alan

The type (design) of reserve is just one factor in how fast it deploys and inflates. RSL may have been a factor, the harness/container/reserve system certainly plays a role, and even the rigger. As a rigger, I would put type of reserve a little down on the list when it comes to determining fast deployment/inflation. alan

FYI about the FXC First some history: The original FXC was developed by HI-TEK Corporation, and then further developed and produced by FXC Corporation, both out of California. Parachutes de France later produced the FXC 12000 on license from FXC Corp. The American model was found to have some weaknesses that caused it to fire when it was not supposed to. This was, among other things, caused by leaks in an air hose inside the unit. PdF has developed the unit further and improved the quality of that air hose's attachment points. In 1994 the FXC Corporation recommended that all FXC 12000s should be updated to J-standard aka J-mod. This modification included more air filters for a "safer" and steadier inflow of air. Units that have gone through this modification have three gold colored filters on the control unit that allow air to flow into it. Only units that have been updated to J-standard have these filters. Some data for the FXC: Accuracy: 0-1800ft: -100ft / +300ft 1800-3500ft: -200ft / +400ft Note: The accuracy is no longer acceptable at DZs that are at an elevation such that the firing altitude is above 3500ft. The manufacturer can calibrate the units to be appropriate for these altitudes, but non-calibrated units will not be. Firing parameters: None at speeds below 40ft/sec Possible at speeds above 40ft/sec Effective at speeds above 65ft/sec Altitude setting/re-cocking: The manufacturer recommends that the main canopy is deployed at least 1500ft above the set firing altitude for the unit. The jumper should be under a fully opened canopy at least 1000ft above the set firing altitude. This is done to allow the pressure within the two internal chambers to equalize with the outside pressure before reaching the set firing altitude. If the chambers don't have time to equalize before the set firing altitude the right chamber will have a higher pressure than the left one as an air hose inside opens. When this occurs a membrane will either move enough to cause the unit to fire, or just enough for the locking pins to move slightly, which can cause a misfire on later jumps. The same can to a certain degree happen if the jumper engages in "sharp" turns while under canopy. The FXC must be re-cocked if there is a suspicion of a "near-fire". It is not enough to just recalibrate it. To re-cock the unit it must be removed from the rig! The unit should be in JUMP mode while doing this. To re-cock the unit you need to place a round screwdriver, or a designated "loop" through the eye at the end of the release cable. Stand on the screwdriver, or the "loop" and pull the main unit straight up. Do not pull on the cablehousing or the airhose. Pull it steadily until it stops and hold it there for a few seconds. Do not pull too hard, or after the cable has been pulled to its outer position, as this can cause damage to the triangle spring, which controls the release mechanism. Release gently until it stops. Calibrating the unit: Always make sure the unit is set in the JUMP position before calibarting it. On earlier models it was necessary to take up any slack that was present inside the control unit when setting the altitude. This was done by first setting it to 4 (4000ft) and then go back down to 1 (1000ft). This should not be necessary on models with the J-mod (FXC says it's not necessary), but there's no harm in doing it. Make sure that the needle is directly above the 1-line. There's a small gap between the needle and the dial-face, so one could be fooled a little by the shadow effect that is created. After the unit has been calibrated for the day it is not necessary to do anything with it unless the air pressure has changed "significantly" (i.e. the needle has moved noticeable from the original position) or the unit has been turned off. The unit should always be in the JUMP position. This even includes when shipping the unit. It should only be set in the OFF position for short periods of time, which include going back down with the plane, landing in water, landing in deep snow, or before the trunk of a car is slammed shut with the unit inside it. The reason for this is that a membrane/seal that closes the valve for the air hose can be deformed because it remains closely pressed against the valve opening. This deformation can influence the firing altitude, as the membrane/seal does not close the valve sufficiently during regular use. In other words, turning the unit OFF and leaving it that way for a long period of time can increase the chances of the unit misfiring. Finally, the unit should stay at least 15 minutes in the outside temperature before calibrating it, to make sure that all its components have reached the same temperature. Failing to do this could lead to a wrong setting, as changes in temperature could cause movements within the materials. These are basic things to do to prevent misfires. Chances are the people who are worried about FXCs have heard horror stories, or urban legends about earlier models of the FXC, or about FXCs that have not been calibrated correctly, or been maintained properly. There are a lot of small things that people don't know about, which can all cause the unit to fire prematurely. alan

I can't recall how many times I've had to say this same thing in one form or another. People do a few jumps on a canopy and proclaim it better or worse than what they are used to jumping. Often times, they don't even check to insure that the canopy is in trim or set up properly, they just take it out of the box, assemble it to the rig, pack and jump. Then they offer the world their "opinions" on the canopy.....often with fewer than 15 jumps on it. Demoing (evaluating) a canopy requires attention to detail, some knowledge and forethought, and the time/money to make enough jumps to learn the canopy. alan

Hahahaha! You crazy bastard! I once launched a 2-way from...errr....ummm......uhhh..... 2000'. Yup, the pilot even vouched for it. Well, OK, but we were pretty damn close to getting it. Turned three points before tracking and dumping. Odd that I could have been that stupid back then and still be alive now. alan

Nice answer Bill. I'd only like to add that we should remember that things change as we get more experience and what we were taught as students may and often times should change (and sometimes not), especially as our equipment changes. Keep current on your procedures and don't stop learning. alan

I generally try to avoid using descriptions with words like "better product" in them when discussing something as subjective and open to personal preferences as canopies that are in similar performance classes. People who have jumped and liked PD canopies will tend to prefer them over similar Icarus canopies because they have to be landed differently. PD is shorter in the control stroke and has a very easy zone to find, this is often percieved as having more flare power. That is really not the case, they just need to be flown differently. That does not necessarily make one better than the other, it just gives us a choice so each of us can have an opportunity to better satisfy our individual preferences. I'll choose my VX over a Stiletto any day. Is it a better product? Not necessarily. Different class, different category, different flying skills, but better? Depends on how we each define "better" I guess. alan

Let the canopy dry in the shade. A soft bristle brush will remove most dirt/mud after it is dry. Wiping affected areas with a damp cloth can clean some more away, same with the lines. I think most canopy fabrics are "sized" or preshrunk. I don't believe the tapes or lines are though. Some pond swoopers believe that a dunk or several is no big deal if you let the canopy dry in the shade or just jump it dry. Maybe they are right, but any canopy I have seen go for a swim is not in the same trim as before. Some are affected more, some less. Atair had a demo canopy out that was slamming people on opening, Dan attributed it to having seen a lot of time in the pond and it was therefore badly out of trim. Atair canopies within manufacturers specs do not open hard. Chuck, who jumps Atair canopies and has experience dunking them and then jumping them, has posted that he sees no real ill effect on the performance, if my memory is serving me correctly. My canopies never see more than a light wiping with a damp cloth. alan

Yes, I am aware of the ruling, I have referred to it several times earlier in this thread. The focus here, and my point, is the inconsistent interpretastions of the FARs. By the FAAs own definition, Parachute alterations are changes made to the _FAA-approved configuration._ alan

Rigging Innovations or any gear manufacturer will give you good instructions for washing your gear if you ask or get a copy of a manual......altough not all have gear cleaning instructions. They may vary. At repack time have your rigger completely disassemble the rig. Then take it into the bath tub with you and use a mild detergent like Woolite...avoid anything with bleach whiteners. Then play rub a dub dub in the tub and have a soft bristle brush to scrub and scrub. Apply soap directly to tougher stains. Warm water. Then rinse and rinse and squeeze and rinse some more. Be sure to change the water for rinsing. Walk on it, sit on it and hug it and squeeze it and love it. After a VERY thorough rinsing, squeeze it and pat it between towels to dry. Then hang it in front of a fan to dry thoroughly. Wipe the hardware dry and apply a little WD-40 or what I prefer.....food grade silicone spray lubricant. Wipe it so there is no excess residue. Some will then do a Scotch Guard job....I don't bother but some swear by it. Have your rigger reassemble when you are sure it is thoroughly dry. This is also a good time to clean the inside of the cable housings (use a flexible .22 caliber gun cleaning kit with that food grade silicone spray) and ckeck for any tacking that may be coming untied. alan

This happens very often when something new comes out. We like to be trendy or the manufacturer cuts a really good deal with the DZO to switch, knowing that new jumpers will follow the lead. Doesn't mean the new one is really any better or the old one isn't as good. Just read the thread. Interesting though, isn't it, if the Sabre2 is so good, why are they already working on a fix? Maybe it isn't going to be a fix but just a refinement or an improvement. Canopies all evolve, it is just part of the game. PD, Icarus, PA, Atair.......they are all seeking to improve their products and get an edge in a very competitive market. alan

Odds? Who knows. Even if they ruled against you, you could appeal and win, just ask J. Micheal. What would bring this to the FAA's attention? A lawsuit as a result of a fatality? The lawyers would have a field day with this. Civil court? Hmmmm....FAR's.....F=Federal????? Fines, suspension, jail time? I'm a senior rigger not a lawyer. Read the FAR's, if memory is correct I think I can recall mention of suspension and fines. I'm not sure about jail time, perhaps if the circumstances warranted it. Anyone else? alan

Really? What manufacturers have you asked? I have asked for instructions on assembling a BOC pouch and received them and for retrofitting hard cutaway housings. I agree though, if you don't have the manufacturers instructions, then a senior rigger should stay away from it.........although, as in the CYPRES, it is a really simple operation to copy set. The loop that failed.....careless, shitty work and I would bet that individual would do the same even with instructions available. Hell, in the case of a CYPRES, the instructions allow the owner to assemble it and even change the battery, the rigger is only needed for the repack. alan

This seems inconsistent to me on the recent ruling about assembling the CYPRES on a CYPRES ready rig. According to this, if the rig doesn't leave the factory with the CYPRES installed, assembled, or whatever, then it has been changed or altered. So, can a senior rigger assemble a CYPRES into a new rig that is CYPRES ready or not? Too much is left open to interpretation and the interpretations are far too inconsistent. The BOC thing is another good example. The original design configuation gives an option of BOC or ROL. A senior rigger is not changing it, they are assembling it. According to "AC105-2C Par 8. Parachute alterations. Parachute alterations are changes made to the FAA-approved configuration." If a BOC is an FAA-approved configuation, then assembling it is not a change. The AAD issue, in my opinion is also clearly defined by the last sentence of that pargraph. "......the installation of an AAD on an auxiliary/reserve parachute system in which _the manufacturer "does not authorize such installation."_ I have in my hand a copy of RI's instructions for retrofitting a BOC pouch that authorize a senior rigger to do the work. Maybe we need the FAA to define "original configuration". Does it refer to a particular rig/component and how that particular piece leaves the factory door or does it refer to the FAA-approved configuration? Seems to me that question is answered in AC105-2C, but apparently even that is debateable. alan

Interesting. B-12 snaps are part of the harness which is part of the TSO'd system, main risers aren't. I wonder what the distinction is between assembling dive loops onto risers as per mfgr's instructions and altering the risers is. To me, an alteration is a change outside of an original design configuration. The CYPRES assembly case seems to confirm that, but not clearly, since it only applies to CYPRES ready rigs. If my memory is correct, you have to be a master rigger and AirTec approved to make a rig CYPRES ready. But, doesn't assembling a CYPRES into even a CYPRES ready rig alter it from the original form? One has a component that can cut the reserve loop and one doesn't. Isn't THAT piece of equipment altered? I have to agree with you. In the end, if the manufacturer says I can do it and I follow the instructions, then I feel OK with it. alan

Agreed, and the sections posted by Hook will clarify. Agreed, as I mentioned before, that will probably show up on the written exam. Agreed, but what if the stitching is failing on a 6" section of the seam. I think we now get into interpretation. Interprtation again. What if the dive loops are offered as an option by the mfgr? We ran into a similar dilemma a year or two ago. Some DPRE was interpreting AC105-2C to mean that installing a CYPRES on a CYPRES ready rig was an alteration. The relevant text is on page 30 of PPM vol II, par. 8. He cited a well known rigger for numerous violations. The rigger appealed and won. It was determined that on a CYPRES ready rig this was an assembly and not an alteration. The word that caused the confusion was stating that he had "installed" the CYPRES rather than "assembled" it. So, if a set of risers can be purchased from the mfgr with dive loops and a senior rigger "assembles" a set that doesn't have them, IAW the mfgr's instructions, is it legal? What about a BOC pouch? Hard cutaway cable housings? I have instructions from two different major gear manufacturers that specifically state that a senior rigger can perform the work. As far as line replacements, PPM vol I, page 27, par 5 specifically states that line replacements are the domain of master riggers. Problem is, does "line" mean the complete set or one, in the context in which it is used? I think it is open to interpretation. Would a failed lower brakeline result in the failure of the parachute? No. It would fly normally and could be landed safely. But, what if it failed during a landing approach? I think the answer would then be yes. At the big PIA meetings they hold workshops on rigging tasks such as line replacement. Do they emphasize that only master riggers can do the work? I don't know, maybe a little of both. alan

Yes, you could jump a bedsheet for a main if you wanted to. But, if you wanted to alter it or make any major modification to it, you would need to be a master rigger. Go figure! alan

You will find that the FARs, to a great degree, are open to interpretation. Common practice and the FARs are not always one in the same as well. Your best bet is to do some reading in PPM and then discuss it with the DPRE in your area. The FARs stress that all work and maintenance be done IAW the mfgr's instructions. All of the manuals I am familiar with state that you need to be a properly qualified and rated senior rigger to assemble and pack a rig, including attaching the toggles. My opinion is that the DPRE you refer to is over the edge a little, especially with respect to the toggles. Changing an entire line set is usually considered to fall into the major repair, modification description and therefore would require a master rigger. I believe there is even a specific question about this on the senior riggers' written exam. In my experience however, it seems to be a common practice for some senior riggers. Replacing a broken line or frayed lower brake lines would to most people be a minor repair and allowed by a senior rigger. alan

Most of the manufacturers recommend at least once every 30 days. I go with that unless you are in a dry, dusty area or land in the peas or some other area or in a manner that might allow for dirt or gravel to enter your housings. Then, check before you repack the main. alan

Hi! I'm your local rigger, you know, the guy your trust your life to, the one who packs your last chance. The last time you gave me your rig for a repack, I gave it back to you with a reminder that you should disassemble, inspect and clean your cutaway system. Did you? It is the height of the jumping season in many areas now and stuff gets overlooked. I hope my reminder to maintain your cutaway system isn't one of the things that gets overlooked because, remember, you have decided to trust me with your life, why would you then choose to not take my advice? alan

You may want to check my reply to Slotperfect. PPM Vol II does mention both max and min pull forces as detailed in AS 8015A. It can be found on page 39. These are the standards for TSO testing and I believe apply to the reserves we repack IAW the FARs. I have just reviewed the manufacturers manuals for the Mirage, Javelin and Talon and none of those have any standard operating procedures in them that specifies pulling the handle in the same direction as the housing or straight down. I don't have time to review all of the manuals, but I would guess that if that instruction exists in any of them, it is the exception rather than the norm. I agree that any procedure done on a container should be done IAW the mfgr's instructions.....where they exist. When in doubt, call them. They all are tested in compliance with AS 8015A though, so I would hardly expect that to be in conflict. Yes, if you repeated the test over and over, it would damage the housing, that is why we usually only do the test when there is some doubt that the max and/or the min pull forces would not be met. The SIM??? Well, that is just a recommendation from USPA on what they believe will be the safest method of deploying the reserve. It makes sense too, but it takes a back seat to the FARs, AS 8015A, the mfgr's instructions and even PPM. As a side note, I know that the RSL, when it pulls the reserve cable, does it in some direction other than in line with the housing. By design. It is hard on the cable and the housing, but seldom do either need replacing, even after several activations. Well, so much for my 2 cents. alan

AS 8015A issued by the Society of Automotive Engineers details the minimum performance standards for parachute assemblies and components for emergency use. PPM Vol II contains the text. I think the relevant part is on page 39, 4.3.2.2 Pull Test: A load AT THE RIPCHORD HANDLE of not less than 5 lbf (applied in the direction giving the lowest pull load) nor more than 22 lbf [APPLIED IN THE DIRECTION GIVING THE HIGHEST PULL LOAD UNDER NORMAL DESIGN OPERATIONS] shall be required to cause a positive and quick functioning of the parachute assembly on all tests. ...... As 8015A is the standard for TSO testing, but I believe the same standard applies to any reserve we repack IAW the FARs. I had hoped that my response would have motivated a few people to look this up because we seem to always focus on the 22 lbf force to pull the reserve pin and forget that there is also a minimum pull force that is just as important. We also forget that the 22 lbf load is not necessarily in the direction that gives the lowest load. Most reserve handles are pulled somewhere in between straight away from the body and straight down. The key words are "under normal design operations" I hope this has helped clarify my comment and has illuminated some faded information. alan

Most SCUBA shops have anti-fog coating and auto supply stores do as well.......Rainex products. alan

If you are pulling the handle straight down, I don't think you are doing the test correctly. alan

I agree with Phree. I have a Voodoo and love it. Very rigger friendly and freefly safe. Good value. You are limited for canopy size and as Phree said, if you don't match the sizes well, it won't look good. If you do, it will look great. alan

Why? Have you conducted similar _experiments_ on other canopies? What lead you to believe you could do this on the Cobalt in the first place? alan