RogerRamjet

I don't know when or why, but I do know that the Golden Knights practiced for a week at Z-Hills in 1973 and again in 1974 and we were not allowed to jump their aircraft. They said it was a military rule. ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

26 in 1000??? Holy cutaway Batman, that is a high percentage. I had 1 in my 1000 dives (1 in 350 for rounds) which I thought was about average. I remember Jeff Searles had 1 in 2000 and that one was his own fault for not tieing his new pilot chute to his depoyment sleeve The worst average I remember was Bill Osepchuck (well that's the way it sounds anyway, you can spell it for me) who had 13 in his first 100. Of course Steve Fugelburg had a rash there for a while when he cut down his PC deployment bag (and rig) and rolled the thing so tightly that it maled about 1 in 5 jumps... What's your excuse? ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

I had one on my Ten High Bunch suit when I was on Jim Hooper's team. Suit and patch long gone somewhere.... ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

I'll bet my signature is on the packing card

Steve Sutton. You should know. See http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2604649;search_string=Steve%20Sutton;#2604649 HW Yeah, that's him! Thanks Howard, I knew that thread was out there somewhere, but not how to find it Sometimers.... No one ever replied to my question about if Steve still lives, do you happen to know? ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

I jumped one at Z-Hills. Don't really remember if the opening was "firm" or not, but I only weighed 135lbs then and it was a hop and pop. I remember it flew pretty nicely and landed nicely as well (of course the only other square I'd jumped at the time was a Para Plane). The split tail was interesting. For a while there, they called me Roger Ramair because I jumped every square I could borrow. Para Plane, Sled, Foil, Cloud were among those I got my hands on. We also had a Canadian (Steve something) down one summer who was doing a bunch of venting mod testing on various square canopies. I have no idea where he got some of them from, but several of us took a tow ride on a 400sq ft canopy he had with a 1000 feet of line. It took some time for me at 135lbs to decend after being towed up. What fun! ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

I hope you're not jumping from Skyvan's then, they have the same characteristics as the Loadstar did (Bill Buchmann told me this and has flown jumpers in both). They have a line painted in the Deland Skyvan for this reason. Flying the Loadstar safely (or the skyvan) is about having the right pilot and CG management. Part of CG management for the Loadstar was having the landing gear down on jump run. Bill told me it makes about a 6 ft difference in where 500lbs of wheels and struts are. I believe at least one of the fatal Loadstar events involved non-extended gear on jump run. ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

I agree with many of the responses here, especially Terry's. Here is another bit of food for thought. Look through these forums and find the many posts on "My first cutaway" or "My first malfunction" or "My first chop." Read the posts and you will have a hard time finding any posts about the reserve at all. They talk of the mal and how the cutaway went, but for the most part, the reserve ride and landing are simply not mentioned. I believe this is because they were not an issue. If you can fly your main, you can fly your reserve. I did two intentional cutaways at around 200 jumps. Both on rigs that allowed a front mounted reserve (in those days, the reserves were round, so a front mounted reserve with no pilot chute was used for intentionals). I didn't even consider (and would never consider) doing an intentional cutaway with just my regular gear. You are betting your life that your reserve won't mal. As other posters have said here, if you just want to see how your reserve flys, get a demo and jump it as your main. ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

Larry! I always wondered what happened to you. Great to see you posting here! And... welcome back! You will certainly see a few other Z-Hills oldies posting around here from time to time as well. Even Hooper who posted a terrific piece in this forum not too long ago that you would enjoy reading. ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

Since my memory is no better than anyone else's from that far back, I emailed Jim Hooper to get his recollection on it. Here is his replay (with his permission): Even with that, I don't see that static line did any better than current methods (I realize SL is still available at some DZs). I think Jim's theory about who skydives has merit in this context. ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

It was? I worked at one of the largest commercial dropzones in the world in 1973/74, Z-Hills. We had as many as 40 students a day on the weekends. The retention rate for more than one jump was slightly more than 1 in 100. More than 100 jumps was 1 of the remaining 100 from the first group. From my first jump course of approx 20 students, I'm the only one to make more than 10 jumps. Is the current system worse than that? ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

Larry Gossler of Z-Hills fame? ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

Hmmm, how much did you guys weigh when you were jumping cheapos? I weighed 135lbs and stood up my C9 every time. The only thing that changed when I got my Strato-Star was that I didn't have to use both feet for my standups anymore Now I weigh 185lbs and think a C9 landing might not result in a stand up, or if I tried to stand it up, might not be standing up for a good while afterwards I had a pull down centerline in mine which seemed to help some with both drive (and I use the term loosely) and decent rate. The one time I had to use my 26' Navy Conical reserve, I stood that up too. ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

Yeah, I was expecting to hear from you again. I apologize for what I said, after re-reading the post, I realized you were attacking the argument and not me. I still personally believe it's long enough now. I have never seen an example to support the added wear argument and I still think unseen things can happen such as punctures from the outside, chemical intrusion, whatever... I can't say anything bad happened when it went from 60 to 120 days, and maybe 180 would be fine. But... if there is something wrong inside my reserve container, I like the odds of discovery before disaster better with a more frequent cycle. You could make a formula of cycle time/ jumps. If you make a jump a day, (and assuming a fatal error or damage in your reserve), would you rather make 120 jumps or 180. Do your odds of a mal or wrap change with jump frequency? Just food for thought... then why not repack your reserve every night if that is the argument? (just playing devils advocate here) I like it I can repack mine every night if I like, but I'm a rigger. Seems like the idea is to find a balance between likely issues and how much time to allow for them. I certainly agree that in a pristine environment with current materials in use, you could repack every two years or even a longer cycle. In the real world, if it exists, things can happen in the trunks of cars, getting into and out of aircraft, etc., that might not be detected by anything but a repack. I can see both sides of the argument, I just feel more comfortable on the conservative side when it comes to safety and especially when it comes down to my last parachute... ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

Yeah, I was expecting to hear from you again. I apologize for what I said, after re-reading the post, I realized you were attacking the argument and not me. I still personally believe it's long enough now. I have never seen an example to support the added wear argument and I still think unseen things can happen such as punctures from the outside, chemical intrusion, whatever... I can't say anything bad happened when it went from 60 to 120 days, and maybe 180 would be fine. But... if there is something wrong inside my reserve container, I like the odds of discovery before disaster better with a more frequent cycle. You could make a formula of cycle time/ jumps. If you make a jump a day, (and assuming a fatal error or damage in your reserve), would you rather make 120 jumps or 180. Do your odds of a mal or wrap change with jump frequency? Just food for thought... ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

Only four people saw this rig. Jeff Searles who owned Z-Hills Commercial Center at the time, Jim Hooper who was ASO, the rigger who packed the rig who happened to be attending the meet, and me. It was decided not to alert the owner. Jeff and/or Jim may have reported the incident to the FAA or not, I do not know and I left that to them. ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

Honestly, i don't see many rigs manufactured before the 90's. I had to pack an old military rig during my rigging class 5 years ago, but thats the only time i ever dealt with an "old" rig. Thanks for answering my question.

Does this issue make you want to have rigs repacked more often than 120 days or longer than 120 days? Just think, a rigger is human and can make mistakes which you could be jumping. Of course you would rather not have to jump a riggers mistake, but if you were, would you rather jump it for 120 days or 180 days? the answer is: doesn't matter. More or less repacks does not affect error rate of riggers. if you got a bad reserve repacked, there is the same amount of chance that it would be repacked incorrectly the next time. I think it does matter. The shorter repack cycle makes it more likely the error is found before you have to use your reserve. I kinda like that idea. The shorter repack cycle means that there are more opportunities to make a mistake because the rig has to get packed more times every year. That argument works both ways and it is pretty stupid. I always use the same rigger because it is a person that I trust to not make the type of mistake that would kill me. The good argument is that, the more times the reserve is repacked is the more wear put on the reserve. The H/C wear is affected only by how much and where you jump. You're entitled to your opinion though I don't appreciate the personal attack. I did a repack for a young lady with a pop-top style reserve once and when I fired the reserve, the pilot chute went to full extension as expected. What was not expected was to find the 4 temporary pins still in the reserve (hidden under the pilot chute cap). If not for the repack cycle, would that have been found prior to a fatality? I will agree that repacks do cause some wear (very little IMO) and that is a valid argument for a longer cycle. However, there are a number of factors that weigh in on the other side like unforeseen (and unseen) issues like chemicals spilled on the reserve, things puncturing the container/reserve where it's not obvious, etc. As a rigger and having worked for multiple manufacturers, I have seen some pretty bizarre things that makes me hesitant to recommend a longer cycle than currently exists. YMMV ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

Does this issue make you want to have rigs repacked more often than 120 days or longer than 120 days? Just think, a rigger is human and can make mistakes which you could be jumping. Of course you would rather not have to jump a riggers mistake, but if you were, would you rather jump it for 120 days or 180 days? the answer is: doesn't matter. More or less repacks does not affect error rate of riggers. if you got a bad reserve repacked, there is the same amount of chance that it would be repacked incorrectly the next time. I think it does matter. The shorter repack cycle makes it more likely the error is found before you have to use your reserve. I kinda like that idea. ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

Interesting, I consider my eyes my primary altimeter and the mechanical devices the backups... So far my eyes have never failed me while the mechanical devices have failed a couple of times... ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

I defer to your intimate knowledge of the early rigs. The first one I ever came across had the bungie loop on it. As I said: JerryBaumchen Maybe Bill will come across this and offer up some more knowledge (where is he when we need him ) What I would like to know is what do you need a bungee hesitator loop for? ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

I'm pretty late coming to this party, but I finally ran across this thread today. I agree with everything in that portion of your post that I quoted except about the bungee hesitator loop. The original Wonderhog reserve section was built (except for shape) exactly like any other reserve container of the times. It had loops on the floor for rubber bands to hold the line stows, grommets in the flaps through which passed gutted 550 for pin closure (plastic rod originally, then changed to standard steel cord with pins after a death in Casa Grande blamed on a broken plastic ripcord). You stowed the lines in the rubber bands, folded the canopy onto that, placed a kicker plate, compressed the (not supplied) MA-1 pilot chute onto it and closed the flaps over it. bungee hesitator loops and the other enhancements you mention came later (after number 125 at least). ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

Case in point: http://manifestmaster.com/video/floating_ripcord.wmv ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519

Maybe, it was a long time ago... but I'm pretty sure both my canopies had US NAVY stamped on the info panel (reserve was Navy Conical). I wouldn't have cared what service they came from though, I wanted the all white canopy. ----------------------- Roger "Ramjet" Clark FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519