JerryBaumchen

Wasn't the main known as a DC-5?

Derek, Question for you: if the mfr says only 'such' reserve canopy can be used do you think that would be in same category where a H/C mfr requires the use of their pilot chute? Just a question for discussion purposes. I await your thoughts.

Contact Skydive Snohomish, the first FAA-Approved in-flight door for a Cessna was approved at that airport.

Sparks, A question for you: What words would you use to define the term 'permanent' in that requirement? No weasel-wording allowed, just be specific. Yes, this is a little bit of a test; and sorry to pick on you but you seem informed/outspoken on things like this. I ask because years ago I spent about two hours in a somewhat 'heated' discussion with an FAA Aviation Specialist at the Seattle ACO when she was trying to 'gig' me for not using a 'permanent' marking product. Some evening, over a brew, I'll tell you how I finally got her to give up.

Now if I could just learn to spell. Sorry!

I cannot speak for Bill Booth but the last that I understood, the V-3 was using the original Wonderhog C23b TSO-authorization. That would lead me to conclude that it was a Minor Change; which in turn, would pave the way for everyone else. If I am wrong here, just correct me.

Undernormal conditions, a TSO-authorization is the process. However, there is always the possibility of a Field Approval. There was a guy many moons ago at Issaquah who had a home-built H & C who got it field approved. At least one main has gone through this process for FAA-legal reserve use. I've a number of riggers who have put used mains into their reserve containers with free bags and all other necessary components; just not a TSO-authorized canopy. I like to call it the Fuzz Factor; almost all federal regulations have somethink like this in them. My 30+ yrs as a federal employee bring me to this conclusion.

Daryl currently lives in Santa Barbara, CA and usually shows up at the Para-Pioneers get togethers. Somewhere I have an address but it is buried deeply these days. Try contacting Tee Taylor at: teetaylor@cox.net She may have contact info for him.

I agree with this. By '75 interest in the PC was waning substantially. It was about this time that they came out with the RW PC; I know little of this canopy. The 'MOD' may have been their way of ensuring that the patents still covered their range of PC canopies. My $.02 worth.

Back in 'the day' which, for me, was the 60's it was considered a req'ment to do some hop 'n' pop type of jumps to 'stretch' everything. Years later I just took new canopies to terminal; never noticed anything different or bad. Remember, your first jump on your new reserve will probably be at terminal; does this bother you?

I'll 2nd that; I also been using a Singer 112W115 for over 30 yrs. I think Para-Gear has fairly good pricing on a binding tape folder.

Another option is a main bag like MojoSparky's which uses two lines stows and then free packs the rest of the lines like a reserve free bag. Only two stows to play with. The above based upon a conversation with him, not actually seeing it.

FJC on 9 Feb 64 was $18 and 12,500 ft was $5.25. But wages were a lot less then. Gas is actually less now but who's counting?

Having done just that, what happens is the FAA will issue him a new Riggers ticket. It will list his ratings. Those ratings give him his authorities.

I believe that it is a Russian (Soviet)-designed reserve. I was in Poland 7 years ago and it was very popular where I was at; they considered it VERY stable canopy. I think it was called a TOKLA or something like that. I think it means some type of bird. I do know it is not a Dactyl.

Sparky, It tucks back into itself; no reason to effect the opening. Spend some time thinking about the design then I think you'll agree.

Sparky, I was on the TSO committee when this req'ment came into being and I also could not figure out just how anyone was going to meet this req'ment. I was having breakfast with Elek Puskas during this time and asked him how they intended to meet this req'ment. He said that they would put the req'd info on a tag attached to the ripcord. My ripcords are TSO'd under 23b (that's another long, interesting story) and I put the info onto a tag, attach tag to the ripcord & tell owner to save the tag. A lot of great/crazy ideas come up during the development of any new standards (I've also served on many standard committees where I used to work; same type of problems). Making them work in the real world is the hard part. Now that you have some time on your hands, why not get on the TSO committee; you would have fun and get terribly frustrated (I know this)?

Stato, Make sure you get some photos and publish them. Jerry

From personal experience (next month will be the 40th anniversary of my becoming a rigger): 1. Never think you know everything; in fact, accept that you know little. 2. Never do any work for free. You are a professional and should be paid for your services. My best wishes to you.

The VERY first PC Packing Manuals had lots of photos on how to do it; I know, I owned PC Ser #363. The only problem was the photos did NOT tell you what to do with the d@&m louver panels (the thrust slots, I think we called them). Also, with a longer bridle, Pioneer actually got a TSO for the original Mark I PC. Just a little trivia for those who need to know.

Was that the guy who killed that music group and young kid in Rozzo's Beech? I don't remember his name but the crash was no surprise to me. He used to really 'cowboy' and airplane around.

Hi Hook, Good post; should be very informative for a number of people. I do have a question: When you say, "Using what a TSO rig. . . . .the strength of the harness" just what is your concern? Do you have another idea? I think (please don't make me look it up) that the latest TSO C23d requires that the load be actually measured during the Strength testing. That is one way to gather the data. Back in the 70's when I was doing TSO testing I wrote to Bill Jolly of Pioneer that I did not think that a C-9 canopy (using the weight/speed chart in NAS 804) would actually generate the 5,000 lb load. He wrote back and agreed but did not offer any additional thoughts. Interstingly, I understand (since he actually told me) that Troy Loney did not do the Strength tests for the original Centaurus by doing drop tests. He convinced the feds that he could actually get the 5,000 lb load(s) by using a test machine. They agreed and that is what he did. I do NOT know what his exact test procedure was. Just more information for those who want to know.

Snyder passed the baton with Charlie Hilliard. He went on to become a World Champion in airplane aerobatics, owned a big Ford dealership in Ft. Worth and got killed in a crazy taxiing accident.

Sparky, How about contacting me off the board? I want to talk to you about this 2-stow bag of yours. Call me on 503-481-4714; before 11:00 PM and not before 9:00 AM. Thanks

Sparky, I have my doubts that Aerodyne will provide this info. But give it a go; all that can happen is they will fail to respond (as they seem to do with my requests). If you do get the info, how about contacting me; I'd like a copy, just for info and education.