JerryBaumchen

Terry, This just to get some discussion going. If it is accepted that the 2" wide bridle (virtually the standard for a reserve free bag) does not provide sufficient drag to launch the bag out of the container, i.e., in a horshoe situation, then why does the industry continue to use the 2" webbing. I would think that 1" Type 4 (at a 1,000 lbs rating) would be more than sufficient. Let the commentors begin.

OK nitrochute, Times up, who did the first short-line on a PC?

I had a number of local guys who would routinely sign my name to the data card when I had actually been the person who last packed it. I told them that if they were going to fake it, to keep me out of it; flip open the phone book, pick out a name and write it in. At least that would keep me out of the loop. Some time later we had a 'local rigger' who did a lot of 'repacks' and his name was Behn Haad. I never did meet him, though. It wasn't my name and that is what was important to me.

Hi DarkWing, The original R/W/B PC's had a 1.1 oz fabric in the apex. They (Pioneer) had trouble keeping up with this feature when colors came along. If you look you will see that this particular PC is not a checkerboard in the apex. When the color combo's req'd colors in the apex is when Pioneer went to the 2.2 oz taffeta fabric throughout the canopy. I owned #363 ParaCommander, a sweeheart. Easiest way to tell a PC from a Pap is that the Pap had slots in the front just at the top of the first panels of the front gores. Plus some radial slots near the top/hi pressure area of the canopy. Anyone know what a gore is?

The ONLY time I ever had a needle go through me was once I was having some difficulty in making a couple of stitches with a 31-15. I was holding the material very firmly and pulling the machine through by hand. The needle went into between a couple of layers of skin; so there I was with a needle in me, (however it had not gone all the way through it's cycle, had not made the loop down at the bobbin) and what to do. So I sit there for a moment and then back the machine up. All was well with no blood. Only once and I hope never again. That was too close. The problem with sewing through yourself (IMO) is that you are stuck to the machine, only have one hand free, and you are probably alone with no one to help. Oh forgot, lot's of pain also.

Hi Sparky, "I have heard that Mil-Spec has been abandoned . . ." What I understand it that it is on the way out but that you can still get Mil-Spec webbing, tapes, etc.; for now. The PIA has taken over the control of the documents, rewriting them into their letterhead and format. I think that it is only a matter of time and the term 'Mil-Spec' will disappear within this industry. Just my thoughts . . .

You don't even have to spend any money to find out. Just get an old ripcord (almost any kind), cut off whatever to get it to a 1-pin/no ball configuration, then stick into a rig with a ringed RSL (what a non-Vector would be like), bench test/pull the RSL & see what happens. My money is on the cable merely stripping out of the housing and the pin staying place. I think PdeF had some type of pillow ripcord at this year's Symposium that used two RW-4 rings (I think RW-4, the smallest rings in a mini-3-ring setup) that were interlaced through each other. The cable was looped around one ring & nico-swaged onto itself. I wish that I had taken a pix of it. If anyone has a photo of it, I would like to see it posted. And lastly (maybe ???), you do not need to use Mil-Spec cable. You do need to use the cable that the item is/was TSO'd with. If mfr's were stuck with only Mil-Spec stuff we would never see rigs like we have today with all of the composite/plastic/Delran/Lexan/etc in use. It's called progress. And be damn glad of it. Anybody remember the GripCord?

Hi Superman, Any time anyone says "I have a concern about xxx..." is a good thing; it means you are thinking about your equipment. Sparky has given you the line & verse from the TSO req'ments. There is no TSO req'ment for any future testing once the TSO-authorization has been granted. I think that most, if not all, mfr's do additional testing on numerous parts that they put out. This is a good thing, in my opinion. I have heard of some doing 100% testing of ripcords. If someone presented me (and please note, I say ME) with a ripcord that had been tested to 600 lbs for 3 seconds I would give it back to them. I would be concerned that it might have been a little too close to the failure point for future use. Now to do 100% testing at a lower value (a Proof Test is what this is usually called in the engineering world), say at 100 lbs I would be OK with that; some type of tollgate testing is what that would be. However, not wanting to use the 100% tested item, well, that is just me. I am too lazy to go get my Loos & Co. catalog out but I think that ball without shank (that little tube that is attached to some ripcord balls) is rated at about 80% of cable strength (cable strength is 920 lbs I think; am I right on this value?). Ball with shank is rated at 100% of cable strength, as is the pin swage. Now regarding the swaging method. Ron Dionne up in Canada has been making his own dies for swaging the pins & balls for many years. The ball, when swaged, looks a lot different than what outfits like Capewell put out, using rotary swagers. Al MacDonald of Flying High uses a set of Ron's dies for his ripcords, I believe. Me, I made my own dies (after a lot of R&D; way too much R&D, which = $$$) and for probably about 15-20 years now I have only built ripcords with two balls on the end, usually about 1 inch apart. For my cost of about $0.50, the customer gets 100% redundancy. Now again, that is just me. As for your actual concern; a couple of things: 1. The lowest TSO rating of the ball is 300 lbs. Can you pull that amount (after all, you are Superman32 [just having some fun here])? Since virtually no one can, then you will be fine if everything is in good condition. 2. Always keep an eye on this part of your equipment (actually, all of your gear). If you see something that you do not like, ask your local rigger/call the mfr; but do not jump it. Look for things like frayed strands, kinks, rust (yes, s/s will rust, just in a different nature), damage (did you close the trunk on the cable), etc. Back in the 60's we had a couple of local guys who designed and built their own piggyback rigs. For a ripcord, they got surplus B-5 ripcords (the reserve container was designed somewhat like a B-5 military rig), they cut off the ball (the ripcord was too long for their use) tied a knot in the cable and tucked the knot into a blast handle, which they used for a reserve ripcord handle. It was really crude but I would suppose it might haved worked OK; they never did have to use it under actual emergency conditions. You've now got probably way more information that you thought you would get. I hope that this (way too long post) and the other posts have answered your 'concern.' PS) I have often wondered if I could swage a ball that would pass the 300 lb test by using an anvil & a ball peen hammer and doing it very slowly, by hand. Maybe some day, hmmmmm?

Tru Al MacDonald @ Flying High; he's in AB. Check the web.

Hi Mike, I think you might be in error. The B-12 snap (MS22044), the B-4 snap (48B7884), and the quick ejector snap (MS22017) are all rated at 2,500 lbs. They were all used on the leg straps/leg junction of military harnesses; and some sport rigs. You may be thinking of a military-type chest pack snap (MS22042 and/or MS70119) which are rated at 5,000 lbs. These were to attach a chest pack to a military-type D-Ring which is also rated at 5,000 lbs. These were rated & used at the 5,000 lb value because if one side of the chest pack were to become unsnapped, the assembly could still take the full design load (anyway, that's how it was explained to me back in the 60's). Also, in the late 60's when the MiniSystem & the StyleMaster rigs came on the market with B4 & B-12 snaps for attaching the chest reserve to the harness, some folks asked for and got their chest reserves with the 5,000 lb snaps. Being cautious, I suppose. Now, if I am wrong on this I will gladly stand corrected. Of course, you are absolutely correct on everything else. I cannot imagine enduring an opening shock that would cause a catastrophic harness failure. I was talking with Bill Coe about this recently and he says that his testing leads him to the same 8,000 lb number for most modern sport harnesses.

Hi there Mostly Harmless, First, welcome to the world of engineering; I are one. I think (and I'm too lazy to get up and go look) that the current TSO standard requires that a component be tested at 1.2 times the placarded speed & at 1.2 times the placarded weight. That would be a safety factor of 20%; right?

As my grandmother used to say 'Be careful of what you ask for, you just might get it.'

Sparky, Something to understand: When one sets a sewing machine to stitch X stitches per inch it is important to understand that it will not do that absolutely. The number of stitches per inch will vary somewhat; a negligible amount in the real world but it will vary. I wanted to determine the strength of the sewn joint and not of the webbing itself. A little R&D for myself and my curiousity; again, that old engineer in me. I have my machine set for 6 stitches per inch and I used Type 7 webbing. Hope this answers your question.

Sparky, Some feds are and some feds aren't (re your comment on traceability). In the TSO process, the only thing they actually approve is your QA Program. I spent over 30 yrs working for the feds (non-FAA) in QA (approving/reviewing/rejecting QA Programs throughout North America, Europe, Asia & South America) and I am totally convinced that the FAA does not have a clue about what a real QA Program should be. They (in my opinion & experience) tend to focus on Inspections Systems, and that is not QA. As for traceability, you can have it in detail or you can not have it at all, or you can have something in between. It is really about how much risk that you (the mfr) are willing to take. Adding to that, most QA Programs that I have reviewed/approved/rejected have not had complete traceability. It all depends how one wants to do their warehousing/stocking of materials. And, of course, their documentation control. These systems can be very complex or very simple. Sorry to carry on but these things are very dear to my heart; too many days on the firing line, so to speak. If I ever get down to your part of the world, we'll have to get together & imbibe in a few and kick these types of things around. And at the end of the day, I really do like your posts; you're right on the money about 99.44% of the time.

Contact Bill Coe at Performance Designs. He & I have been talking and emailing about this very thing on the harnesses that I build. Apparently, they do it somewhat 'routine' and have all of the equipment to do it.

This 'problem/rumor' has been around for a long time. Back in the 60's I wrote an article for PARACHUTIST and part of the article was about removing stitching/resizing the harness (old military B-4/B-12 types) and I got hammered for even thinking about removing and redoing some stitching. Interestingly, just two days ago I tested a 3" long 3-point stitch using #5 cord. Failure occured at 5,760 lbs; way above what I ever would have expected. If I get some time after the first of the year I might just run a series of tests; but remember these are time consuming. But then again, the old engineer in me likes to 'know' things.

I have been told that on occasion (when they have them) the Relative Workshop will give away old non-airworthy rigs for packing training. Give'm a call.

To steal from Roger RamJet: Dead on, Sparky. I've been following this board for about a year (maybe a little less) and am continually amazed at what people (however, no actual fault of their own; they've simply never been educated) really do not know about the TSO process and what it means. In my opinion (Note the terminology), it means one thing: repeatability, you can make the SAME thing over & over & over & over . . . . I guess that I have been fortunate in that I hold 6 TSO-authorizations (companies that I own) and served on the SAE TSO committee for nearly 20 years. Both have been tremendous learning experiences for me.

Let me go back to my original post on this: If you want you can get a TSO-authorization for any parachute component. It is a matter of going through all of the hoops to do so. For a set of main risers; why bother to do it? IMO, it would be foolish, but it can be done. It's a lot of work for little (if any) reward. I do not read anything in C23b, C23c or C23d where it specifically prevents one from doing so. Does someone else read it differently? Case in point: Back in the early 80's I submitted the necessary paperwork/documentation to get a TSO-authorization (and that is the correct terminology but I know we all just say 'TSO') for a ripcord. Due to a FAA blunder or two, I got my hands on some internal hand-written notes that were going around in the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office wondering just how far down should they issue specific TSO-authorizations; they didn't know. They eventually issued it and I have it.

Sorry Sparkles, You can 'TSO' a set of main risers. You can 'TSO' any parachute component if you want to go through the testing and all else that the certification requirements entail. Back in the day, Pioneer 'TSO'd' the ParaCommander by putting a longer than normal bridle between the canopy & the pilot chute. I'm thinking that the normal bridle would not meet the opening time req'ments. Also, it is illegal (in this country) to placard something with a TSO label if it is not actually 'TSO'd.' That is if anyone checks.

Hi Wartload, The housing was NOT secured by a 'blue fabric' anything. What you are seeing is the T-12 webbing that was wrapped around the ripcord housing, tacked to the housing & was sewn to the yellow tubular, which formed the RSL. When the risers departed, the T-12 pulled the housing up and away (as you can see, the other end of the housing is held at the container end by 4 snaps), the 4 snaps 'unsnapped' and this pulled the ripcord pins out of the the cones.

John, you have it exactly. Also, well shown in Sparky's photos; you can see the 'boss' that needed to be drilled out/removed.

John, I'll try to describe this for you (but understand, it is like trying to describe a cloud to someone over the phone). The 'original' blast handle (and I do not remember what it's original use was for) had an aluminum "T" shaped handle. At the end where the cable came out of the handle was a chromed ferrule that was shaped to snap onto the end of a military-type ripcord housing. At the center of this ferrule the aluminum had a boss that came up (the ripcord cable came out of this boss) to center this thing in the housing. The problem was that the boss caused some very hard/impossible pulls. So, for sport use, the handle was changed to where this boss was removed by drilling it off. Do you understand what I am trying to convey to you?

In first photo I noticed the Speed Links used to attach the reserve risers to the harness. Bad Ju-Ju there; those guys are known to fail.

Sorta looks like the type of stuff that Para-Flite builds.