RiggerLee

But such a label is often written as a "Recommended Maximum" based on it's flight characteristics. PD even gives it by experience level. It's generally blatantly ignored. It's a good way for them to doge liability. But this would actually make it a TSO restriction. It would change the true legal maximum with the FAA. Now if you have a small rig you are violating the TSO and both you and the pilot can be violated for every jump made from the airplane. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

What if the weight it can support at that decent rate is lower then the min drop weight for the heavy drops? Does the lower weight to comply with the decent become the maximum suspended weight. And where is the incentive to build a stronger canopy? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

So if that is now locked in stone, what are your thoughts? Will it become the limiting factor on the suspended weight for the canopy as opposed to 254 lb. or what ever the structural weight turns out to be from the heavy drops. Will we see the next generation moving towards the minimal structural requirements be cause there is now no point in pushing for higher weights and speeds when you can no longer placard them for more then say.... 1.2 lb./sq.ft.? And of the canopies we have now. Where do you think they would fall on this. What would a 126 do at 254 lb. for a total speed? How low do you have to go on your wing loading to get down to 36 ft./sec. over all? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I don't think there is any way to say. Too many variables of trim angle, break setting, and air foil. As I understand it there will be standards for this in the new TSO standards so in future there will be a number that will probable dictate the maximum loading of the canopy. They seem to be going round and round with the FAA over this. I'm not sure how it will settle. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I jumps some canopies both with and with out a prototype air lock design. My conclusion was that adding air locks to a canopy did not necessarily improve the canopy. In fact it could cause problems. The bottom line is that a canopy is ether a good canopy or not. There is nothing magical about airlocks. Adding them to a design will not necessarily improve it. And having them on a canopy does not mean that it is in any way a fundamentally better canopy. Brian is a smart guy. He builds some nice canopies. As long as he doesn't get too creative with his seams. But his designs are good because his designs are good. Not because air locks are the next sliced bread. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

From time to time we would have some young jumper get lost and wonder in to the loft when we were all there. They often left white faced and shaking. I always told them that if they wanted to fell warm and fuzzy about there gear and sleep well at night, not to hang in the loft with the riggers. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I thought the word failure was clear enough. I'd like to pull the thing and see the fail point. Should we start a pool? What's the buy in? Who's got a good tester? Do you think Sherman would pull it for us? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I tried to reply before but the stupid computer ate my post. The wing thing just means that it was swedged with a two die set, top and bottom, Nothing wrong with it. That's how we built all our rip cords. Cracks like you describe are actually very common on marine hard ware. They swedge cables in exactly the same way. salt water runs down the stays and gets into the lower end. I guess it corrodes and some how swells inside the hard ware causing cracks like that. That's how they fail. I have never actually seen it on a rip cord though. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

If you look at the line drawing of the device. There's a PDF there. You will see that the pin end of the puller is threaded. A plug with a hole through it is threaded into that end of the cutter. There is an O ring and then another threaded plug. The two are tightened against each other to compress the O ring and seal it against the cable. He's controlling the pull force with that. Possible issue with force, temp, age, leakage, etc. but there is no way that it could just blow out. It's a secure part of the puller. The "piston" that he is using right now is two ball swedges turned down with o-rings in between them for the seal. I think he could do better with a cylindrical part with grooves and a shank on the end that could be swedged on the cable. I think he could get a better seal and lower pull forces out of a 1*19 cable even though it's stiffer then a 7*7. Even better if the piston had a tubular shank that extended through the seal to give it some thing smooth to slide on. The cutter would have to be longer over all to protect that stiff section but it would seal much better. With a little effort I think this could really go some place. I'm just not sure it's there yet. I see what he has right now as a prototype cobbled together with existing off the shelf parts. It's a bit beyond that but not much. With a little development I think it could be an answer to some of our issues. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I also think it needs a little more tweaking but I'm actually a bit more optimistic about it then you. First off I think it is contained, at least initially, better then you think. Fist off there is a seal consesting of two threaded plugs with a o-ring in between "sealing" around the pin side of the cable. It's a contributing factor to pull force and has potential issues with it. It seals around a 7*7 cable so there has to be some leakage but it's by no means just an open rocket motor on that side. I've seen way cruder systems work very well. The other end where the "piston" will be pushed out of the cylinder will vent but I'm not sure it's as big of an issue as you seem to think. It's not that strange of a system Look at a number of fire arms as an example. The gas systems on a number of guns vent in exactly the same way at the end of their power stroke. Look at the cup on the end of an AK where the piston is pushed out of the gas block. Or an AR system where the cup on the bolt carrier is blown off the end of the gas tube venting directly into the receiver. And those are systems with far greater pressures, 60,000 psi range, and far greater gas volumes. Look at a revolver and how the gas can freely leak from the gap between the cylinder and the forcing cone on the back of the barrel. And that's right by your hand. The Rhino is odd in that it fires from the bottom, and you can get a burn if you hold your finger over the gap there, but with the proper grip and just a small amount of separation it's no issue. There is a lot of length and volume between the end of the cylinder and the end of the housing The gas has the opportunity to expand and mix with cold air long before it blow out onto your hand. I Don't think I'd have an issue with it. I'll volunteer my hand. It's not that big a charge. I'm not sure it would be that big of a logistical issue. I'll site a president. Primers. It's an open explosive. You can ship them through UPS. It does get labeled with a hazardous cargo label and it does have to go ground, no over night air, and there is generally an extra fee. But you can ship them all day long. And that's by the thousand. I've got a box over in the corner that was shipped to me with... 10,000 or it might be 15,000 primers, depending on which ones are in there. And what we are talking about is not that much bigger and way more stable then a magnum rifle primer. Oh and you can ship gun powder too. Same sort of rules but it ships every day. And no storage requirements for any of it. So I guess it's a question of how these devices are classified. These types of squibs are not that uncommen. They are actually used in a lot of applications. It might not be a big deal. There are a number of things that I would like to see improved on the system Better sealing is one of them. But I'm more concerned with improving the pull force and how long it can be maintained in the event of a hard pull or difficulty in shifting the pin. Once the gas leaks by that's it. You got nothing. I think there are some other option, like a spring contained with in the housing around the cable where it could continue to pull, and pull, and pull... rather then this puff of air which once it's lost the thing is dead. I think it's interesting. I don't think it's perfect but I'm not ready to dismiss it. I think it has the potential to be a very feasible alternative to a cutter at least on some systems. And it could solve a lot of issues with the reliability of the reserve pilot chute deployment. And you can't say that that is not an issue any more. The bodies are stacking up. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

That canopy is not trapezoidal. What you're seeing is the distortion caused mainly by the unloaded ribs floating upwards when you are at very low air speed with low dynamic pressure trying to inflate the canopy. The tail is spread wide because by pulling down on it you squeeze all the air out of it, flattening it to it's actual width. Also there is more lift at the front of the canopy trying to distort it fighting against the limited inflation of the canopy trying to spread it. So span wise shrinkage is at it's worst. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I've packed them. People have jumped them. They work. They are what they are. An older generation container. Think vector 2 era technology. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I just had an odd idea. Theirs no doubt that spin ups could be exciting. What if you were to wear a G-suit. Some of them are basically like a pair of shorts. It inflates around the thigh like a tunicate and against the lower abdomen to help keep blood from pooling there. What if you had one with a small co2 cylinder to inflate it right before exit and just bled it out after a good opening. I wonder if it could buy you a bit more time on a hard spin up to cut away. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I'm going to offer a differing view on packing and bulk distribution. I like to tinker with pack jobs. I actually think there is a lot that can be done with how you distribute bulk in side the bag. Most of the problems I've seen with containers are a result of how and what people tried to put into containers. Flap problems, tab problems, wrinkles, appearance, even seam damage. I actually tried to give a lecture once at PIA on this. Basically I conned them into letting me in for free in return for an hours worth of incoherent rambling. I wish I still had my notes but they were on another computer. Most of it was an argument as to why you had to modify packing techniques do to differences in the design of different canopies in relation to container design. So it's like this. A basic propack is pretty much the same for all canopies. It's the equivalent of a long fold on a round. But due to design decisions including size, cord, span, stabilizer, trim, airfoil, and break setting. you can wind up with a lot of variance in the length and width of the canopy as it lays there packed. There are the same number of layers of fabric layed out for all canopies, assuming they are seven cells. But the number of layers changes along the length of the pack job. The trim controls how the layers stack up as it becomes progressively thicker along the pack job. The break setting affects how far down the tail pulls and where you pick up that extra bulk. There can be a void at the bottom where it's just stabilizer if it's long enough. Point is that there can be a lot of variation in length and even width for the same size canopies. but they are all about the same thickness even though that distribution can be a little different. I was basically talking about how you have to change the way you fold the canopy to absorb this length and distribute the bulk relative to the shape of the bag and container. Not just in where you make the folds but in how many. I was also trying to convey the idea that the canopy can be spit in half not only in the upper ear but also bellow the center cell allowing the lower folds to extend beyond the closing loop or the start of the ear of the molar bag. This allows more control over the taper of the pack job and can allow you to absorb more length then you would be able to below the loop in just the lower part of the bag alone. This gives you more control over how much length/bulk you have to put in the top of the ear and can give you much more control over the shape of the top of the bag. A lot of this was things we had learned from packing really tight fucking rigs. No one around there ever bought a reserve smaller then the absolute maximum size reserve and some times one size over. I didn't sell these rigs. I was not the dealer. I was not consulted. Believe me the world would be a very different place if people would just consult me on all their major decisions. World peace. I could do world peace, if they would just listen to me... Point is, every one around there just learned to deal with it. And it does not necessarily mean that the rig will not open but it could contribute to a problem if the bag is not packed right. Size and compatibility are not the only issues here. I wish the problems were that simple we could have this fixed with in a year. Returning to topic. I'll give you an example of how it could affect bag extraction on a container. I just happen to have my brand new wings sitting beside me

Interesting. My new wings is setting right here beside me with magnetic riser covers. If the pc pulls on the bag rather then be dagged upwards by the riser is pulls the pin out of the loop and releases the rsl. In a since it's the same as the skyhook just more secure. Seems like a reasonable design. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Actually I don't think you could have a miss rout like that by flipping the bag. In that case I think it would be around the entire line set not just the back riser. This would have to date back to the assembly. It's not that uncommon to see... oppsies from assembly. There are just a lot of opportunities to make mistakes. It's a lessen in why you should check your self. It's a lessen in why you should check the work of others. And I hate to say it but it's a lessen in not trusting factory riggers. I have seen a lot of errors big and small come straight from the manufacturers. Maybe they just stick in my head more. Or maybe it's be cause all of their work does involve assembly of the rig and has a fundamentally higher oopsy potential. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I'm going to play the devils advocate here. It's easy to say that he should have cut away at 13,000 ft when you have never been there and never expect to be in that situation. I've done a lot of CRW and we've faced issues like that often. The very statement that you should cut away from some thing like that imedeantly implies that you do not have faith in you're reserve system and perhaps in this case he should not have. But it also implies that it is suicidal to open your main at 3,500 ft on every jump. By you're logic you should plan to be in the saddle by 6,000 feet or higher on every jump. He was by no means or pushing the envelope on his equipment in any way. The altitude that he cut away at should have been ample several times over. There was nothing wrong with his decisions. There was how ever some thing severely wrong with the performance of his equipment. You can not glaze over that fact with the simple assertion that he should have done some thing differently. At some point we have to put our faith in our gear. As to what we expect from it... that's very personal depending on the equipment and the individual. But there are clear minimum standards set out for it's performance. Minimum I say. It's spelled out in the testing standards of the TSO's. If it can't meet those then there's some thing wrong and it needs to be addressed. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

And what is this going to do to Booths obsession with spectra rip cords? Will he have to start buying stainless ripcords from Jump Shack? Or is he going to tie a knot in his spectra at a certin point on so your inline can push on it? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

How exactly are you doing this mechanically in side the housing. I'm not clear on how it's working mechanically and still allowing full extraction of the rip cord. And what is the story on the gas? How is it contained? Does any of it escape from your pushers, pullers, or the inline? Is there a stop on the ripcord that you push against to move it and how much slack do you have to allow the rip cord to float and stretch? How long is your control stroke? How much compression is there in your housing? How will the housing be mounted? Tacked down or with a clamp like the old school housings that attached to a plate going to the first cone or grommet or what ever? I can see this working for you but are you looking at using this same design on other rigs? What about when there is more space or... softness, stretch between the end of the housing and the grommet? You can't just tease people like this. It's cruel. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

The early vector 3's tended towards longer pattern sets. I would also look at the Infinity. It tends towards a longer thinner reserve tray. I think some of there pattern sets would work well for you. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

One of the famous Booth quotes is that the cutaway handle that he invented has never been dislodged or pulled by any thing other then the human hand. Guess theirs a first time for every thing. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Wasn't there a case where a person was charged with a violation of an AC as if it were a FAR? I don't recall the details. I think I read about it in the AOPA or EAA magazine. Must have been ten years back. It was notable at the time for being the first case of it's kind. There was great concern about it as a president. How did that eventually come out? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

That looks cool. Is it a new cape well? I can't see how it works. Is that a cover and does it have a lever and ring bellow or is it like a one shot. How does it's weight compare to a large lug cape well? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I'm not sure there is a conflict. AC-105 presumes that the parts in question are compatible. It does give some leeway to the rigger in determining that. I would say that that is the basis up on which we interchanged parts in the past. What we have here is a statement from the manufacturer that they do not find other parts to be compatible. Part of it is very legitimate, equipment has become more specialized and if some thing radically different were used, like a larger diameter PC, then it could be compromised. I think another issue is the cypress and the fact that airtec had only tested it with the original PC. And if a weaker spring were used that could certainly be compromised. Now don't get me wrong. I'd love to swap some of these out but with that statement in the manual I don't think a rigger could just on his own authority go against the manufacturers evaluation of compatibility. It's not about manual vs. 105 it's about the manufacturer making a statement in regards to compatibility. Since by their statement no other component is compatible then in accordance with 105 you may not substitute it. That's why I think some one might have to apply for an approved alteration. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com