JerryBaumchen

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.

Correction: Where I said Type 6 it should read Type 7. Further proof that I should not be keyboarding before my morning coffee. Apologies to all.

Beezy, Another option is to sew the outer sheath to the d-bag. This is a design that Cliff Schmucker came up with many years ago. Works great with NO wear.

This is a personal comment so please take it that way. Back in '68 Strong Entr ( SE, Inc ) came out with a StyleMaster rig. It had a Solid-Split Saddle. I had one and it is still the most comfortable saddle I have ever sat/hung in. I used the design on a number of my rigs for quite a few years ( we really didn't worry about the TSO-thing back in those days ). It was built of Type 6 and was just like a split saddle but it had another piece of T-6 going across, under your butt like a solid saddle would (I am sure that many of you have no experience with a solid saddle, having only lived in the split saddle world). You then had the option of using the harness as it came or you could cut the piece of T-6 off and have a true split saddle. I have just written to SE to see if they might still have some dimensional information on this saddle. I agree with your thinking that would be a nice option for those that would like it; doesn't seem to force it onto anyone who doesn't want it. Just my $.02 worth. PS) and while laying bed this morning deciding whether to get up or not, I figured how to make the leg comfort pad slip onto the Solid-Split Saddle. I do enjoy the mental challenges; it's that old engineer in me.

Try BodySport USA. I think they are at 800-bodysport.

Hi Rigging65, I meant the mfr of the parachute equipment; the term 'parachute' being used generically. And I've got 34 years in as an Engineer. I think we actually agree on this issue.

IMO, opinion only the parachute designer can determine the proper opening sequence. Everyone else are just spectators to the design.

Fablok Mills, Inc. 140 Spring St. Murray Hill, NJ 07974 908-464-1950 ww.fablok mills.com

I'm going from memory here but I recall that back in the 60's Skydiver Magazine had an article on the 'original' jumpable Rogallo wing. Loy Brydon was jumping it and it had been glued/bonded on the seams. The idea is old, very old. The problems, IMO, are in the production methods/costs & customer acceptance.

When doing outside corners/curves I loosen the binder slightly (so it is not rigidly fixed to the table) so I can push the binder somewhat to my left while keeping the material pushed to the inside of the folded tape. This always seems to work for me. As an alternative, you buy me a ticket, provide the food and I'll come over and teach you how to do it. No wages necessary. Yes??????

Two things I remember from Dan's presentation at the '05 symposium: It was reinforced with another layer of fabric. The canopy weighed less than the lines. Also, he was jumping regularly. Seemed to work for him.

Wow, I get to teach Bill Booth something; a red letter day. Bill, the X-Bow used snaps at the container end only. The housing went away with the risers and the snaps had to 'undo' for the housing to seperate. The Para-Twin (Pioneer's piece of junk) used a Navy plate that held the housing permanently, no RSL. Jerry