dgw

I picked up an FXC 12000 with the J mod a while back. Picking up old stuff is a hobby of mine, and I've lots of old bits and pieces, considered 'unsafe' by 'recent' standards. I don't have any particular plans to press any or all of the gear into service. However, I sometimes wonder. All of the old school, which may only be ten or twelve years in the game, have jumped this gear safely, in the diciplines of the time. I have yet to see a cited example of an FXC 12000 with the J mod activating outside its operating parameters, i.e. more than 1,500 feet above the set altitude. Personally, I would be happy to use it, accepting the limitations of the device - pulling a bit higher than the activation altitude, having let the relevant people know. Pulling at 3,500 feet should never pose a problem, under these circumstances. Skydiver, the BPA magazine, runs adverts from Paramechanic in Sweden who service FXC's. There must be market. I've only jumped at two dropzones in the UK, and I haven't seen any FXCs, but they were in common use at a dropzone in Spain when I did my AFF. (I had a Cypres ) I'm not a rigger. I am an Engineer, and I have confidence in proven mechanical systems, that I have assesed. Would anybody be able to raise a reasonable objection to me jumping a rig with an FXC 12000 J Mod for solo jumps? The question is asked on the grounds of my safety, and other jumpers on the same lift. Thanks! Darren

Agreed.

Thank you. My limited understanding is as follows: Dead flat = best seperation. Head down = closer bridles. Head up = closer bridles. The 'problem': flat = potential reserve pilotchute in burble, leading to higher risk of entanglement with (main) pilotchute in tow. Nevertheless, I think it's sometimes possible to overthink these things (based on the previous posts, and due consideration). I am on-board with the earlier advice in the thread.

I have it. I searched high, and I searched low. I couldn't find it on my computer. I searched the house, and found my employment contract. An interesting read. However, I searched my computer again, and found it. It's only six pages, but it's also too big to attach. PM me an Email, and I'll send to you. If I recall correctly, I got it from DZ.com about three years ago. It's here somewhere.. Regards, Darren (Edited to edit it.)

I am on board. Your point is competitively priced. Consider it sold. Thanks. Re Billvon: likewise.

Thank you. I always strive, within the limits of the dropzone and my brain, to have ownership of my skydive and mine and others safety. (I own a bunch of containers which I picked up specifically to learn about the gear, in detail)

Yikes! Thanks for the replies. Re Davelepka: ****** 'How about this, just pull the sliver handle ASAP, and save your life. In a high speed mal like this, don't fuck around, just pull the handle. A PC hesitation is a minor problem at best, they usually clear themselves. If not, you'll most likey want to see why nothing is happening back there, and when you look over your shoulder, bingo, you just cleared it. There are times where skydiving is technical and percise. Then there are high speed mals, where pulling your handles is always job one. Simple as that. ' ***** Thank you. I agree that a hesitation of a pilotchute is a minor problem, if it's the main pilot chute. If it's a reserve pilotchute, dancing around a main pilotchute-in-tow, I think it's of more concern, and worthy of asking. But I agree that the plan is the plan is the plan. I've only ever jumped spring-loaded main pilotchutes, and know (now) that they are minor, but potentially deadly, inconveniences. With regard to 'Oh yeah, how much control over your body position do you think you're going to have when you have to pull a chest mounted ripcord with your left hand? When was the last time you did that? ' I can do it the tunnel, but that's not really relevant or realistic. If I was towing a main pilotchute, I'd like to think I could pull the reserve handle whilst stable, but, I defer to you and other old school graduates. I'm not looking to advance the sport with flash new technique. **** Re: John Mitchell: 'Sounds like you think pulling the cutaway handle makes the pilotchute-in-tow go away. That is totally incorrect. It will still be back there. If that is what you were thinking, please get with an instructor and review your equipment's owner's manual together. Discuss how your rig works and the appropriate emergency procedures for various problems that may occur. You do not have the knowledge required to formulate your own EP's yet. ' ***** Thank you. Mea culpa. I was asking a question about body position for reserve deployment with a main-pilotchute-in-tow. In trying to 'narrow' the question, I cocked up royally. (For the record, I'm a by-the-numbers man - there are no plans afoot for 'bespoke' EPs) ***** Re Flyingseiv02: Thanks, I cocked up the question. I have, I think, a good understanding of the equipment, despite the apparent ineptness of the original post. Nevertheless, you and others continue to make me think. **** All: My only 'live' experience regarding EPs was a pilotchute hesitation on a 15 second delay with a spring loaded main pilotchute. I counted to four thousand (in increments of one thousand), checked the 'absent' canopy, and I just continued the schedule (look locate ....) at which point the main deployed. Despite the toolish nature of the original post, I do believe that a skydiver has time to adopt a body position for a reserve deployment, when a main pilotchute is in tow. If this is accepted, then I was wondering if a flat, or tilted, position is preferred, bearing in mind that there is a trailing bridle and main pilotchute? Thanks!

A conversation in another thread talked about body position when deploying a reserve after a cutaway. The consensus view appeared (to me) to be that a head high position was optimum, and a (slightly) head low position second place. A flat position was 'worst' because the potential for the reserve pilotchute to become 'trapped' in the burble was highest in this position, with the other two positions offering a better opportunity for the pilotchute to clear the burble. In the event a skydiver experiences a main pilotchute-in-tow malfunction, the skydiver has two generally accepted courses of action open: 1/ cutaway and deploy reserve 2/deploy reserve In case (1), there is no issue for the purposes of this query. In case (2), the separation distance between the main pilotchute-in-tow and the reserve is maximum when the skydiver is 'flat', and the bridles/pilotchutes get closer when the skydiver is either head high or low. Finally, the question: In this circumstance (case 2), is there a consensus view regarding the best deployment position? If one is flat, there is (I believe) a potential to 'burble' the reserve pilotchute, and, therefore, an increased chance of the reserve bridle/pilotchute entangling the main pilotchute/bridle. If one is head high/low, the reserve pilotchute/bridle have less chance of 'burbling', but are closer to the main bridle/pilotchute, which increases the chance of fouling. Any thoughts on the best procedure in 'case 2'? My thoughts have, previously, been that in the event of a pilotchute-in-tow, I would 'simply' deploy the reserve - afterall, why 'waste' a canopy? That would be silly. Now, I'm leaning toward a cutaway first. I'm not proposing another debate regarding the 'best' EPs, rather a discussion on the factors involved in 'case 2'. Thanks. (Edited for 'clarity')

I wouldn't try too hard. You might accidentally launch your reserve pilotchute into your main. My view is that you should follow your emergency procedures in a measured manner. I've never performed these 'live', but I really think when the time comes, a 'less haste more speed' approach is the way forward. Your mileage may vary..

This is an information query. I don't, and probably won't, jump HP canopies. With the long recovery arcs associated with HP canopies, and particularly the cross-braced variety, what is the situation with low altitude avoidance manoeuvres, primarily when performing HP landings? Does a flat turn deliver the goods when the corner presents? Is the flat turn a 'magic bullet' for all low situations, or do you have a lesser chance with a HP canopy, compared with a lightly loaded canopy? I can appreciate the time element - HP = faster. I can appreciate the corrollory that greater distance is required for a given situation and perception/reaction time. What I don't understand is whether the technique of flat turn is sufficient or possible/appropriate when a high performance landing is in progress. Comments appreciated.

Thanks guys - very interesting.

The post was based on something Billvon said in the Incidents forum, relating to a spring loaded pilotchute. Riggermick's post sounds reasonable for both spring and non-spring loaded pilotchutes?

Thank you. The 'Big Grommet' theory had put me in mind of a donut shaped universe. It's an intriguing idea. I'm surprised it didn't catch on. (The big grommet). I guess it's an idea from back in the day, when pilot chute drag was always a minor consideration, even with round (fat) jumpers.

From the incidents forum: >-doesn't allow for a collapsable pilot chute Note that this is only because no one has built such a pilot chute yet. Heck, the simple "big grommet" mod would effectively give you a collapsible PC for a ripcord-based system. *** What the hell is this, please?

I believe some people of grand stature have used gear like this: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=005&item=150046864975&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

Does anybody know what aspect of the 'handling' causes the change in porosity? If, for example, the aspect of 'handling' that causes the damage was sweat, would wearing a pair of latex (or other non-porous material) gloves during repacks reduce the degradation of the material?

I am a schmoe in the world of parachutes, and my opinion should be treated with schmoeination. In relation to point 1, I think that this would be valuable information. With regard to point 2, I can't prove anything about testing. I am a schmoe. I think the valuable point is that there doesn't seem to be any real (or *firm*) ownership of the product suitabilty after it's bought. Maybe a best before date?....

Hi, I don't want to labour (labor) a point, but I would say a TSO is lost when a component can no longer meet its TSO requirements. A TSO is not like an MOT ( A carworthiness criteria that states whether a car is roadworthy on the day of test). A TSO is, if I understand it correctly, a quality assurance standard expected to apply to a component for the duration of its use. Notwithstanding this, I would be happy to accept a Riggers view on airworthiness.

Thanks for the feedback. The text in the BPA document is suitably vague. I would infer from PD's inspection requirements that any given PD reserve could be expected to meet the TSO requirements after 40 repacks (or handlings). However, the BPA document *appears* to infer that degrading of the reserve fabric could occur sooner. In the UK, 40 repacks (with no deployments) is at least 20 years in service. It seems that technology advances may provide a 'natural buffer' to use of reserves of this age. Having said that, I have an old Swift 5-cell reserve manufatured WAY back in the day (not in a serviceable rig) that, until now, I would have happilly used (subject to inspection), on the basis that it is 'tried and tested' technology. In relation to the uprating of standards, it follows that gear which is entirely acceptable today will, in time, slip below the 'bar', regardless of wear and tear on gear. I, like all non-visionaries, struggle to envisage any major changes in current gear design that would intrinsically improve safety, and dislkie the ideas that current gear, with acceptable risk to me today, will be 'dangerous' in a decade. Having said that, I've got an old Pioneer H/C which is masterclass willies material. It made me think that the 'old school' were a little cavalier...

I thought this was a worrying concept. Of course, the whole idea of idea of expecting a brand new umbrella to withstand a major hurricane is a worying concept, albeit for different reasons. Apologies, I don't know how to make it blue. http://www.bpa.org.uk/forms/council/Riggers%20Minutes%20-%201%20June%202006.doc "John Harding had also included information and statistics on tests carried out by a number of organizations regarding the handling of parachute material vs porosity. The results from these organizations show that there was a marked increase in the porosity of the fabric due to handling, and this is mainly during the packing process. They also concluded that parachutes that undergo such a porosity increase might not pass TSO tests. John had also included information of countries that have adopted a one-year re-pack cycle and a list of manufactures who have endorsed 1 year repack cycles on their equipment where regulations allow."

Right! I get it now. I was thinking about the yellow cable in the housing 'before' the white loop, rather than the portion 'after', in the (hard) housings. Thank you.

There were a number of posts a while back relating to hard cutaways. One of the possible reasons for a cutaway handle being hard to pull appears to be dirt/third party material on the yellow cables, and the advice seems to be that cleaning the yellow cables regularly (every 30 days) will mitigate this particular mode of hard pull occurring. I was wondering if such a mechanism could also affect the reserve ripcord: i.e. dirt/material on the cable or in the housing being solely responsible for a hard reserve pull. It would seem reasonable that if it can affect the cutaway cables, it could also affect the reserve ripcord. However, it doesn't seem possible that a jumper could clean the reserve cable every thirty days. Some repack regimen would not allow a cleaning operation to be carried out for a year. Thoughts appreciated Darren

I am exagerating. It was very painful, and tore muscles in my rotator cuff, and stretched the remaining components of my shoulder. My 'incident' happened because I was too fast (and 'confident') going for the handle. If the door was on the right, as it had been for 13 previous SL jumps, it wouldn't have mattered. Just something to think about. I have!

A minor point - I made a mistake on a dummy pull, and was a little quick off the mark. The aircraft was a PAC750 with a left hand door. I got my arm over the static line, and my arm nearly came off (I exagerate a little, but not a huge amount). I had previously done a number of SL jumps from aircraft with right hand doors. These seem to have less risk of an entanglement for dummy pulls.

That is a good point. Thanks.