack every 120 days, but if a parachute is out of pack date we don't
just say "you should get that repacked," we also say "and leave it in
the car until you do - you don't want to get ramp-checked!" My former
flying community would have considered that kind of thinking the height
of irresponsibility. So do I.

I want to clarify something here. I object to making it illegal - for
any reason - to carry a parachute under circumstances where it would be
legal to fly without any parachute. On the other hand, I think a
180-day rule (or 120-day, if we must find a collective way to keep
riggers busy) makes sense for flights where a parachute is required
equipment. Parachutes are required for aerobatics, and I believe that
reserves are required for skydiving.

I believe that for best safety the regulation should read something
more like "No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is
REQUIRED TO BE available for emergency use to be carried in that
aircraft unless..."

Meanwhile, those of us who carry parachutes, not because we are
required to but simply out of an abundance of caution can do so without
someone making the ideal the enemy of the good, telling us to go
without because we have done merely a good, rather than an ideal job of
repacking. We're being responsible when we carry a parachute, and more
responsible if it was recently repacked, not the other way around.

Cheers!


wrote:
> For me this comes down to what is your life worth? Use that chute just
> once and the cost seems to be no longer be a factor.

[Bob Korves]

wrote in
ups.com:

> Quite right. We should be required to pack chutes weekly, just to be
> on the safe side.
>
> Of course, it's actually illegal to fly with an out-of-pack-date chute.
> If we were legally required to pack weekly, then the practical reality
> is that many more pilots might choose to fly without their chutes. The
> result of a one-week requirement would not be that everyone would carry
> better safety equipment (parachutes repacked recently), but that many
> of us would carry no safety equipment at all. One pilot dead because
> of a law like this would be one pilot too many.
>
> We already have a law like this. The regulation currently reads, "No
> pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for
> emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless...it has been
> packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger
> within the preceding 120 days"
(snip)

About 20 years ago there was an article in Australian Gliding showing the
results of tests of parachute opening time versus time since repack. I
don't remember the details but the fastest opening times were found to be
at one year since repack.
-Bob Korves

[Jack]

wrote:

> I object to making it illegal - for
> any reason - to carry a parachute under
> circumstances where it would be legal
> to fly without any parachute.

But that would make sense.


> Parachutes are required for aerobatics....

Only when carrying non-crew members.

91.307(c) "Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing
an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft
carrying any person (other than a crew member) may
execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds...."


Jack

[Ramy Yanetz]

Right on! I think anyone in his right mind will rather fly with an out of
pack chute than leave it on the ground, so personally I don't understand
what's the big deal about the FAA requirements. Everyone can decide on the
repack cycle that suites them, as long as wearing a chute is optional. I
think the "risk" to fail a ramp check is much smaller than the risk of
leaving the chute on the ground. And as far as I know, flying with out of
pack chute should have no impact on insurance claims.

Ramy

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Quite right. We should be required to pack chutes weekly, just to be
> on the safe side.
>
> Of course, it's actually illegal to fly with an out-of-pack-date chute.
> If we were legally required to pack weekly, then the practical reality
> is that many more pilots might choose to fly without their chutes. The
> result of a one-week requirement would not be that everyone would carry
> better safety equipment (parachutes repacked recently), but that many
> of us would carry no safety equipment at all. One pilot dead because
> of a law like this would be one pilot too many.
>
> We already have a law like this. The regulation currently reads, "No
> pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for
> emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless...it has been
> packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger
> within the preceding 120 days"
>
> That's right: it is illegal to carry something that might be used in an
> emergency. Before I lose the rule's supporters, I can suggest an
> alternative that may satisfy their objections (below). However, I
> really strongly object to a rule that restricts a pilot's right to be
> prepared for an emergency. I don't much care about the fact that
> there's an exception (the 120 days). The basic rule ("no parachute for
> emergency use") simply philosophically and logically shouldn't exist in
> the first place.
>
> I used to be with a glider community where everyone repacked once a
> year, or once every two years (taking grief from their buddies for
> that) - but to fly without a parachute was considered nuts. Here, we
> repack every 120 days, but if a parachute is out of pack date we don't
> just say "you should get that repacked," we also say "and leave it in
> the car until you do - you don't want to get ramp-checked!" My former
> flying community would have considered that kind of thinking the height
> of irresponsibility. So do I.
>
> I want to clarify something here. I object to making it illegal - for
> any reason - to carry a parachute under circumstances where it would be
> legal to fly without any parachute. On the other hand, I think a
> 180-day rule (or 120-day, if we must find a collective way to keep
> riggers busy) makes sense for flights where a parachute is required
> equipment. Parachutes are required for aerobatics, and I believe that
> reserves are required for skydiving.
>
> I believe that for best safety the regulation should read something
> more like "No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is
> REQUIRED TO BE available for emergency use to be carried in that
> aircraft unless..."
>
> Meanwhile, those of us who carry parachutes, not because we are
> required to but simply out of an abundance of caution can do so without
> someone making the ideal the enemy of the good, telling us to go
> without because we have done merely a good, rather than an ideal job of
> repacking. We're being responsible when we carry a parachute, and more
> responsible if it was recently repacked, not the other way around.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> wrote:
>> For me this comes down to what is your life worth? Use that chute just
>> once and the cost seems to be no longer be a factor.
>

[Bob Whelan]

Ramy Yanetz wrote:

> <snip> And as far as I know, flying with out of
> pack chute should have no impact on insurance claims.

Some years ago I asked this question of the Costello agency (US - SSA).
Their reply was that flying with an out-of-re-pack-date 'chute would
NOT invalidate one's insurance. Expanding on the reply, they went on to
say violation of an FAR would (in general) NOT invalidate one's glider
insurance, UNLESS the violation had a causatory influence on the
accident. (How wearing an out-of-repack-date 'chute would do that -
well, in the absence of 'chute-induced-aerobatics - is difficult for me
to imagine.)

Not that I've had reason to test the valididty of what I was told, but I
thought the stance refreshing in its common sense.

Bob Whelan

[Nyal Williams]

At 15:54 30 October 2005, wrote:

<chopped out for brevity>
>
>We already have a law like this. The regulation currently
>reads, 'No
>pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that
>is available for
>emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless...it
>has been
>packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute
>rigger
>within the preceding 120 days'

What does the phrase 'available for use' actually mean?
If it is in the baggage compartment of a Cessna 172.
it isn't available for use.

I'm a lightweight (in most senses of the word); I need
the 16lbs for ballast. In my early days I flew a TG-3
with a military backpack chute turned around backwards
and with the straps tucked behind it. This was nothing
more than ballast/backrest, and it was not available
for use. Was this illegal? I don't think so.

As a former practicing bureaucrat, I think the regulation
has problems, but I do understand why it was written
that way. I'd guess it was a misguided effort to keep
people from procrastinating about re-packing.

As a currently practicing procrastinator, I know that
such a regulation will not prevent procrastination.
It probably does help a little in keeping repacks
current.

I could go on, but why confess more than I already
have?

[Robert Ehrlich]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> At 15:54 30 October 2005, wrote:
>
> <chopped out for brevity>
> >
>
>>We already have a law like this. The regulation currently
>>reads, 'No
>>pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that
>>is available for
>>emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless...it
>>has been
>>packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute
>>rigger
>>within the preceding 120 days'
>
>
> What does the phrase 'available for use' actually mean?
> If it is in the baggage compartment of a Cessna 172.
> it isn't available for use.
>
> I'm a lightweight (in most senses of the word); I need
> the 16lbs for ballast. In my early days I flew a TG-3
> with a military backpack chute turned around backwards
> and with the straps tucked behind it. This was nothing
> more than ballast/backrest, and it was not available
> for use. Was this illegal? I don't think so.
>
> As a former practicing bureaucrat, I think the regulation
> has problems, but I do understand why it was written
> that way. I'd guess it was a misguided effort to keep
> people from procrastinating about re-packing.
>
> As a currently practicing procrastinator, I know that
> such a regulation will not prevent procrastination.
> It probably does help a little in keeping repacks
> current.
>
> I could go on, but why confess more than I already
> have?
>
>
>

So if your parachute has not been repacked within the preceding 120
days, just put a sticker on it saying "backrest cushion, not available
for emergency" and wear it while being legal.

[bumper]

"Robert Ehrlich" > wrote in message
...
> Nyal Williams wrote:
>> At 15:54 30 October 2005, wrote:
> So if your parachute has not been repacked within the preceding 120 days,
> just put a sticker on it saying "backrest cushion, not available
> for emergency" and wear it while being legal.

And if someone approaches the glider on foot, while you are in the cockpit,
quickly disconnect the straps and tuck 'em behind you? (g)

bumper

[01-- Zero One]

I like the way you think. but it cannot be anywhere where it is
accessible. My understanding is that even if you are not in the
aircraft but have it on and are standing near it, they can cite you.



Larry

"01" USA




"bumper" > wrote in message
:

> "Robert Ehrlich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nyal Williams wrote:
> >> At 15:54 30 October 2005, wrote:
> > So if your parachute has not been repacked within the preceding 120 days,
> > just put a sticker on it saying "backrest cushion, not available
> > for emergency" and wear it while being legal.
>
> And if someone approaches the glider on foot, while you are in the cockpit,
> quickly disconnect the straps and tuck 'em behind you? (g)
>
> bumper

[Eric Greenwell]

Robert Ehrlich wrote:

snip

>> As a currently practicing procrastinator, I know that
>> such a regulation will not prevent procrastination.
>> It probably does help a little in keeping repacks
>> current.
>>
>> I could go on, but why confess more than I already have?
>>
>
> So if your parachute has not been repacked within the preceding 120
> days, just put a sticker on it saying "backrest cushion, not available
> for emergency" and wear it while being legal.

An interesting, but untested, suggestion. I would like to be standing
near that glider on the day an FAA person had nothing better to do than
look at glider parachutes! I think a sticker like that would be worse
than none at all, as it implies "I know this is illegal, but I think you
are dumb enough not to realize that". I can see a grinning FAA person
"accidentally" pulling the rip cord as he lifts the "cushion" from the
glider, then listening patiently to an explanation of why the "cushion"
has such unusual features...

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Ramy]

It must take a complete anal person to cite someone for wearing an out
of pack chute. Did it actually ever happened? Did anyone ever got into
trouble for wearing or using an out of pack or even expired chute? On
the other end, who knows how many didn't wear chutes as a result of the
hassle and cost of frequent repacks, and actually needed it...
Thank god Eric Larsen wear chute, repacked or not. Similar thing
happened around this time last year at the same area, but unfortunately
the pilot did not wear a chute.
If the FAA regulators were actually using their heads, they would
increase the repack cycle to 1 year and make it mandatory to always
wear a parachute. They should make trasponders mandatory as well, but
this is another thread...

Ramy

[Andy]

"the day an FAA person had nothing better to do than
look at glider parachutes"


It does happen but I think it's rare. One year at Hobbs all pilots
were ramp checked for parachute currency. I don't know what, if any,
action was taken aginast those without a current pack. Mine was
current as it always is for the first sanctioned contest of the year.

Andy

[Nyal Williams]

Not I! I don't think my argument was contentious;
I had the 'chute turned backwards in order to make
it truly unavailable.
I think this argument would stick, but I wouldn't want
to test it now. Things were a lot looser back in the
'60s.

At 16:18 03 November 2005, Bumper wrote:
>
>'Robert Ehrlich' wrote in message
...
>> Nyal Williams wrote:
>>> At 15:54 30 October 2005, wrote:
>> So if your parachute has not been repacked within
>>the preceding 120 days,
>> just put a sticker on it saying 'backrest cushion,
>>not available
>> for emergency' and wear it while being legal.
>
>And if someone approaches the glider on foot, while
>you are in the cockpit,
>quickly disconnect the straps and tuck 'em behind you?
>(g)
>
>bumper
>
>
>

[01-- Zero One]

It is my understanding that the FAA has agreed _not_ to ramp check at a
contest due to safety issues. Is that not correct, folks?



Larry Goddard

"01" USA





"Andy" > wrote in message
oups.com:

> "the day an FAA person had nothing better to do than
> look at glider parachutes"
>
>
> It does happen but I think it's rare. One year at Hobbs all pilots
> were ramp checked for parachute currency. I don't know what, if any,
> action was taken aginast those without a current pack. Mine was
> current as it always is for the first sanctioned contest of the year.
>
> Andy

[jphoenix]

Zero One sez:

"It is my understanding that the FAA has agreed _not_ to ramp check at
a
> contest due to safety issues. Is that not correct, folks?"

I haven't seen any guidance that says anything like that, at all. But
I'll do some research and see if I can find some, might be an obscure
order, or maybe a policy bulletin. If it exists, I'll find it. There IS
an HBAW that states what records one should bring to an airshow, but
that's not the topic here.

Regarding the issue of being violated just for standing next to your
glider wearing a chute with an expired re-pack - not likely. The FAA
must follow the normal rules of evidence - that is they have to see you
actually violate the rule or you must admit it to a Fed you did it, or
they must have some other sort of evidence that proves you violated the
rule before they can hope to enforce the rule. I suppose they could
prove it if the other three guys in the thermal want to write out a
statement that they saw you fly your glider with that chute on, etc.

Sure, some Feds might try it, but it won't make it past the Regional
Counsel's office these days. I'm not sure I would want to test it since
dealing with the Feds is no fun.

I hope we get the 180 day rule thing done, it sure would increase
safety and compliance overnight with no cost to the end-user at all!

Jim

[Bill Zaleski]

I have personal knowledge of, and personally know of an occurance of a
violation being issued, and a fine of $1,000 given to someone who wore
an out of date parachute in an aircraft. If it is accessible in
flight, it must be in date. If in the aircraft, but not accessable,
no problem. I take no stand on this. I only offer the fact that I
have personally seen a violation issued.

Bill Zaleski, Master Parachute Rigger


On 3 Nov 2005 10:58:28 -0800, "Ramy" > wrote:

>It must take a complete anal person to cite someone for wearing an out
>of pack chute. Did it actually ever happened? Did anyone ever got into
>trouble for wearing or using an out of pack or even expired chute? On
>the other end, who knows how many didn't wear chutes as a result of the
>hassle and cost of frequent repacks, and actually needed it...
>Thank god Eric Larsen wear chute, repacked or not. Similar thing
>happened around this time last year at the same area, but unfortunately
>the pilot did not wear a chute.
>If the FAA regulators were actually using their heads, they would
>increase the repack cycle to 1 year and make it mandatory to always
>wear a parachute. They should make trasponders mandatory as well, but
>this is another thread...
>
>Ramy

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Zaleski wrote:
> I have personal knowledge of, and personally know of an occurance of a
> violation being issued, and a fine of $1,000 given to someone who wore
> an out of date parachute in an aircraft. If it is accessible in
> flight, it must be in date. If in the aircraft, but not accessable,
> no problem. I take no stand on this. I only offer the fact that I
> have personally seen a violation issued.

Can you elaborate on the situation? Was it a glider pilot, aerobatic
pilot, or just a crew member? Had the violator been warned previously?
I'm also curious about how out of date it was, and if that was a factor
in the fine, which sounds quite high.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Greg Arnold]

Bill Zaleski wrote:
> I have personal knowledge of, and personally know of an occurance of a
> violation being issued, and a fine of $1,000 given to someone who wore
> an out of date parachute in an aircraft. If it is accessible in
> flight, it must be in date. If in the aircraft, but not accessable,
> no problem. I take no stand on this. I only offer the fact that I
> have personally seen a violation issued.
>
> Bill Zaleski, Master Parachute Rigger


Was this person a skydiver who was about to jump from the plane?

[Bill Zaleski]

No.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:00:11 -0800, Greg Arnold >
wrote:

>
>
>
>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>> I have personal knowledge of, and personally know of an occurance of a
>> violation being issued, and a fine of $1,000 given to someone who wore
>> an out of date parachute in an aircraft. If it is accessible in
>> flight, it must be in date. If in the aircraft, but not accessable,
>> no problem. I take no stand on this. I only offer the fact that I
>> have personally seen a violation issued.
>>
>> Bill Zaleski, Master Parachute Rigger
>
>
>Was this person a skydiver who was about to jump from the plane?

[jphoenix]

Right, he was in the aircraft while it was flying, right? Not standing
next to it?

No doubt you'll get fined if you wear an out of date parachute when
flying in an aircraft, but the situation described earlier in the
thread was while one is standing next to the aircraft. In fact, I can
sit in my glider with my out of date chute, but if I'm not flying it,
no violation has occurred.

Jim

Bill Zaleski wrote:
> I have personal knowledge of, and personally know of an occurance of a
> violation being issued, and a fine of $1,000 given to someone who wore
> an out of date parachute in an aircraft. If it is accessible in
> flight, it must be in date. If in the aircraft, but not accessable,
> no problem. I take no stand on this. I only offer the fact that I
> have personally seen a violation issued.
>
> Bill Zaleski, Master Parachute Rigger
>

[01-- Zero One]

Jim, I don't know where I read that. but I don't think I am making it
up.



Was it in an article in Soaring Magazine within the last couple of
years? It seems like is was an article about "knowing your rights in a
ramp check" or some such.



I just don't remember.



Larry Goddard

"01" USA

"jphoenix" > wrote in message
oups.com:

> Zero One sez:
>
> "It is my understanding that the FAA has agreed _not_ to ramp check at
> a
> > contest due to safety issues. Is that not correct, folks?"
>
> I haven't seen any guidance that says anything like that, at all. But
> I'll do some research and see if I can find some, might be an obscure
> order, or maybe a policy bulletin. If it exists, I'll find it. There IS
> an HBAW that states what records one should bring to an airshow, but
> that's not the topic here.
>
> Regarding the issue of being violated just for standing next to your
> glider wearing a chute with an expired re-pack - not likely. The FAA
> must follow the normal rules of evidence - that is they have to see you
> actually violate the rule or you must admit it to a Fed you did it, or
> they must have some other sort of evidence that proves you violated the
> rule before they can hope to enforce the rule. I suppose they could
> prove it if the other three guys in the thermal want to write out a
> statement that they saw you fly your glider with that chute on, etc.
>
> Sure, some Feds might try it, but it won't make it past the Regional
> Counsel's office these days. I'm not sure I would want to test it since
> dealing with the Feds is no fun.
>
> I hope we get the 180 day rule thing done, it sure would increase
> safety and compliance overnight with no cost to the end-user at all!
>
> Jim

[jphoenix]

I'll see what I can find. Might take a few days.

Jim

[chipsoars]

I believe Bob Wander wrote the article.

Chip F
jphoenix wrote:
> I'll see what I can find. Might take a few days.
>
> Jim

[[email protected]]

The article or post was by Bob Wander.

I believe it said the FAA has no right to do an unscheduled ramp check
on your glider. It recommended that you be very polite to the FAA
employee, show but not give your license and picture ID.

Then ask if he would like to make an appointment to check your glider.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Frank Whiteley]

RAS 1999 thread has a synopsis and some interesting comments. Article
doesn't appear to be available any longer on Bob's web site.

http://tinyurl.com/ab5rk

Frank Whiteley

[jphoenix]

I found it! In the Ops Inspector's Handbook Guidance (8400.10, Chap.
50, Section 1):

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8700/volume2/media/2_050_00.pdf

Paragraph A. (2) appears to be the answer.

A. Surveillance Policy. Airshows, fly-ins, and **other gatherings of
general aviation aircraft** and airmen
are opportunities for the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) to present a positive image to the aviation
community with whom we work and the general
public. Many of the aircraft operators attending these
aviation events are regular users of our air traffic and
flight service facilities, but their contact with Flight
Standards personnel may have been rare. Most of the
people who fly their airplanes to fly-in events and
airshows are aviation enthusiasts and hobbyists and are
not employed in the aviation industry as pilots.

(1) The FAA would like this important segment
of airspace users to have a very positive image of
inspectors and the safety activities inspectors perform.
Therefore, the FAA encourages inspectors to establish
early contact with sponsors and organizers of aviation
events so that informational and Aviation Safety
Program activities can be planned to serve attendees.

(2) Under no circumstances should these gatherings
be targeted for a blanket sweep inspection of
spectator airmen and aircraft.

(3) The scope of surveillance conducted on
aviation event performers and their aircraft will be
determined by the Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO) manager.

(4) Inspectors assigned work functions at aviation
events should strive to earn the confidence of the
attending and participating airmen. This can be
accomplished by displaying expert technical knowledge
as an aviation safety professional.

(5) The guidance in this chapter does not
preclude inspectors from taking appropriate action to
resolve situations they observe that require immediate
corrective action.



My colleagues tell me (I'm not a GA Fed) that they arrange a meeting
ahead of time for airshows when they do this. This policy would be
applicable for a glider race, but probably not when you're sitting in
line waiting for a tow on a regular soaring Saturday. There is other
policy in the 8400 that discusses a standard ramp check:

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8700/volume2/media/2_056_00.pdf

C. Common Reasons for a Ramp Inspection.
Ramp inspections may result when the inspector:
(1) Observes an unsafe operation in the traffic
pattern or in the ramp
(2) Is notified by ATC of an unsafe operation
(3) Conducts normal surveillance

Note item (3) above - a Fed can simply be performing normal
surveillance walking down the line and if he decides he wants to ramp
your aircraft, the guidance says he can. Normally FAA inspectors are
always performing required or planned surveillance according to a
program approved by supervisory staff. Normally, Feds don't just hang
around the coffee shop waiting for something to fly in.

As discussed in the guidance linked above, when an Ops inspector is
doing a ramp check and you are sitting there in your glider, he'll ask
for the standard AROW stuff and your certificate number. The 8400.10
does not say you can tell him to call you later, so I suppose you can
politely tell the inspector to go away and he or she might do so - but
you will get the call (or maybe letter) that requests you go to the
FSDO at your earliest convenience and provide the documents. I do know
that one does not normally have pilot or maintenance logbooks in one's
aircraft and it is normal to produce those at a later date - if there
is some reason for the logs to be requested.

Personally, in my experience, I would show the FAA guy my AROW, chute
repack card, etc, and hope not to see him or her again for about a
hundred years. I would not tell the FAA to go away and come back some
other day, because I know they will. If you are not in your glider or
near it, the FAA cannot open your aircraft to gain access to anything,
policy is very clear on this.

Of course there is lots more policy to read and in some places I'm
paraphrasing it and I'm by no means an official source of information,
I'm just reading publicly available guidance posted on their website. I
did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

Here's an excellent review of the subject of ramp inspections on Avweb:
http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/181845-1.html

Now I'm heading out to the garage to install my new Becker AR 4201 I
just bought from Paul Remde, and it will go right next to
theVolkslogger I bought from Richard Pfeiffner and just above the SN10b
I bought from Tom and Doris, and of course to the right of the ASI I
bought from Tim Mara (that I could afford because I sold my 1-26E on
the Wings and Wheels Want Ads in 2 days!) Next I'll need an ACK-450
ELT - who will have the best price and service? [whoop whoop - thread
hijack alert]

[01-- Zero One]

You da man! Whew! I was beginning to think that I had just imagined
all this!



Larry Goddard

"01" USA





"jphoenix" > wrote in message
oups.com:

> I found it! In the Ops Inspector's Handbook Guidance (8400.10, Chap.
> 50, Section 1):
>
> http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8700/volume2/media/2_050_00.pdf
>
> Paragraph A. (2) appears to be the answer.
>
> A. Surveillance Policy. Airshows, fly-ins, and **other gatherings of
> general aviation aircraft** and airmen
> are opportunities for the Federal Aviation Administration
> (FAA) to present a positive image to the aviation
> community with whom we work and the general
> public. Many of the aircraft operators attending these
> aviation events are regular users of our air traffic and
> flight service facilities, but their contact with Flight
> Standards personnel may have been rare. Most of the
> people who fly their airplanes to fly-in events and
> airshows are aviation enthusiasts and hobbyists and are
> not employed in the aviation industry as pilots.
>
> (1) The FAA would like this important segment
> of airspace users to have a very positive image of
> inspectors and the safety activities inspectors perform.
> Therefore, the FAA encourages inspectors to establish
> early contact with sponsors and organizers of aviation
> events so that informational and Aviation Safety
> Program activities can be planned to serve attendees.
>
> (2) Under no circumstances should these gatherings
> be targeted for a blanket sweep inspection of
> spectator airmen and aircraft.
>
> (3) The scope of surveillance conducted on
> aviation event performers and their aircraft will be
> determined by the Flight Standards District Office
> (FSDO) manager.
>
> (4) Inspectors assigned work functions at aviation
> events should strive to earn the confidence of the
> attending and participating airmen. This can be
> accomplished by displaying expert technical knowledge
> as an aviation safety professional.
>
> (5) The guidance in this chapter does not
> preclude inspectors from taking appropriate action to
> resolve situations they observe that require immediate
> corrective action.
>
>
>
> My colleagues tell me (I'm not a GA Fed) that they arrange a meeting
> ahead of time for airshows when they do this. This policy would be
> applicable for a glider race, but probably not when you're sitting in
> line waiting for a tow on a regular soaring Saturday. There is other
> policy in the 8400 that discusses a standard ramp check:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8700/volume2/media/2_056_00.pdf
>
> C. Common Reasons for a Ramp Inspection.
> Ramp inspections may result when the inspector:
> (1) Observes an unsafe operation in the traffic
> pattern or in the ramp
> (2) Is notified by ATC of an unsafe operation
> (3) Conducts normal surveillance
>
> Note item (3) above - a Fed can simply be performing normal
> surveillance walking down the line and if he decides he wants to ramp
> your aircraft, the guidance says he can. Normally FAA inspectors are
> always performing required or planned surveillance according to a
> program approved by supervisory staff. Normally, Feds don't just hang
> around the coffee shop waiting for something to fly in.
>
> As discussed in the guidance linked above, when an Ops inspector is
> doing a ramp check and you are sitting there in your glider, he'll ask
> for the standard AROW stuff and your certificate number. The 8400.10
> does not say you can tell him to call you later, so I suppose you can
> politely tell the inspector to go away and he or she might do so - but
> you will get the call (or maybe letter) that requests you go to the
> FSDO at your earliest convenience and provide the documents. I do know
> that one does not normally have pilot or maintenance logbooks in one's
> aircraft and it is normal to produce those at a later date - if there
> is some reason for the logs to be requested.
>
> Personally, in my experience, I would show the FAA guy my AROW, chute
> repack card, etc, and hope not to see him or her again for about a
> hundred years. I would not tell the FAA to go away and come back some
> other day, because I know they will. If you are not in your glider or
> near it, the FAA cannot open your aircraft to gain access to anything,
> policy is very clear on this.
>
> Of course there is lots more policy to read and in some places I'm
> paraphrasing it and I'm by no means an official source of information,
> I'm just reading publicly available guidance posted on their website. I
> did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.
>
> Here's an excellent review of the subject of ramp inspections on Avweb:
> http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/181845-1.html
>
> Now I'm heading out to the garage to install my new Becker AR 4201 I
> just bought from Paul Remde, and it will go right next to
> theVolkslogger I bought from Richard Pfeiffner and just above the SN10b
> I bought from Tom and Doris, and of course to the right of the ASI I
> bought from Tim Mara (that I could afford because I sold my 1-26E on
> the Wings and Wheels Want Ads in 2 days!) Next I'll need an ACK-450
> ELT - who will have the best price and service? [whoop whoop - thread
> hijack alert]

[Bob Korves]

"jphoenix" > wrote in
oups.com:

> I found it! In the Ops Inspector's Handbook Guidance (8400.10, Chap.
> 50, Section 1):


About 10 years ago we were having a fun contest for training purposes. I
asked the boyfriend of one of the pilots, a person that nobody knew and an
ex-cop, to impersonate a FAA inspector and put on a ramp check after the
gliders were staged.

He asked each of the 20-25 pilots in attendence for Pilot's License,
Registration, Airworthiness Certificate (visible at the entrance to the
aircraft), Weight and Balance, and parachute pack date. He wrote down N
numbers and pilot certificate numbers. He had all the pilots stammering
and blithering. Of course, almost no one had all the items required (these
are glider pilots after all!) and no one asked to see his credentials, or
even noticed that the FAA tag on his cap was made of paper! We all
discussed it later at the BBQ and were better prepared for the next time it
might happen. It was instructive for all...

About 25 years ago I watched 2 FAA inpectors ramp check every aircraft that
came to the fuel pumps at a busy general aviation airport. They busted
many owners that day but I don't think anyone had formal charges against
them.

I'm glad that we have a "kinder and friendlier" FAA now.

Do you have a compass correction card in your glider? ;-)
-Bob Korves

[01-- Zero One]

Hmmmm?! And you're still alive? Amazing!











"business" "Bob Korves" <bkorves@winfirstDECIMALcom> wrote in message
. 44:

> "jphoenix" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> > I found it! In the Ops Inspector's Handbook Guidance (8400.10, Chap.
> > 50, Section 1):
>
>
> About 10 years ago we were having a fun contest for training purposes. I
> asked the boyfriend of one of the pilots, a person that nobody knew and an
> ex-cop, to impersonate a FAA inspector and put on a ramp check after the
> gliders were staged.
>
> He asked each of the 20-25 pilots in attendence for Pilot's License,
> Registration, Airworthiness Certificate (visible at the entrance to the
> aircraft), Weight and Balance, and parachute pack date. He wrote down N
> numbers and pilot certificate numbers. He had all the pilots stammering
> and blithering. Of course, almost no one had all the items required (these
> are glider pilots after all!) and no one asked to see his credentials, or
> even noticed that the FAA tag on his cap was made of paper! We all
> discussed it later at the BBQ and were better prepared for the next time it
> might happen. It was instructive for all...
>
> About 25 years ago I watched 2 FAA inpectors ramp check every aircraft that
> came to the fuel pumps at a busy general aviation airport. They busted
> many owners that day but I don't think anyone had formal charges against
> them.
>
> I'm glad that we have a "kinder and friendlier" FAA now.
>
> Do you have a compass correction card in your glider? ;-)
> -Bob Korves