AD/PARA/16 Amdt 2 - Techno 240-B Reserve Parachute

The principal operative concepts in the text are applicability, mandatory technical corrective action (component replacement), method-constrained packing, timing of compliance (before use), and regulatory provenance (EASA/DGAC interaction). Applicability is broad: it captures every Techno 240-B parachute by part number and "all serial numbers" (Applicability). That phrasing establishes an equipment-wide mandatory regime rather than a serial-numbered recall limited to a subset.

The technical corrective action is narrowly specified: replace the slider and the steering lines as specified in Parachutes de France Service Bulletin BSV_06_001 dated 8 June 2006 (Requirement). The directive does not itself describe alternative technical fixes; it binds operators to the contents of the named service bulletin. The second technical constraint is procedural: the parachute must only be packed by the method specified in the Requirement document (Requirement). The combination of hardware replacement and a single authorised packing method treats both component configuration and pack technique as safety-critical variables.

Timing is an immediate and absolute constraint: "Before use of an affected parachute" (Compliance). That creates a pre‑use gating condition: no further use until the mandatory modifications and packing method are performed. The instrument also sets an effective date (10 April 2008) separately from the date of signature (25 February 2008) (Compliance; signature). The Background supplies the causal narrative: EASA determined unacceptable opening performance, rejected the manufacturer’s prior proposal (Safety Bulletin BSC_06_002 dated 21.04.2006), imposed an initial prohibition, later replaced by the manufacturer service bulletin solution, and then issued this Amendment 2 in response to DGAC AD F-2007-026 (Background). The text explicitly states that Amendment 2 does not change the technical requirements (Background).

A regulatory provenance concept is present: the directive notes changing jurisdictional responsibility, stating that reserve parachutes are "no longer EASA responsibility" and that the DGAC AD is now approved by the DGAC (Background). The directive thus references an external national regulator (Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile, DGAC) and prior EASA involvement. The names and dates of the manufacturer documents and regulatory directives are core cross-references within the instrument and therefore essential to understanding the compliance pathway.

Collectively, these concepts convert an identified safety defect into a two-part obligatory remedy and a packing procedure, with an immediate pre-use compliance requirement and cross-reference to other regulatory instruments and manufacturer service documentation.

The directive affects all owners and operators of Parachutes de France Techno 240-B reserve parachutes, part number R 01-240-B, across all serial numbers (Applicability). That includes private parachutists, parachuting clubs, aircraft operators that carry these reserve parachutes for skydiving operations, parachute riggers and maintenance organisations that service, pack or inspect such equipment, as well as any commercial entities that sell, lease, or maintain Techno 240-B reserve parachutes. The Applicability language does not carve out particular operational contexts; it applies to the identified part number and all serial numbers, therefore capturing both civilian recreational and commercial/organised operations where that equipment is used.

Because the Requirement mandates replacement of specific components (slider and steering lines) in accordance with a manufacturer service bulletin (Requirement), those entities that physically perform maintenance and packing , parachute riggers, certified technicians, or the manufacturer’s service centres , are operationally affected. They must have access to Parachutes de France Service Bulletin BSV_06_001 dated 8 June 2006 and must execute the specified replacements.

The Compliance provision ("Before use of an affected parachute") assigns a timing obligation to operators and owners: they are the parties who must ensure the parachute has been modified and packed as required prior to next use. The directive does not itself specify who certifies or records compliance; however, the practical burden of ensuring the equipment is compliant before use squarely falls on those who possess and use the parachute.

The Background indicates prior regulatory actions: initial prohibition, Amendment 1 requiring compliance with a manufacturer bulletin, and now Amendment 2 issued in response to DGAC AD F-2007-026 (Background). That regulatory history may affect manufacturers, authorised maintenance organisations, and national aviation authorities that previously approved or relied on EASA approval, because the instrument notes a change in regulatory responsibility for reserve parachutes away from EASA to DGAC. Entities that interact with regulators , for example to obtain approvals, to register compliance, or to wire compliance into training and maintenance protocols , will need to be aware that DGAC has a role in the current chain of approvals and that existing EASA approvals may no longer be operative for reserve parachutes (Background).

Finally, because the instrument prohibits use until compliance, individuals who plan a jump using an affected parachute but who have not ensured the replacements and packing method have been completed will be prevented from lawfully using that equipment under the terms of this directive (Compliance). That creates an operational interruption risk for operators who do not promptly implement the required changes.

The instrument imposes these key duties: owners, operators and maintainers of Techno 240-B reserve parachutes must (a) replace the slider and steering lines in accordance with Parachutes de France Service Bulletin BSV_06_001 dated 8 June 2006, and (b) use only the parachute packing method specified in the Requirement document (Requirement). The timing duty is strict: the replacements and packing method must be completed before any further use of an affected parachute (Compliance). The instrument becomes effective on 10 April 2008, so duties attach from that effective date (Compliance).

The directive does not articulate rights in the sense of an appeal procedure or a right to use alternative remedial measures; rather, it prescribes a single remedial route , the service bulletin BSV_06_001 and the packing method identified in the Requirement document. It also implicitly withdraws the prior temporary prohibition (not expressly re-stated, but Background indicates earlier prohibition was interim until an acceptable solution was achieved), replacing the prohibition with a mandatory remedial pathway (Background). The text explicitly says there is "no change to the current technical requirements of this Directive" despite being an amendment responding to DGAC AD F-2007-026 (Background), which suggests continuity of technical obligations through the amendments.

The instrument imposes operational constraints rather than affirmative entitlements. It does not grant an express right to a specific form of regulatory relief, deferral, or variability. It likewise does not include in-text certification procedures, recordkeeping obligations, or explicit delegation of who (for example, a certified rigger) may perform the work; those procedural details are left to the referenced service bulletin and the broader regulatory framework (Requirement). The textual silence on who may perform the replacements means practitioners must consult the service bulletin and applicable national aviation maintenance regulations to determine authorised maintainers, but such determinations are external to the document provided.

The directive shifts decisional responsibility to the operator/owner/maintainer to ensure compliance prior to use. The document does not specify an enforcement operator or mechanism within its text; it establishes a clear compliance requirement and effective date but leaves procedural enforcement and certification practices to the relevant regulator or operational standards outside the instrument.

The text supplied contains no explicit penalty provisions, monetary fines, or enforcement procedures. The operative paragraphs (Applicability, Requirement, Compliance) instruct replacement and packing "before use" and specify the effective date, but they do not set out sanctions, inspection regimes, or certifying authorities. The Background records regulatory history (EASA and DGAC actions) but does not prescribe penalties for non-compliance (Background).

Given that absence, two points follow directly from the source text. First, the instrument itself relies on the effect of regulatory direction: an explicit pre-use compliance requirement functions as an immediate operational constraint (Compliance). Practically, that constraint can ground equipment until the specified remedial steps are performed because use is prohibited unless the directive’s conditions are met. Second, the document’s lack of stated penalties means any enforcement and sanctioning mechanisms (for example, operator sanctions, civil penalties, or criminal liability) must be sourced to the parent regulatory framework under which the Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority issued the amendment, or to national aviation law, but such mechanisms are not stated in this document. The text signs and dates the document (David Villiers, 25 February 2008) and sets the effective date (10 April 2008), but it does not specify whether proof of compliance must be lodged with the Authority or how non-compliance will be discovered or dealt with administratively or judicially.

For practitioners, the implication of the absence of express penalties in the text is that one must consult the issuing regulator’s broader enforcement powers and local aviation safety legislation to understand the consequences of non-compliance. The directive’s categorical pre-use requirement, however, creates an immediate compliance trigger: use of affected parachutes is impermissible until the specified replacements and packing are undertaken. In operational terms, that constitutes the primary enforcement lever: the regulator or operational oversight bodies can and likely will prohibit the use of equipment known to be non-compliant. Any further sanctions, recordkeeping requirements or audit processes are not set out in the instrument and thus cannot be asserted from this text alone.

The instrument explicitly references, and therefore interacts with, a small set of external documents and regulatory decisions. It cross-references the manufacturer’s service Bulletins BSV_06_001 (the required remedial document dated 8 June 2006) and BSC_06_002 (the manufacturer’s earlier proposed solution, rejected by EASA on 21 April 2006) (Requirement; Background). It also references DGAC AD F-2007-026 and its predecessor ADF-2006-0160-E; Amendment 2 is issued in response to DGAC AD F-2007-026 which replaces ADF-2006-0160-E (Background). The Background also records that EASA had earlier determined the parachute’s opening performance was not acceptable and had rejected the manufacturer’s proposed solution (Background).

The directive therefore sits within a chain of manufacturer service documents and national/regional aviation regulator decisions. The text explicitly states that "Reserve parachutes are no longer EASA responsibility and the new DGAC AD is approved by the DGAC," indicating a shift or clarification of regulatory competence for reserve parachutes, at least for the matters addressed by the DGAC AD (Background). Practically, that means an operator or maintainer must consider not only the manufacturer service bulletin cited as the required remedial measure, but also the DGAC AD referenced in the Background for the regulatory context and approvals , the directive makes the DGAC AD part of its regulatory genealogy.

The document also notes that Amendment 1 required compliance with a new manufacturer service bulletin before further use, and that Amendment 2 does not change the technical requirements (Background). That continuity suggests the technical effect of the directive remains aligned with the manufacturer’s service bulletin approach, linked to prior regulatory directives.

Because the textual instrument itself does not enumerate statutory powers or enforcement processes, the interaction with national civil aviation legislation remains implicit: the directive was issued by the Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (signature block), and the Authority’s broader legal powers would determine enforcement, certification, and any administrative procedures. However, those broader powers, statutes or regulations are not part of the supplied text, and therefore cannot be described in detail here.

In short, the directive instructs compliance with a manufacturer service bulletin and references a DGAC AD and earlier EASA decisions. Those cross-references are the primary legal intersections evident in the text: the directive depends on, and should be read with, the named service bulletin and the DGAC AD, and it records the shift in regulatory responsibility away from EASA for reserve parachutes as relevant to this issue (Background).

The instrument comprises an amendment sequence recorded in the Background. The original action, according to the Background, was a directive that prohibited use of all Techno 240-B reserve parachutes as an interim safety action after EASA determined the opening altitude loss/opening time was not acceptable and rejected the manufacturer's initial proposal (Background). That original prohibition was an interim measure "until an acceptable solution was achieved." Amendment 1 then required compliance with a new manufacturer service bulletin before further use of affected parachutes (Background). The current text is Amendment 2 (AD/PARA/16 Amdt 2).

Amendment 2 is described as being issued in response to DGAC AD F-2007-026, which replaced ADF-2006-0160-E; the Background states that those earlier directives were previously approved by EASA. Amendment 2 expresses that reserve parachutes are no longer EASA responsibility and that the new DGAC AD is approved by the DGAC. Crucially, the Background explicitly says that there is no change to the current technical requirements of this Directive as a result of Amendment 2 (Background). The document therefore records a sequence: prohibition, then Amendment 1 implementing a manufacturer service bulletin solution, and then Amendment 2 aligning the directive’s provenance and approvals with DGAC AD F-2007-026 while leaving technical requirements unchanged.

The instrument includes administrative data: it appears with the identifier AD/PARA/16 Amdt 2, has the title Techno 240-B Reserve Parachute and a date stamp 4/2008 in the heading blocks at the top of the supplied text, and the signing Delegate is David Villiers, with a signature date of 25 February 2008 (header and signature). The Compliance paragraph sets the Amendment’s operative effective date as 10 April 2008 (Compliance). The instrument therefore provides the amendment identity, the internal chronological sequence of prior measures, and the effective date for this amendment.

No other amendments or subsequent changes are recorded within the supplied text. The Background confirms that the technical remedy required by earlier amendments remains in force and that Amendment 2 is an administrative update responding to the DGAC AD rather than a change in technical content (Background).

The supplied text contains no references to any judicial or administrative litigation, challenges, or disputes. The Background section discusses regulatory decisions and the rejection of a manufacturer’s proposed solution by EASA and subsequent issuance of regulatory directives, but it does not document any legal proceedings or litigation arising from those regulatory decisions (Background). The text names only administrative actions: manufacturer service bulletins, an EASA determination, DGAC ADs, and amendments to this directive (Background).

Because there is no litigation history recorded in the document, there are no quoted judicial determinations, case names, or adjudicated interpretations to cite. Any judicial or administrative proceedings that might have occurred in relation to the EASA determinations, the DGAC ADs, the initial prohibition, or the manufacturer’s actions are not included in the supplied text and therefore cannot be reported or analysed here.

Practitioners seeking litigation history should note that the document explicitly contains only regulatory and manufacturer references and no litigation records. To establish whether litigation or appeals occurred in any relevant jurisdiction would require consulting court records, administrative tribunal records, or the archives of the regulators mentioned (EASA, DGAC, and the national civil aviation safety authority). Those materials are outside the scope of the supplied instrument and are not part of this text.

Several practical traps and implementation frictions are evident from the text. First, applicability is absolute and broad: the directive covers the Techno 240-B reserve parachute by part number and "all serial numbers" (Applicability). Operators cannot rely on serial-number exclusions. Failure to recognise that scope may lead to inadvertent non-compliance.

Second, the Requirement references a manufacturer Service Bulletin BSV_06_001 dated 8 June 2006 and also requires use of "only the parachute packing method specified in the Requirement document" (Requirement). The instrument does not reprint the technical instructions; it binds operators to an external document. If the relevant service bulletin or "Requirement document" is not immediately to hand, operators cannot self-certify compliance from the directive alone; they must obtain and follow the manufacturer documents. That creates an operational dependency: compliance requires access to the precise manufacturer documents named.

Third, the directive mandates replacement of the slider and steering lines and, separately, a specific packing method, and requires completion "before use" (Requirement; Compliance). The combination of parts replacement and a particular packing technique may create supply or competence constraints: affected parachute owners need replacement parts and qualified personnel able to perform the replacements and packing as specified. The directive does not specify who is authorised to perform those actions, nor does it describe proof of compliance procedures in this text. Practitioners must therefore ensure they engage appropriately authorised maintainers as required by their national maintenance regulations, because the directive itself does not address authorised personnel.

Fourth, the Background notes that EASA rejected the manufacturer's earlier proposed solution (BSC_06_002 dated 21.04.2006), so operators should not rely on that earlier bulletin as an acceptable remedy (Background). The directive confirms that Amendment 1 required compliance with a new manufacturer’s service bulletin; Amendment 2 states no change to technical requirements (Background). This history creates a risk that older service bulletins or earlier fixes might be mistaken for the currently approved remedy. Practitioners should verify they are following BSV_06_001 dated 8 June 2006 (as named) and the packing method in the Requirement document.

Fifth, the Background records a shift in regulatory responsibility for reserve parachutes away from EASA, and cites DGAC AD F-2007-026 (which replaced ADF-2006-0160-E) as the triggering external measure for Amendment 2 (Background). That shift may create jurisdictional confusion for operators who deal with transnational operations or who previously relied on EASA approvals. The directive itself does not explain the operational consequences of that jurisdictional shift beyond noting it. Operators must ensure they are aware of which regulator’s approvals and processes apply in their national and operational context.

Sixth, the instrument lacks explicit enforcement, recordkeeping, or certification language. It does not specify whether proof of compliance must be lodged, how inspections will be performed, or what documentation is required. That silence is a practical gap: operators and maintainers should adopt robust documentation practices to demonstrate they have performed the replacements and packing method, because the directive requires these acts prior to use but does not prescribe how compliance will be recorded.

Finally, the effective date (10 April 2008) is later than the signature date (25 February 2008). Operators must note the effective date as the date from which non-compliance would be measured (Compliance). Missing the effective date could cause misunderstandings about when remediation had to be completed.

Compliance under this instrument is a three-step, document-driven process derived directly from the Requirement and Compliance paragraphs. Step 1: Confirm applicability. Verify that the reserve parachute is a Parachutes de France Techno 240-B Reserve Parachute, part number R 01-240-B, and therefore captured by the directive (Applicability). The instrument’s applicability language covers "all serial numbers," so do not assume a particular serial range is excluded (Applicability).

Step 2: Obtain and follow the required manufacturer documents. Acquire Parachutes de France Service Bulletin BSV_06_001 dated 8 June 2006 and the Requirement document that specifies the parachute packing method (Requirement). The directive does not reproduce technical instructions; it makes compliance conditional on performing the work "as specified" in the named service bulletin and the packing method document. Ensure you have the exact, dated versions cited: BSV_06_001 (8 June 2006) for component replacement, and the packing method as set out in the Requirement document.

Step 3: Perform the physical work and packing prior to next use. Replace the slider and the steering lines in accordance with BSV_06_001, and pack the parachute only using the packing method specified in the Requirement document (Requirement). The Compliance paragraph requires completion "before use of an affected parachute." Practically, that means the parachute must not be used until the hardware replacements and the authorised packing method have been applied.

Operational considerations that flow directly from the text: arrange access to the necessary replacement components and qualified personnel to perform the replacement and packing in accordance with national maintenance rules. The text does not state who may perform the replacement; therefore determine whether a certified rigger or authorised maintenance organisation must do the work under your national rules and the service bulletin’s instructions. Keep dated records demonstrating that the replacement and packing method were completed and note the effective date (10 April 2008) to confirm the timeline for compliance (Compliance).

Avoid implementing the earlier manufacturer solution BSC_06_002 dated 21.04.2006, which EASA rejected (Background). Instead, ensure you are following BSV_06_001 dated 8 June 2006, as that is the service bulletin named in the Requirement. Also be aware that Amendment 2 was issued in response to DGAC AD F-2007-026 (Background). Where relevant, consult the DGAC AD to confirm whether any administrative approvals or notifications are required under that directive; the supplied text records the DGAC AD as the external regulatory context but does not itself prescribe administrative steps.

Finally, because the instrument contains no explicit enforcement or documentation procedure, adopt conservative compliance documentation practices: record serial numbers, part numbers of replaced components, dates of replacement, identity and qualifications of the person/organisation who performed the work, and confirmation that the parachute was packed by the specified method. Keep copies of the service bulletin and the Requirement document on file. Those records will be the primary means to demonstrate compliance if questioned by an enforcing authority. The directive’s signature and effective date are included in the text (David Villiers, 25 February 2008; effective 10 April 2008) and should be retained as part of the compliance record (Compliance; signature).