Access to a Poynters Volume I?

[Shivon 0]

Hey all,

I'm doing some research at the moment. Can someone with access to a Poynters Vol I help me out with "10 items which should be investigated when assessing the quality of a round reserve". Thanks.

[councilman24 37]

I have Volume I (when there was only one volume) in front of me and don't know what list your talking about.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[Shivon 0]

Hmmm. Ok. Thanks. If it's not in Vol I, (and it's definately not in Vol II), I don't know where I will find it.

[BadDog 0]

I looked this morning and couldn't find it either.

[floormonkey 0]

Are you refering to the inspection form in section 9.3.10 (p. 357) of Volume II? It has 9 check points for the canopy itself.

There's also section 9.3.1.7.3 (p. 494) in Volume I, but it's not very specific.

[Shivon 0]

Quote

Are you refering to the inspection form in section 9.3.10 (p. 357) of Volume II? It has 9 check points for the canopy itself.

There's also section 9.3.1.7.3 (p. 494) in Volume I, but it's not very specific.

It's definately not the checklist in Vol II. Had a look at that already. It could be that reference for Vol I, I am not sure, I don't have access to it.

It's a general question, and I am not sure there is a specific answer. It's as simple as "what would you check if you had to make a recommendation on the quality of a round reserve". Ie, pretend that a customer has approached you with a canopy and wants to know your opinion. I have very little experience with rounds, but here's what I have so far:

1. Check for acid mesh.
2. Has it had a reserve ride? If so how many?
3. Measure the suspension lines and compare to the template.
4. Check if the particular canopy has a specific end-of-life date issued by the manufacturer.
5. Does the canopy comply with any rigging advisories (ie, required alterations) issued by the manufacturer.
6. Conduct a strength test on the canopy material
7. Check for any rips / tears, paying particular attention to the bridle attachment point and suspension line attachment points.

Any other / better suggestions?

[JohnJ 0]

I'm not sure whether you are running behind the facts (no flame please ) but in the netherlands The acid mesh test is outdated.
This test was designed to be perfomed at every repack cycle but due to the test, the quality of the mesh reduced significantly, and therefore should only be performed once.
If the parachute fails the acid test but pass the pull test (40 lb) it can be neutralized.
Surely if it fails the pull test, you've got a nice toy for the kids.

[Shivon 0]

Quote

This test was designed to be perfomed at every repack cycle but due to the test, the quality of the mesh reduced significantly, and therefore should only be performed once.

Ok, I have never heard of the mesh test degrading the quality (integrity?) of the mesh. Do you have details for a reference that we can look at?

Quote

If the parachute fails the acid test but pass the pull test (40 lb) it can be neutralized. Surely if it fails the pull test, you've got a nice toy for the kids.

I guess I see the acid mesh test and pull (material strength) test as things to consider in isolation, but I agree with what you have said in the above quote. In my list of 'things' to check, the numbering wasn't intended to mean 'do number 1, then number 2'. Failing the strength test means the canopy goes out to pasture, period.

Do other riggers out there still to the Acid Mesh test? Is it part of your training / exam qualification?

[JohnJ 0]

Monday when I'm back at work I'll try to find the articel about it.
But as I mentioned before this might be a national Agreement. (The Netherlands)
I didn't pay to much attention to it because we don't use any round reserves anymore (with mesh).

[JohnJ 0]

Oh yeah,
There might be on or two more things you want to take a look at when inspecting a round canopy.
1. Stains, rust, blood, insects and that kind of stuff can damage the fabric greatly.
2. if possible perform a porosity test. (those machines are far from cheap) (assuming it's a LoPo)
3. strength test on the ripcord (bend and pull).
4. Check the hardware for corrosion and bending.
5. Pilot strength 12 Kg (about 24 Lbs ) is the minimum.
And the list goes on and on and on but the words if and when would appear very often like does it use a diaper system, elastic opening bands, what's the fabric of the pack (biological or some kind of nylon) is it a chest type or a back type.

But again I don't know your regulations (the states that is) I've been working on military material in the netherlands only.

Thank god there's a spelling check on the forum

[riggerrob 643]

Canadian riggers are still supposed to test round reserves for acid mesh and tensile strength, but frankly, round reserves are disappearing so rapidly from Canada, that it is hardly worth the investment for new riggers to buy the tools.
My boss banned round reserves from Pitt Meadows - except for one or two visiting jumpers during the Provincial Championships - and I am mighty glad he put his foot down.
The whole acid mesh issue is a 15 or 20 year old problem on canopies that have fallen out of fashion.
Why waste anymore time on this piece of skydiving history?
On another note, Performance Designs may ask us to pull test their square reserves, but few Canadian skydivers bother. On the other hand, I believe that PD's policy is an attempt to prematurely age canopies. Pull testing fabric weakens it far faster than packing or deployment.
I have had to patch a couple of PD reserves where junior riggers had inadvertently done pull tests too close together and damaged otherwise good canopies.
Despite thousands of pull tests on a bewildering array of canopies, I have only pulled holes in three, none of which "looked" airworthy at first glance. The first two canopies - that I pulled holes in - were faded, frayed and filthy military surplus canopies almost as old as me!
The third canopy I pulled a hole in was from a long-defunct American manufacturer and was cut form two different bolts of white fabric. The first bolt vaguely resembled F-111 and passed normal pull tests. The second bolt of fabric looked more like sail cloth and failed several pull tests.

[JohnJ 0]

As far as I remember the Pull test still have to be performed in the Netherlands but the acid mesh is history.
I'm not 100% sure for that but I remember vaguely that it was a half useless idea.

But talking about old parachutes.
I've packed real silk parachutes (Bias constructed continuously biological lines) and a envelope system.
There was no Harness on them just one bundle of lines and a webbing loop on the end of the suspension lines (no not even risers) and a metal part on the end of the webbing to connect a drop-bag.
Never used though they used to connected the bag with a knot.

In WWII it was used to drop personal.
We used it to drop small packages of equipment.
Until somewhere in the mid 90's (damn that sounds way back already)
They overloaded these things (two of them) on exercise.
The envelopes were torn from there tapes and functioned like a revered slider (ouch).

At that moment we've grounded those antique things.
Actually we've send the remains to a museum

The moral of the story:
Those canopies didn't even have a single patch.
So who's talking about age ?
It's the way you handle the equipment.

Don't stress your chute, it might stress you much more.

[JohnJ 0]

Hi, Shivon,

As promised the article which I mentioned.
It's an article published by the "KNVVL", let's just say the Dutch FAA
My statement earlier in this forum was a bit incorrect but as said before I did remember it vaguely cause I just read it briefly for over a year ago because it wasn't our concern due to the fact we don't have that type of reserves.

Quote

Replaces SB 94-05 of 22 may 1994

Concerning Folding and inspecting of round reserves with mesh in vents.

Problem Unnecessary performing of the pull test on the round reserve with mesh in vents.

Background In 1986 the so-called mesh problem came to the light. Actually concerning only those parachutes that were fabricated in the beginning of the 80’s. By using a wrong impregnator (wrong type of mesh) a chemical reaction occurred, recognizable by acidity of the material of the mesh, with as result a significant loss of strength of the material and the risk of tearing when used.
On ground of that knowledge SB 94-05 was issued, in which was demanded that round reserves with mesh in the vents had to go trough a acid and a pull test at every repack.
Surely the concerned manufacturers took action to it and another type of mesh was used on the form then on manufactured canopies, which was tested thoroughly.
Going trough these tests they noticed that acidity also occurred by impregnators which are used when manufacturing nylon, with other words, there is almost always some kind of acidity indication, even with square reserves! The unnecessary pull test stresses the material badly. On the long run consequent testing can even lead to losing the airworthiness of the concerned canopy! (See also PM II, 4.032)

Solution All round reserves with mesh in their vents should be tested for acid with bromocresol, or hydrazine paper, if a green coloring occurs the canopy is acid suspected and a pull test has to be performed using the Method, like stated by the National Parachutes Industry. If a yellow coloring occurs then the parachute is acid positive and should be rinsed in a water and mild soap solution.
Before the parachute will be operational a acid test and a pull test have to be performed again. For these tests the following tools or equivalents has to be used.
2x LOCKING FABRIC CLAMPS (for example AEROSTAR P/N 51406) 1x SPRINGSCALE – 50 lb. (HANSOM- Viking No. 895).

Performing By a rigger / holder of a packing license.

P.S. Only use fresh Bromocresol; when the bromocresol is to old, or has been in contact with air too long the indication will be wrong. Also touching the location that will be tested with your hands will increase acidity.

This is a translation (at least I did my best for it) of the dutch article, for those who would like to see the article in dutch it was published in "de sportparachutist" of March 2003.

If anyone want's it posted here just let me know and I'll start typing again....

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Canadian riggers are still supposed to test round reserves for acid mesh and tensile strength, but frankly, round reserves are disappearing so rapidly from Canada, that it is hardly worth the investment for new riggers to buy the tools.

There are and will continue to be thousands of pilots rigs out there with round canopies that need to be repacked. Some of the canopies are of newer manufacture and would not require a test for acid mess but they should all be checked for strength at least yearly.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[JohnJ 0]

I'm not trying to offend you but ehhh, why ?
We've got almost 800 round canopies we never test them, but throw them away after 15 years (or 120 jumps)

We make equipment jumps with a total weight (person, equipment and gear) sometimes up to 140 Kg. (308 lb.) and we even make water jumps (NOT SALT WATER) this with the same chutes.
we never had any problems.

And as mentioned in the article the pull test will often do more damage than good.

[mjosparky 4]

You are a military rigger and I am referring to civilian rig. I see the rig 3 times a year. The rest of the time I have no idea what the canopy has been exposed to or how it has be treated. I pull test once a year. What would you do if you did know the history of the rig?
Our military also has service life time on canopies, most of which are a waste of money and good canopies.
Pull tests causing more damage is opinion, not fact. I know of no studies done on the subject.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[JohnJ 0]

You got a point there and surely you have to follow the rules which are demanded.
but I would have expected a line somewhere in the regulations stating that when a canopy has been exposed to any atmosphere it should be tested thoroughly.
If not (the riggers seal is still on the rig) just a normal inspection will do.
(this way the owner is discouraged to open it ).
Saves the rigger time (the lines ar not twisted no bugs or weird looking mushrooms inside, and the strength test doesn't have to be performed.
Thus it could be cheaper for the owner.

Perhaps I'm thinking a bit simplistic about this issue but we've got the liberty to act upon the situation using our common sense, of course our group is a lot smaller and therefore much easier to control.

[Shivon 0]

Quote

I see the rig 3 times a year. The rest of the time I have no idea what the canopy has been exposed to or how it has be treated. I pull test once a year. What would you do if you did know the history of the rig?

Thanks for the replies guys. Sorry it has taken me so long to get back.

In my country, round parachutes will be a part of the civilian riggers inventory for some time to come, and our parachute packers / riggers see quite a few of these during the summer months when glider and pilot rigs need to be used for competitions. In Australia the rule is 6 months for a reserve repack, and a lot of these rigs simply go out of date until they are again needed. For skydivers, it is rare to see one, but for packers and riggers, it is a common cycle that will last quite a few more years.

In Australia, we still demand that our riggers be proficient with rounds, and we apply this rigorously with our packer A (kind of like a senior rigger - sort of) and our rigger (kind of like a master rigger) examinations / ratings. We still require our riggers to perform the acid mesh test, and seeing how these rigs are treated (glider and pilot emergency rigs in particular), I still think the acid mesh test has utility.

My 2 cents. Again, thanks for the dialogue.