teason

you know, I recommended that to him yesterday and he got mad. He walked off the dz and took his rig and didn't pay me for his repack either! I was doing a tandem when he left. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

That proves my point. Anyway, the BPA feel the avoidance of increasing the pull force required on the reserve pin is worth the incredibly low risk of a rigger forcing a needle through the lexan. I guess another question would be; are riggers accidently using e thread when sealing containers and is it a significant enough problem to warrant a new sealing procedure? I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

In my ongoing battles with low level jumpers, this is the latest. This jumper has been jumping a turbo 165 and feels he is being held back. He hasn't had any formal canopy control coaching. Apperently, a vengence doesn't fly like an eliptical! At least that's what I'm told. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I think there is a world of difference between using a turn of seal thread and sewing material to the side of your container. I think the problem is that we as riggers are hard wired to avoid sewing anything to a packed reserve, I gives me the willies! But thinking about it logically, you would have to really force it to push the needle through the lexan. I'm sure some rigger out there got nervous the first time he was told to tack down risers with 3 cord or tack toggles with seal thread. I boils down to perspective. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Static line, 350 canopy, 320lbs, 14000'. Actually, I believe it was 130 knots but the phrase "torso dummy" came up. They needed live tests. Luckily, I had my speedbag I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Who you calling a torso dummy? There are more than few test jumpers for CPS, Butler and Jumpshack that might take exception... ...Then we'd think about and say"yeah, we were dummies!" I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

My 2 cents I've dispatched with ROL, BOC, side puch and belly band. There are problems for each that can concern the training as well as the logistic of the IAD. First the ROL. I found this to be a difficult PC to extract when the student was bent over. The student would often be sitting on it and when a couple of Gs where thrown into the mix, it became a real pain. The ROL, however, made for easy training of freefallers over the BOC. Also with ROL, if the jumper behind the pilot is seated for the flight, there is a chance of the PC getting pulled out when they turn around. (and they often do it when you are outside the plane) Second the BOC. The BOC is very easy to extract and handle. It has good bridle protection when the gear is used for freefall. The BOC, however, does not allow for a paper pull. When the jumper releases the aircraft, by the time they reach back for the paper the bag is out. This makes the flaps loose and the paper is not where it should be. If the student's hand is in the right place, the paper isn't there. I did away with paper pulls on BOC gear and it improved the performance if first freefallers and got them there quicker. Next the side pouch. A good idea in theory but you still need to bend the student over to look at the pin so the advantage is reduced. Also, in a narrow body 182, the third jumper would jockey in his seat and the PC would inch it's way out. (that with the jumper on his knees behind the Pilot) I had never seen so many PCs loose in the plane before the side pouch! Finally the belly band. Not bad but unnerving if you are at a DZ that keeps the door open between jumpers as you extract the PC out the door. The Belly band had lots of bridle and issues of its own on freefal that I don't need to get into. Pros -Student can identfy the handle. cons- the student often bent at the hips and went unstable when they identified the handle. AS for the folding, the hotdog is the best for handling the PC but must have the bridle attatchment point pulled out on the first fold or else a bad "geek" will rip the pc apart. A sloppy PC can have the pvc tube fluttering in the breeze and with a hanging exit, the student may lookup and snag the handle between the helmet and yoke (I shit you not). Don't let it flap around loose! Tim I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

What's the rush, I could see 'im. He was only 400 miles away. The place is so fricken flat, I swear you can see the curvature of the earth! (says the guy who lives on a flood plain!) We Canucks have almost as many Sask jokes as Newfie jokes I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

It really depends on the DZ. If you have an FAI certificate of proficiency, it proves your skill level. Some DZOs are fine with that. Other DZOs, may have a problem with the fact that you would not be covered by any insurance. I haven't done an exuastive search but I have not been able to find anything in the regs that would prevent you from jumping at a CSPA DZ if all you have is USPA. (besides, of course, the insurance issue). Now, third party liability insurance is basically useless but does offer some protection. The CSPA currently has a $2 mil policy which means if you land on a car, and somehow do $2mil in damage, the insurance will cover it. It's a longshot that anyone would claim against that type of insurance (although it has happened in the past in Alberta and a judgement was awarded). Now If a claim ever was put forward, it would be the goal of the insurance company to find a way to not pay it. That is why some DZs my not want to let you jump at thier DZ without membership/insurance. It could open them up for liability (as remote as that may be) Essentially, there is no law that states you must have CSPA or any other membership, it's just the DZOs perogative. Hell, in canada, there aren't any aviation regulations pertaining to skydiving outside demo jumps. It is purely self regulated (AOC not withstanding) I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

If it makes you feel better about having an AAD, in my 12 years of instructing, and having done several thousand IADs, I have seen many students saved by AADs. I have never ever seen or even heard of an AAD misfire at 150 feet of a student. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I spent three days there watching my dog run away! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

whoa! When I was doing the "dope on a rope", we used an old riser and had it pre attached to both sides of the MLW. If shit went bad it could be cut away. The chest strap sounds like bad Mojo! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Cheers Rob, I have one coming in soon! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Another consideration is the amount of pack volume the thing takes up. It's a real pain to move bulk around if you have a square reserve. You also have to make sure it is in date. The 12000j needs factory servicing every 2 years. It's printed on the unit. A two year runs about $125+. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

It's the etc,etc,etc from blah, blah, blah. It comes standard with a watchma callit and a do dad! dohickies are a $200 option. It's also a 1 pin. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

I know the feeling! ... well, when I'm packing a vector/wings/talon/javelin/infinity etc,etc,etc I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

The bag remains shut on one side because there is enough room to allow the canopy to escape. A freebag is not usually tight with the canopy in it, unless your rigger is sloppy or the canopy is massive. With a racer, you need to leave a nest in the middle if you want the PC to sit right. This means that the freebag is only 2/3 full if your rigger did a good job. One side of the bag opens before the other and as soon as that happens, the canopy has more than enough room to escape. Things follow the path of least resistance. The canopy is free before the other side releases. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Old habbits die hard, everyone at the factory uses steel bodkins. I guess it's because when you've done enough Racer repacks with t-bods, soft bodkins become something new to learn. I've tried soft bodkins (packing an excaliber with a cypres and a round last year, it involved packing tape!) I kinda prefer how the steel bodkin holds the flaps in place and allows you to "shape" the container before you close it. Just my observation, not saying one is better, t-bods are just the one I like best. Here's a couple of tricks I like, add 50% to the quick loop length on either side, it makes it easier to put the pin in the loops without allowing the spring to squirt (especially an SRP) If you are using steel bodkins, put a standard pullup cord in the bodkin to help pull the grommets overtop. (it helps with the bottom flap. Don't overstuff the ears, it'll deform the yoke flap and make it harder to put the top pin in as it puts bulk under the PC. Shape parachute into a nest or catchers mit. It'l help seat the PC. When you close the side flaps, the nest my start to close up. With the flaps on the bodkins, shape the center with the palm of your hand, heel of you foot (take of your shoes!) or leave a shot bag on the center over night) When tightening the pop top, make sure the shoulder of the pin is not on the grommet and make sure you are compressing the spring with weight and pulling it snug. Just yanking on the quickloops with mean that the quickloop is compressing the spring by pulling on the pin. Obviously not good. When packing with a cypres, when you put your steel bodkins through the loops, pull the loop tool so it doesn't wrap around a cutter Finally, a video is in the works for demonstrating the packing sequence. It involves the neatest rigger in the history of mankind, To Ligado. It would be worth getting. I'm about to pack a Racer Tandem and I seriously doubt I'll even break a sweat. IMHO, with practice, a Racer is the easiest rig to pack. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

ooops, my bad. I was just looking at a Sabre 1 in the shop and had Sabre on the brain. The test definately wouldn't work for a Stilletto! I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Compare the length of the outboard vs. inboard lines. The outboard lines shrink faster than the inboard. The greater the difference, the more out of trim the canopy is. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Where does he get that from? If his statement is true, then an average openning of 3-4 gs would become an average openning of 12-16 gs! And that's an average opening. Let's say it only happens on fast openning that would be in the 8-10 g range. Well that means an opening of 32-40 gs! Old Bill says some odd things, I think we need some data. He's probably drawing the conclusion that because spectra has an elongation of 3.5% and polyester line has an elongation of 14% (300% more elongation) that it will cause 300% more opening shock. That conclusion is obviously flawed as it doesn't take into account the canopy, the risers or the harness' ability to absorb shock as well. Can you publish the skydiving article findings? Do they inclube the amount of shock the line absorb vs. the entire system? The comment about it having the same stretch as steel, that comment is highly misleading. Spectra line has a weave. Just a sec.... (runs to table, ties a piece of spectra to a fixed point and marks 194" down the line. Pulls. Line moves 1 1/2 inches). Well either spectra line does stretch or I'm a superhero. (I'm totally weak) I don't think I can stretch steel with only a couple pounds of force. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

The most common cause that I have seen for that type of wrinkle is stacking offset grommets. All to often, jumpers (and packers) do not take the time to read the manual. The site of offset grommets can unnerve a packer into thinking that the loop is too loose. The loop is often tightened for piece of mind and the rig is deformed. I speak from experience as I packed my Vector for ten years, stacking the grommets every time. When I became a rigger, I realized (to my horror) I had been doing in wrong all that time. And all I had to do was crack the manual! After that, the rig looked alot better after closing. Here's the manual for all you infinity owners. Please scroll to page 2 (P.11 in the picture) and enjoy. http://s90422833.onlinehome.us/manual/infnty3.pdf I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Your position on a new freebag design could easily have been a position cutaway design. "The three ring fixes a problem that doesn't exist!" "Capewells have been proven over time on thousands of jumps" "Three ring can jam, deform, side load, guillatene etc...." Or perhaps the throw out. "Spring loaded pilotcute have been proven over thousands of jumps" "Handles can get stuffed in pockets, bridles can get snagged" Or how about collapsable pilotchutes. "Non collapsable have worked thousands of times" "you can forget to cock your pilot chute and have a pilotchute in toe!" Maybe we can move onto spectra "nothing wrong with Dacron, hey Nylon type II has been used for years!" What the hell, lets talk about rounds. "I've done thousands of jumps on round and never broken an ankle" "You can't hook a t-10 into the ground!" I can use your arguements to oppose every single advancement in sport skydiving. That's the sniff test I do to see if your side hold weight. It doesn't. Just because you think the design is a problem doesn't mean it's a problem. People love to put down what they don't understand. That's the cornerstone of prejudice. I really tried to stop, Sid, I really did. Honest I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

Ok, let's say that I am a canopy manufacturer and I decide to do test jumps with this TSO thing that you have implied that I have no knowledge of. As a canopy manufacturer I must meet the TSO to sell a reserve in the US. I decide to do my drop tests. Where is it written that I must use a specific deployment bag for my test Do I use a Javelin freebag and PC? A Wings Freebag andPC? A Talon Freebag and PC? A RWS Freebag and PC? All these bags and designs are different. Some Reserve PC use different springs, some don't even have mesh. All these freebags are different, some are true molars, some aren't, the designs are different. I shall repeat the question so there is no confusion. Where is the bag required for testing outlined? Where is it written that a specific design must be used. Where does it say that a bungee freestoe must be used. If the TSO does not give a specific requirement (and nothing in your previous post proves there is one) then the bag used in the test is up to the canopy manufacturer. Once again I feel the need to remind you that this is based on Canopy manufacturers obtaining TSO That is what the origional comment was about. Container manufacturers were not being refered to in the origional post. I say that because even though you quoted my question about Canopy Manufacturers, you still posted reg that pertain to the testing of container deployment devices. Did you miss my question about canopy testing Did I miss something about Canopy testing in your post? If so, once again, what is the specific design that must be used by a canopy manufacturer when testing their canopies to obtain a canopy TSO? And don't ramble on or answer my question with anything relating to a container TSO. That' is not what I'm asking. Clear? I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

*Sigh* My last one too. Mojo seemed to want to play stump the wizard when he posted his reference to the Aerospace standard, It was in response to a comment that manufacturers used modified bags when testing canopies. Because everyone views JS as a container manufacturer, they ignored the fact that is was a reference to testing canopies not containers. If there is a regulation rule law or anything else that states that canopy manufacturers must use a perticular bag design when testing canopies then please print it in it's entirety here. I know of no rule that states that the testing of canopies requires a specific bag design molar or otherwise. This is probably why JS didn't comment. The question was flawed. That's probably why they ain't posting anymore. They talk about other manufacturers testing canopies and some of their detractors jump on them like a fat kid on a smartie and use it to question how they test containers. Ernokaikonan the OP figurered out right away and even mentioned in his post a couple of pages ago. I thought we'd moved on. I'm out. I'm frustrated. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.