JerryBaumchen

Hi Roger RamJet If you were witnessing TSO testing in the late '70's it would have been under C23(b)/NAS 804. Under C23(b) one could test per the Standard Type or the Low Speed Type. When I did my TSO testing in '79 I elected to test per the Standard Type. There is a table in NAS 804 which is a sliding scale; the more weight you use then you get to use less speed. We chose to use 400 lbs at a speed of 200 MPH. As an example, in using the table we could have also chose 275 lbs at 250 MPH; there are 10 options (weight & speed chart) for the Standard Type Strength Test. Hi labrys I served on the TSO committee for nearly 20 yrs. My first submittal (15 items submitted) had a req'ment that the sample being subjected to testing(canopy/harness/whatever) had to be the exact same sample for all three Strength Tests. In C23(b) there is no req'ment that the same sample be tested more than once. My concern was, as I think is yours, that a canopy once subjected to severe loading (I will not define 'severe' but I would consider a terminal opening to be somewhat severe) might not be airworthy and riggers in the field may not have the ability to determine incremental damage. Sandy Reid once told me that when he was testing his Talon rig per C23(c) if he was using a C23(b) canopy for his Strength Tests he could almost predict that the canopy (which was not the test sample; the rig was the test sample) would be destroyed on the 2nd or 3rd test. Hope that this helps, Jerry (A Happily Retired Mechanical Engineer)

Hi Elisha, Are you sure about that. I understood that Ray bought the rights to the Reflex and that Bill Dause (of Lodi fame) bought the Stunts rig/rights (along with Rodriguez). Jerry

Hi adventurechick, If you are in Orlando you are only about an hour away from Sunpath. Take the to rig to them and see what they say; take $$$ with you. Jerry PS) You might get to see just what it takes to build a rig from scratch. That you should find educational.

Wow, Ed Dowdy huh? Would that be C-3781? I did a 4-way with him that ended up in a reserve fire. I won't be forgetting that jump. Jerry

In the 60's or so, Irwin Industries got TSO OK on a Rogallo wing. There was an article in both PARACHUTIST & SKYDIVER on it, as I recall (or do not recall). Jerry

Hi kelpdiver again, I forgot to mention that in TSO C23b the functional tests have a req'ment to be open within 3 seconds. The strength tests do not have any opening time req'ment. Sparky, Will you quit getting ahead of me when I am trying to post?

Hi kelpdiver, The various versions of the TSO req'ments vary somewhat in detail. But for the most part, the common two tests are what are called 'functional' and 'strength' (OK, some folks will argue with me on what is 'common'). Since I know TSO C23b the best; the functional test was to be performed with a 170 lb dummy and the strength test could vary (more weight & less speed; or less weight & more speed); we did ours with a 400 lb dummy at 200 MPH (BTW, we blew two harnesses apart until I redesigned things; out of necessity). The later versions of the TSO are very similar; but that is it in a nutshell. For more detail, go to the PIA website and look up Technical Standard 135; this is the standard that the PIA committee developed. Hope this helps, Jerry

Hi phoenixlpr, About 40 yrs or so ago when I was in Physics it was F=MA F= force M=mass A=acceleration A given mass at a certain acceleration equals the forces that will result. In engineering & physics there is no deceleration, we called it negative acceleration, it is just delta v. Now, of course, I might be wrong. Jerry

Hi Twardo, Now that was a 'different' reserve container. If some of you not so old' types want to see something strange, try to find one of those. I always wondered how it got through the TSO testing. Jerry

A little different thing on Houston jumpers. About '93 or so I attended the IEEE Convention (Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers) in Chicago. And like the Symposium, there are many vendors with booths. As I was going from booth to booth glad-handing people I knew in the industry I met a company from Houston that made nylon cargo-handling slings. We were looking for a new supplier, so the next time I was in Houston I went over to look over their operation. I walk into the VP's office, set my briefcase down (it had a round USPA membership decal on it) and he says that his dad was President of USPA. It turns out this guy was the stepson of Ed Fitch. As they say, a small world. Jerry

Hi Gary73, Cliff Schmucker put out a document on collapsible (sp?) pilot chutes that shows this method. It has been around for at least 10 yrs. Jerry PS) I have a copy somewhere.

While just cruising around this site I found this photo. Thoughts?? Jerry PS) I hope that I got this photo attached; I'm kinda poor with computers.

Brydon (D-12) was GW #1. I believe (?) that the first FS at a Nat'ls was in '69; 4-way. Begin with a star/backloop/etc. Anyone? Jerry

Hi Squeak, On a number of occasions I have shipped 2nd hand gear to people in Poland. They always ask that I 'revise' the invoices downward. If it gets lost, then that is their risk. No guarantees in life. Jerry

Hi ripcord4, Now to get serious; I would think that you would have the container, canopy, pilot chute & risers to repack. Given that I don't think it makes any difference as how you call it. I would probably call it a Back parachute because that is where it would be most of the time. This is another reason why I argue against type ratings for riggers. Either you know how to pack or you do not. I'll get down off of the soap box now. Jerry

Hi crotalus01, Actually, the military has purchased a lot of rigs in which the reserve canopy is (also) attached to the harness via 3-ring. Jerry PS) Want one?

Hi Ripcord4, This issue is as old as a Para-Twin; and yes I was around in those days. Now for some fun (since I spent 30 yrs working for the US gov't): 'I would think that if you packed it and it went onto the back, then it is a back parachute. However, if it went onto the front, then it is a chest parachute.' That's my impression of some FAA-type. I mentioned some time ago that a number of folks mounted the steerable reserve canopy sideways so that you would always be going sideways but could see where you were going. And that is not the only thing that people who have never seen whatever will 'argue to the death' about. HTH, Jerry

Hi crotalus01, Sparky has the info you were asking about. There were many, many errors in that article; I spent some time on the phone today with the editor. Jerry PS) 1. Does anyone think the first Gold Wings were awarded in 1976? 2. Anyone know when FS (relative work) first began as a Nationals event?

Hey Sparky, Check this out: Jerry

Hi Billvon, This is a test dated 7 Jul 06.

Jim, You get my vote as Man of the Year. Jerry

Hi Dolph, I do not know how things work with jumping operations in Europe but I do know something about the USA. Back in about 1970 Ted Mayfield ran a dz at Donald, OR that I frequented almost every weekend; he owned the land. During a competition a 4-way team landed way out, in a farmer's field. When the farmer came out to complain, the 4-way team told him to shup up or they would kick his ass, etc, etc. 2 years later that dz was closed by the county commisioners. Skydivers represent a VERY small portion of the population at large. Jerry

Hi Cloudi & Terry, Cloudi) I would be a happy camper if PD would put out some numbers on volume. I had a hour long telecon with John LeBlanc back in Jan and the one thing is sure; PD will NOT give anyone any numbers on volume. Read that as: NONE. I could live with some numbers even if the infamouse 150 Whizbanger II was listed as being between 375 cu in & 405 cu in. But PD will not. Terry) I order all of my bluejeans from Lands End. I give them the waist & the inseam. I have never had a pair that did not fit. Would you accept two pair of jeans where you tried on one pair at X waist & Y inseam and it fit, but when you got home the 2nd pair were 3" longer in the inseam? I know that I would return them. Now who wants return their 150 Whizbanger II when you have waited 10 weeks for that custom-colored sweety but it just is 'really' tight when you pack it into your brand new SlimTrim container? I have a friend (he's been jumping for 35 yrs, 2000 jumps) who just bought a brand new rig. He specified the canopies (main & reserve) in detail. Every pack job he struggles to get the main closed, it is simply (IMO) too tight. Yet he did everything that is now considered OK in this parachute equipment world. Also, after assembling and packing his reserve (very tight) I told him to never bring it back to me again. Try to understand, I am just trying to get a grip on this continuing problem. I may never get any farther along than where we are currently at but I would like to take a stab at. As I indicated, I could live with any numbers as long as they came from the canopy mfrs themselves. Thanks, Jerry

Hi Guys, I agree 100% with you. However, IMO I do not think that that is the best way. Now, with all of the variables in canopy construction, that just might be the best way for now. I am an engineer, been one for 35 yrs, this makes me want to try to eliminate/control some of these variables. As an engineer, I do not like this situation where a 150 Whizbanger II will vary by 10% or more. I would like to know what is really causing this. And just saying 'Well, that's the way it is.' does not move us forward. If we wanted to live in a world of 'Well, that is just the way it is.' then we would not 3-rings, etc. Not trying to be negative towards you two but I would like to have a better understanding of why the 'mystery bulk' thing is still with us after all of these years. What is it: 'Inquiring minds want to know.' And I do appreciate your thoughts; something about reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Jerry

Hi Jeff, For the most part, I think that is a late barroom story. I never actually heard of this occuring. They were used on the reserve ripcord housing and only if you did not have an RSL, ala the one on the original X-BO. It was possible to pull the ripcord all of the way out but it did take some 'extra' effort when the pin hit the plug. They were needed more 'back in the day' because of all the downwind pea gravel landings. This is where the gravel would come from. This I do know about first-hand. However, unless you are using a military surplus type of ripcord housing (or they are making the gravel ban plug smaller) they will not fit the modern ripcord housing which are of a much smaller diameter than a mil surplus housing. Hope this helps, Jerry