Asssiting Pilots in selecting emergency parachutes

[rmarshall234 14]

As far as material selection and construction go, and stagged deployment with cotton break cord and BAT slider, I've been particularly impressed with the Butler 450 Lopo. They demonstrated it at 345 lbs and 180 Knots. Seems like a reasonable choice for those Big Boys flying the MX and Extra 300's.

Does anyone have any personal experience with this rig? It may not be the fastest opening PEP, but it sure looks strong. I understand they make a 550 as well.

[sdctlc 0]

Quote

Quote

American Federal Air Regulations require aircrew to wear parachutes while participating in aerobatics, formation flying, testing flying or dropping parachutes.

Out of curiosity, what FAR's require pilots to wear parachutes while formation flying, flight testing, or dropping parachutes? As a pilot, I'm only aware of 91.307 which only requires all occupants to wear parachutes when carrying non-required crew members if the pitch or bank angles exceed 30 or 60 degrees, respectively.

Pursuant to FAR 91.307 (c), approved parachutes are mandatory for flight operations that will exceed 60 degrees of bank or 30 degrees of pitch relative to the horizon. The only exception to this is spin training administered by a CFI to a Flight Instructor Applicant seeking a spin training endorsement (this endorsement states, in part, that the Applicant has demonstrated instructional competency in spin entry, spins, and spin recovery techniques). Even though parachutes are not required in this special case, it is recommended that they be used nonetheless, if available. If you are engaged in spin training for any other reason, or if you'll be performing other maneuvers that will exceed 30 degrees of pitch attitude and/or 60 degrees of bank, parachutes are required equipment.

Though I don't have the reference in front of me, it is common to see Otter pilots not wearing a bailout rig. When asked about it long time ago I was told that the Bulkhead wall between the "cabin" and the "cockpit" precluded the need for the pilot to wear a parachute. Never really looked much further into it but someone might have a incite i to that "exclusion"

Scott

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[sacex250 0]

Quote

Pursuant to FAR 91.307 (c), approved parachutes are mandatory for flight operations that will exceed 60 degrees of bank or 30 degrees of pitch relative to the horizon. The only exception to this is spin training administered by a CFI to a Flight Instructor Applicant seeking a spin training endorsement (this endorsement states, in part, that the Applicant has demonstrated instructional competency in spin entry, spins, and spin recovery techniques). Even though parachutes are not required in this special case, it is recommended that they be used nonetheless, if available. If you are engaged in spin training for any other reason, or if you'll be performing other maneuvers that will exceed 30 degrees of pitch attitude and/or 60 degrees of bank, parachutes are required equipment.

It can be thought of the other way around: There is no time that parachutes are required to be worn on an aircraft; the only exception to this rule is that if the aircraft is occupied by anyone other than a required crew member then all occupants must be wearing parachutes if the aircraft exceeds 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees of bank.

The training exception in 91.307 doesn't just apply to spin training for commercial pilots, it applies to any training by a CFI or ATP for any certificate or rating, such as unusual attitudes for instrument training.

Required crew members who are the sole occupants of the aircraft are not required to wear parachutes for aerobatics.

In regards to the OP, there is no requirement that pilots wear parachutes when formation flying, test flying, or parachute dropping. I've never personally seen an STC that requires pilots to wear parachutes with a modified door open, so I can't comment on that requirement.

-

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[riggerrob 643]

sacex250

If you complete your profile, your comments will have more credibility.

[mark 107]

Quote

sacex250

If you complete your profile, your comments will have more credibility.

My profile is more or less complete, and I agree with sacex250.

What is legal is not the same as what is prudent.

Mark

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

WHAT TYPE OF ROUND CANOPY?

If your customer is one of those stubborn old fools ... er ... "antique airplane afficianados" who insists on buying a PEP containing a round canopy, the next question is: "How much do you weigh?" ... closely followed by: "How fast is your airplane?"

Round canopies for PEPs can be divided into four categories: military-surplus, 26 foot Lopo, warmed-over-wimpy-skydiver-stuff (quoting Manley Butler circa 1990) and modern high speed canopies.
The PEP business started with military surplus round canopies. Two canopies dominated the North American market: the 28' C-9 and the US Navy 26 foot conical.

The United States Army Air Force (precursor to the USAF) developed that C-9 during WW2, when it adapted an old, flat circular, silk pattern to nylon materials, doubling strength in the process. And did they ever double strength! US Navy test parachutists regaled me with tails about 600 mile per hour ejections that had C-9 canopies surviving, but the jumpers not walking straight for a few days!
But the old flat, circular pattern was not perfect. It had lots of loose fabric around the edges (skirt/lower lateral band) that vented air - at random - causing the canopy to osscilate.
The USAF's first solution was to issue pilots with hook knives and tell them to cut four suspension lines at the back of the canopy to reduce osscilations, while giving it a bit of forward drive and enough control to avoid small obstacles (think fence).
The 'four line cut" never proved very popular with pilots, so the USAF invented a four-line release system that is still the production standard today.

Early skydivers favoured UNited States Navy, 26 foot diameter concal canopies, salvaged from ejection seats. The conical pattern (try to picture a flat-circular canopy missing a few gores) speeded up openings and reduced pack volume, but - most importantly - reduced osscilations. Many US Navy concicals had four-line release kits installed at the factory, but pioneering skydiving riggers soon started experimenting with cutting holes - in rear gores - that vented air to provide forward drive and steerability. As soon as the US Navy discovered that skydivers were returning surplus parachute sto the air, the Navy started cutting the lines off of surplus 26 foot conicals. A few years alter, the United States Air Force started de-activating surplus parachutes, so that by 1980, it was impossible to find intact, military-surplus canopies.
Only a handful of PEP manufacturers (Butler, Para-Phernalia and Strong) were able to purchase new-manufacture C-9s to serve their heavier PEP customers or those that flew fast airplanes.

Given the shocking shortage of military-surplus canopies, several pioneering manufacturers (GQ Security, North American Aerodynamics, Pioneer, Strong, etc.) of skydiving equipment started manufacturing copies of US Navy conicals. Since they were made of lower porousity (say 30 cubic feet per minute) fabric, they became know as "26 foot Lopos." First-generation 26' Lopos were built from the same materials as military-surplus canopies and packed as bulky. When military-surplus containers wore out, Manufactures of civilian PEPs designed long-back (aka. chair) type containers to re-distribute the bulk to be more comfortable.
Most 26' Lopos came standard with drive windows covered by nylon mesh. And it was that mesh that created a huge problem in the late 1980s.

Meanwhile skydivers were demanding smaller and lighter equipment, to shorten the line-up for ten-way speed stars. One way to reduce equipment bulk was to use lighter materials and fewer of them. Fabric mills responded by developing ways to treat MIL SPEc canopy fabric to reduce the porousity almost to zero, (e.g Harris F-111 fabric with same strength and weight - as MIL SPEC fabric - but porousity of zero to 3 cubic feet per minute.) They also certified (FAA TSO C23B low-speed category) small-packing reserves for light-weight skydivers jumping out of low-speed airplanes.
Not all of those low-speed reserves survived high-speed openings with heavy jumpers!

During the 1970s and 1980s, demand for parachute fabric far exceeded the capacity of traditional mills, so skydviers turned to alternative sources - like the tenting industry - to provide mesh for drive windows. Unfortunately, tent mosquito netting was treated with fire-retardant chemicals that sometimes chemically interacted with heat and humidity and other coatings to rot out the canopy fabric. This led to the acid mesh scandal of the late 1908s, which grounded most light weight, warmed-over-wimpy-skydiver round reserves.
Only a handful of skydiving manufacturers (Free Flight Enterprises, North American Aerodynamics, Strong, etal.) stuck with MIL SPEC mesh and survived the acid mesh scandal with their reputations intact.

Now that many manufacturers have assigned 15 or twenty year "lives" to their products, round canopies made during the acid-mesh era are quietly disappearring from the PEP market as more and more riggers refuse to repack them.
Thank God!

Even before the acid mesh scandal, progress with round reserves stagnated. First, the new FAA TSO C23C set more stringent standards for drop-testing, which few low-speed reserves could pass. Secondly the acid mesh scandal forced skydivers to buy new reserves and most of them bought square reserves during the late 1980s and all of the 1990s. The other problem with TSO C23C was that it did not allow manufacturers to certify parachutes for anything more than 254 pounds at 150 knots. Which forced civilian pilots - of faster airplanes - to rely on C-9s or fly "illegally" with 26' Lopos. Keep in mind that the better 26' Lopos would survive openings with substantially more than 254 pounds at speeds much faster than 150 knots, but the FAA's lawyers could not understand those engineering subtlties.

When TSO C23D was introduced - during the early 1990s - it held manufacturers to minimum weights (254 pounds) and airspeeds (150 knots), but gave them the option of certifying parachutes to heavier weights and faster airspeeds. All along, everyone knew that Strong's 26' Lopos were "stronger" than most, which allowed Strong to re-certify their 26' Mid-Lite to slightly higher standards.
During the late 1990s, Butler developed a slider that allowed them to certify thier HX 600 canopy for 550 pounds at 170 knots.
Free Flight Enterprises responded with their Preserve 4 canopy - for PEPs - also certified to heavier weights and faster airspeeds.


In conclusion, modern pilots are limited by the top speed (Vne) of their airplane to chose between: low-speed, standard category or high-speed parachutes. Only light-weight (less than 170 pounds dressed) pilots of low speed airplanes (e.g. gliders) should seriously consider any round parachute certified in the low-speed category of TSO C23B.
The vast majority of PEP purchasers should parachutes (mostly 26' Lopos like Strong Mid-Lites)in the Standard category (254 pounds at 150 knots. Pilots who are too heavy or fly airplanes too fast are forced into wearing the few parachutes (C-9, Butler HX-series or Preserve 4) that are certified for faster than 254 pounds and 150 knots.

[sacex250 0]

Quote

If you complete your profile, your comments will have more credibility.

In what way? I haven't posted a single personal opinion, I've merely referred to the published FARs.

91.307 When parachutes are required.

91.111 Formation flying.

-

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.