mark

Full disclosure: I've been working with RI on its MARD. (Thanks, Mr. Shadeland, for the mention! RI plans for its MARD to be fully and easily retrofitable to its entire current sport product line, and, we hope, also be retrofitable to some other recent RI models.) Also, skydiving is not safe. Even with a MARD. The Collins Lanyard helps in those rare situations where the RSL-side riser breaks below the RSL attachment. The lanyard is intended to cut away the opposite-side riser, so neither main riser is attached if the RSL pulls the reserve pin because of a broken main riser. But how many broken RSL-side risers have you seen in the last 20 years (not counting the mis-assembled ones, of course)? In exchange for this feature, the Collins Lanyard introduces the possibility of a new malfunction mode: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3331658. The Collins Lanyard is a required, proprietary part of the Skyhook system. No other MARD incorporates a Collins Lanyard, including designs already on the market such as Wings Boost, Strong Sky Anchor, or Mirage Trap. Also, Collins Lanyards are not part of the Airborne Systems MARD design -- and Airborne Systems is the world's largest manufacturer of military freefall systems, a market that dwarfs the civilian market. There are many reasons why you might choose one rig or another, but I don't think the availability of a Collins Lanyard -- or even a MARD in general -- should be high on the list. Your reserve is designed to open in 3 seconds or 300 feet, depending on certification standards. In exchange for added complexity and new malfunction modes, a properly functioning MARD speeds up the opening by at most 100 feet. -Mark

In the US, this is allowed since it is not forbidden by regulation. It would be an alteration of the main canopy/container, which can be done by a master rigger without needing approval from the manufacturer or the FAA. -Mark

If you think it's a good idea to reach above the main container to help launch a main, yes. If you think you'll be able to hang on long enough after a main deploys to pull a cutaway handle, yes. -Mark

From my logbook: Sunpath Javelin J5 #515 DOM 6/1989. Has Velcro riser covers. -Mark

No, 19 passengers is the max before you need a flight attendant. -Mark

I do not know of any. Also, about a thousand years ago, we used to freestow the main canopy lines by coiling them in the container. Rubber bands were just for the bag locking stows. We quit freestowing the lines because sometimes they half-hitched around a container flap, but I don't recall any malfunctions resulting from lines entangling with themselves. Except maybe tension knots, and we have those with conventional bags and current line stow methods. -Mark

From the current PD reserve owner's manual, page 26: In most cases, this involves sending the canopy back to PD. Other manufacturers may have different requirements. Strong, for example, doesn't have anything in the Dual Hawk or TNT manuals regarding water landings. -Mark

I will add that a rigger willing to pack every TSOd rig maybe needs to grab some books/manuals and study more. -Mark

If you'll go back to read my original response to you, pagalwallah, I agreed -- in English -- that I would repack that recertified reserve back from PD, because it is still good enough to be produced. Also, thank you for supporting my point that appropriateness for intended use should be a consideration in whether you should pack a particular reserve (regardless of age) for a particular customer. I note that Mr. Baumchen and I disagree about this. -Mark

Let me try again using shorter words. Would you let your best friend use a new 24-foot flat circular as his or her regular reserve? -Mark

Answering not for councilman24 but for myself, yes. Because PD is still making PDRs, and people are still buying them. But to echo councilman24, it's not about age, it's about obsolescence/performance. If you are accustomed to the glide performance and flare of a more modern design, it doesn't matter how good your 5-cell Swift is. Eventually, Ravens/Glidepaths/PDRs will fall into the same category as a 5-cell Swift -- good for their day, but unforgiving now. -Mark

Okay, then they made it up. If the brakes are going to unstow because of something other than the slider hitting the toggles, they unstow while the slider is most of the way up and the angular difference from the slider grommet to one side of the riser or the other is negligible. -Mark

No part of it had any service life. Jerry Baumchen Towards the end, the cartridges had a shelf life of two years. I regret being old enough to remember this. -Mark

Peregrine may be a new name, but Dave and Aggie (the designers/engineers at Peregrine) have decades of experience in design and manufacture of similar rigs. -Mark

In the US, FAR 105.3 Definitions: "Automatic Activation Device means a self-contained mechanical or electro-mechanical device that is attached to the interior of the reserve parachute container, which automatically initiates parachute deployment of the reserve parachute at a pre-set altitude, time, percentage of terminal velocity, or combination thereof." We do not have a name for the same device fitted to a main. -Mark

Pikers. https://halojumper.com/ -Mark

There are videos of other containers exhibiting similar behavior. I think you overestimate the drag of a pilot chute at subterminal and overestimate the lever arm of a bridle exiting to the side of an inverted jumper. -Mark

Seconded. -Mark

What form would you like this chastisement to take? What is a definition of "excessively tight" that can be measured in test conditions? If tight rigs are dangerous, why should small rigs get a pass? -Mark

This one?

What is your proposal for the rigging committee? -Mark

So built as a student/rental rig? More expensive to manufacture, sells and resells for less than a fixed MLW rig.

The larks-head at the Cypres washer is a nice touch. If you lock the larks-head fingertrap using the "no-sew fingertrap" method, it is very secure. Mark

The question(s) in the rigger test bank specify whether it's a main or reserve/auxiliary/emergency canopy. Our students report the answer is scored correct for main canopy relined by senior rigger. That is, the expected answer(s) conform to AC105-2E para 15.c.(2). -Mark

From the 1971 Poynter's Manual, line replacement on a [round] main may be done by a senior rigger, line replacement on a [round] reserve may be done only by a master rigger. The standards have always been different for mains and reserves. The day you earn your master rigger certificate, you will be allowed to replace reserve lines. Wouldn't it be nice if you could practice on main canopies first, where you could see your results without having to worry about catastrophic results? As RiggerLee mentioned, main canopies do not possess this quality called "airworthiness." Airworthiness is defined only for reserves via TSO standards. If the main does not have airworthiness, how could your repair affect it? I have roughly 20 different drafts of AC105-2D/E from the original proposal to the current published version. In every one, main canopy line replacement is specifically called out as a senior rigger task, which means that roughly 20 times at least several members other than me on the PIA Technical Committee had an opportunity to comment or make a change and they did not. And on at least two occasions, the entire committee reviewed and approved the PIA portion. I do not know the motives of all those who say that main canopy line replacement is limited to senior riggers, but at least one of the most vocal is quite frank in admitting that it's about the money. It's also easier to teach a senior rigger course if you eliminate all line work. -Mark