rigging65

Seeing as how the two of us have effectively hijacked this thread and no one else seems to be butting in, I'll try and keep this semi-brief. Hey! I resemble that remark! No, the issue is exactly how many times it has occurred...otherwise you're trying to fix a statistical anomaly. If you're going to go after a fix for every event that occurs, you'll end up fixing things that aren't actually broken, they are just things that happen by natural occurrence. No system is ever 100%, but you don't try and fix it until you're sure there is true glitch. A few events do not constitute failure, they only prove that nature can't be controlled. I couldn't agree more! But trying to use a system with known failures isn't a "reasonable" fix to a system with very few known instances of failure. I direct you again to my damaged band-aid analogy. If you're convinced you need to "fix" it, use something that's better...not just different. IMO, rubber bands don't meet that criteria. We can agree to disagree on that opinion, but you'd have to admit that rubber bands have their failings, yes? Would you get rid of airbags and seat belts because they damage people? People have been killed by airbag deployments, but I think we'd all agree they are the best system out there right now. Again, it's a terribly tragic occurrence when a safety system fails and hurts someone, but if you can't concretely show that it was a failure of that one, single item...and that that failure has a rate of occurrence in the real world...then how do you go about changing it? Can you prove that it was the Safety Stow alone that caused those failures? What about P/C size, bridle length, body position? Was the bag over or under stuffed? What was the airspeed? Were their similarities in the shape of the reserve tray? What I'm getting at is that there are so many variables, and so few failure instances, how do you know that's the culprit? I'm not taking away the choice. I'm just bringing to light that your proposed "solution" is to use a system with it's own proven failures! I've been known to tinker with making things "better" just to see if I could. But if you're going to go down that road, I think you need to do better than using a system that has known negatives to it even before you install it as a fix. At least if you're testing a brand new, fresh out of the box idea you've got the fact that there aren't any proven failures associated with it to begin with! Of course not. They haven't been around long enough to even get a good sample section off them! How many speed bag reserve systems are in use, and for how long, as compared to "standard" freebag systems? You can't quote positive results just because you have no failures in a short run. Come on, you can do better than that! Absolutely! I think we all want to see us keep trying, but we need to have something more concrete than an anomaly to go after and fix first. I certainly don't oppose mfgs. trying to better their products, but mfgs. can't get offended when the public cries BS and can give reasonable arguments as to why it's BS. I've been known to get one-tracked from time to time, but I always try to keep an open mind when I work on projects...even if I disagree with them on a fundamental level. I just hope you guys will try and do the same. Sometimes when everyone that surrounds you has the same opinions on an issue, it's easy to decide that it must be the correct opinion. Exam all the option, then examine them again! That, my friend, is the best idea I've heard all day! Guess I came up short on the whole "keeping it brief" thing, eh? "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Ummmm...I want to say it was a Falcon with like 800 or so jumps on it when it was "dipped". He also had it relined...which saved his back, no doubt. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

I've only actually seen one that had it done, but the owner reported a pretty significant recovery of the "original" canopy life. Not like new, he said, but not too bad for $100. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

No, why don't we continue the healthy debate here, so that others can benefit from it? That is the purpose of this type of forum, to spread ideas and let individuals draw their own conclusions. Your initial post used the word "always", something that I think is very dangerous to do when you're talking about the function of gear...even if you use the word "should" before it. You know as well as I that "always" is a dangerous word. IMO, you used it in a place you shouldn't have and I called you on it, that's all. And I don't think anything came out of it that I want to hang my hat on. I was with some very prominent Master Riggers at that discussion and their basic reaction was "whatever". IMO, it was a crusade spearheaded by Jump Shack to prove a point that they seem to hold basically alone. Kind of like those soft Teflon coated cables. That's what I got out of it. Perhaps you can enlighten us with long term facts? How many? Where? When? Is this an epidemic? Do you know something the rest of use don't? Please, tell us if you do!! Considering every rig out there (with the exception of some Racers) use a Safety Stow, and people aren't dropping out of the sky dead on every reserve ride, and that you can't know that every time a freebag comes down without it's Safety Stow it didn't do it's job and slip loose while preventing a bag lock, I'd say that, if there is a problem, it's certainly not large enough or well studied enough to constitute a change at this point. In our loft, about every third Freebag we get in after a ride is missing it's Safety Stow. Is every missing Safety Stow a saved life? Could be, probably not, but it could be. With this in mind, it's not a stretch in logic to conclude the Safety Stow could be one of the most used save-your-ass innovations on our rigs! Now, I certainly don't believe that that's entirely the case, but how do you know it's not? And if you can't be relatively sure about that, than how come you want to change a system that, for all intents and purposes, works 99% of the time to a system that has known, potential failures and that fails in the "real" world on a regular basis (bag locks with rubber band stowed lines)? Sure, the systems are a bit different, but why fix something that's not broken by using a damaged band-aid? No, I'm asking you why you want to trade a system that does not have a proven history of failure (Safety Stows) for a system that has several failure points (bands breaking causing out of sequence deployments, loop-and-lock bag locks, higher maintenance criteria, etc). I don't know, they might have a very valid reason for it, but why does every Container Mfg. (with the exception of one) use Free Stowed Reserve bags on their test and production rigs? It occurs to me, going back and reading what I've typed, that what we're really talking about is the quality of a stow band AND whether that stow band should be integrated into our last-chance system. If you think Mil. Spec. bands are the best for your main bag, I won't argue with you. I'm not convinced, but to be honest I don't care much...it's you main. I don't use stow bands at all on my main D-bag and I've proven (at least to myself) that line stows on your main are basically a mute point. Keep the lines in some order and the canopy will work. BUT, what I do take issue with is that we have a working system with a good record that you want to change for what appears to be the simple sake of change. It's not broke, quit trying to fix it...and if you do insist on trying to fix it, use a system with less failings! Thanks for making me think on this one Mike. Keeping my brain stimulated while looking out at our LZ through the rain is tough! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Don't misunderstand, I'm not condemning the use of the covers. I was just stating that they certainly do restrict pulling the slider down. Lots of people don't worry about their slider placement, but lots do. I've heard lots of different reasons for pulling the slider down...some I buy, some I think are BS, but the fact is, you should do what makes you feel comfortable (as long as you've thought it all out, of course)!

Because by using them, you inhibit the ability of pulling the slider down your risers. Which is one reason why they are popular...so lots of people aren't using them (the covers). "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

All I'm saying is that on two separate instances I heard, in the First person, representatives from Jump Shack stating that you "must" use Mil Spec. bands to be "safe" (Their words, not mine). Cool! Show me the hard data that shows that. Show me the data that over years and years of field use there is any concrete advantage of Mil. Spec. bands over regular bands. You'll first need that the inconsistent strength characteristics of "regular" stow bands somehow causes baglocks. Oh, and also that a looped-and-locked stow will be somehow "released" by a Mil. Spec. band... And why would you want that? There hasn't been a problem with reserve bags hanging up, has there? Why change the system that's working just fine? IMO, the ability for a locking stow to "break" more easily just invites an out of sequence deployment. The single piece safety stow stays put until it's supposed to release, is less prone to damage and is round, thus decreasing the odds of it knotting up...and has the added advantage of slipping loose if one side does hang up. How are those advantages matched by using individual stow bands....regardless of what they're made of? IMO, Common sense and good practice tell you that there is NEVER a reason to stow 25% of a 10-12 inch line length outside the rubber band, regardless of how strong or weak the bands are. You're asking for bag lock if you do. Two inches or slightly less for each stow, no more.... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Someone might want to fill NightJumper in on this sort of stuff....seeing as how Jump Shack is pretty sure Mil. Spec. rubber bands are the answer to bag locks.... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

...so, for all of you out there not using Mil. Spec. stow bands (which is probably 90% of you), be careful about how much line you let hang out of the outboard side of the stow. Anything more than about 2 inches and you're asking for trouble! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

With this many jumps, I'll almost guarantee you that the lines are out of trim by a considerable amount. It should probably be relined...whether this will fix your spinning problem remains to be seen, but it very well might and it certainly won't hurt! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

...as long as some electronic device does it for you, right? "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Good! I'm glad you're taking an interest in what goes on with your gear....!

Ok, thought I might have been experiencing a tryptophan induced brain freeze. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Keep in mind, paratroopers don't "run out" landings like sport jumpers do. Regardless of whether or not you think boots provide ankle support, they're certainly heavier and make running more difficult than a good pair of tennis shoes. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Didn't we do this one pretty much to death a few days ago? "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

It should be noted that this "squeezing the last lift out..." only works with big, lighter loaded canopies. Trying this with your 170 loaded at 1.4 is going to result in a nice, hard PLF...or a tweaked ankle. Canopies need airspeed to create lift. Sinking it in eats up a lot of this speed...which makes it tough to get lift. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

We do re-lines all the time in our loft...most often done by Senior Riggers. It's not hard to install a set, and there are always markings/directions to help you along. Some might. Most all the riggers in our area simply buy them from the Mfg. then install them. It's a lot more work to build a set than you might think. Not some much actually building the set, but the setup to build it is time consuming. To really do it right, you need to set up a jig with all the specific measurements. Based on T&M (at least in our area) it's also significantly cheaper to buy the set from the Mfg., as they can make them much faster than most lofts can...especially if you include your setup time in your T&M. I know this was said in a slightly tongue-in-cheek manner, but FYI, you can jump whatever you want...as long as your intent upon exiting is to land the canopy you are deploying as your "main". If you want to jump a bedsheet (literally), and don't plan on landing it, legally you must have at least 2 other canopies. The law states you must have one parachute on your back that you don't plan on using except in the case of an unforeseen emergency, and that canopy must be TSO'd (US rules). "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Another great, easy way to do it... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

Assuming you don't damage the handle as you're removing the stitching of course....Don't screw up! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

We designed (stole and modified) a reserve-side-accessible BOC system and installed it as an after-market part on all of our student rigs (Javs at one point, a few Telesis rigs, Vectors, and Reflex rigs). The design was so simple and nice that we ended up supplying some of the other local DZs with the kits for their rigs. They go on smooth as butter and are easy to get/build parts for if you loose a handle...and they work! (I speak from personal experience on this one...). Any competent rigger should have no problem installing one. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

It's entirely possibly that that's exactly what happened. In a general sense, rear risers won't put you into much of a dive. They will cause you to turn and, based on canopy type, trim, etc., may cause your nose to end up lower than it started...but none of this is anything compared to what happens with the same input given by toggle. It's also possible that you hammered it so hard that you actually caused a dynamic stall on that one side of the canopy, which would certainly result in a diving turn. The thing to remember with rear risers (or any riser input for that matter) is that a little goes a long way. Practice with them, A LOT, and you'll be that much more well rounded with your wing. The best way to get a flat turn out of rear risers is a slight input on both of them, then let up the side opposite the direction you want to turn (all very similar to flat turning with toggles). This causes an "up, then out" maneuver. Of course, you absolutely must know the input limits for the canopy you're flying...or else it gets messy. Real quick. Either move (flat turn using toggles or rear risers) is a God send compared to a toggle induced panic turn.... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

IMO, if you're just starting your obstacle avoidance at 15ft. you've already screwed the pooch (or been screwed by the pooch) so something is better than nothing...and since rear risers turns don't dive a canopy like toggles do, a panic turn with rear risers is less likely to kill you than a panic turn with toggles...assuming you know the stroke limit and don't exceed it and stall yourself out . Since you can keep you airspeed up with rear risers (more so than with toggles) and you can keep your toggles "at the ready" while still using your risers, maybe using them low isn't such a bad thing. I agree with you that it may not be your first choice (as it probably takes a bit more time to utilize than toggles would) but I'm not sure it's a "bad" idea to have it near the top of your list. Right behind "Avoid the obstacle early on so you don't have to avoid it latter on..." and "Be current your canopy's flight characteristics and how they can help you get out of a tight spot". Not trying to take anything away from your post...it's some great info!...this is just another possible avenue to save your ass. It's all knowledge, and it's all good! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

I've seen his happen at least a half-dozen times, on several different rig types. IMO, it's a good thing. If there isn't enough drag generated to quickly inflate the canopy, you're better keeping it in the container system. That way there is no way it can pop it's stows and start to inflate while you're on final...or have it's lines tangle around your feet and impede your ability to run out a landing (both of which I've personally seen). The original Reflex was sewn with "closed" reserve corners specifically to hold the bag in place until there was sufficient drag for inflation. The way it was designed, if you were falling away from the pilot chute, there was no restriction and the bag simply slid out...however, if the pilot chute was either at, or below, level with the jumper it would have to be generating enough drag to facilitate inflation, or else the bag would be held in place until either 1) the angle changed (ie- you cut away) or 2) that drag increased (ie- you cut away and increased your airspeed). Unfortunately, a couple of people bitched about how they could bench fail it because the bag didn't just "flop" out. They made a bunch of noise about it (without really consulting the mfg. about the design choice) and were publicly condemning the design in their region. It was a truly raw deal for FliteLine Systems. Incidentally, as any experienced rigger/mfg.can tell you, you can bench fail just about anything. In a non-dynamic environment, it's easy to keep things balanced and "in place". The fact is, the "real world" is dynamic and there was never any proof that you could total any reserve system with "closed" corners. Of course, as usually happens, it was more simple to change the design slightly than to deal with those too ignorant to understand the way the system is designed to work...even after it's been explained to them. So, that later model Reflex rigs have a slightly less "closed" corner, but it still does a relatively good job of making sure there is drag before there is bag extraction. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

All this stuff is really great.... IMO, an even better way to make a reduced-altitude-loss turn is by using rear risers. It's not so much how much (more or less) altitude you're loosing, but by going to breaks you're dramatically changing your forward drive, which can sometimes be very good.... ...however, this about this: If you go to deep (or even intermediate) breaks, you go both up and back (relative to other canopies flying the same slope as you). It's kind of the same as changing lanes and slamming on the breaks in the middle of a freeway while going 65 with traffic around you. By getting onto your rear risers, you're just changing lanes. True, you're going "up" (as relative to others), but if someone is in your blind spot (above and behind you), going to breaks may toss you right up into that guy. Rear risers, on the other hand, will lift you up to his/her level, but will keep you ahead of the other canopy, giving that guy a shot at avoiding you. IMO, Anytime you slow down a canopy in the pattern, you're inviting problems... Just $.02, but you might think about working on both breaks and rear riser work (both can be done the same way, but risers are more sensitive). Remember, practice them both up high...preferably with someone next to you for reference. Adding more tools to your tool box is always a good thing! Be prepared. Stay alive. "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

It doesn't matter how it's built, it has to be re-built to the same specification as the original... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..."