RiggerLee

That's kind of what I was curious about. How the paper work works. Do they have to have some sort of authorization to build a specific rip cord for your rig. and another for some one else's? Did their parts have to be part of the original testing of each system? Or do they hold an independent permit that allows them to build ripcords to the specs of any manufacturer? And does it have to be through that manufacturer? I mean do they need their consent? Say I had some old rig and the manufacturer is out of business. Could they build me a rip cord with out their involvement? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Does capewell build complete ripcords? Do they have a "TSO" for these rip cords? Do they actually build a complete rig? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Yes and no. Damn it, I don't want to talk smack about my brand new rig. It's so pretty and Shiny. I'm going to use my wings as an example. Please under stand that this isn't just about the wings containers. you can see similar problems in other rigs. Now having said that I've got it setting in my lap. If you look at the upper corners of the reserve tray. The tray sews down in a U and then it sews along the top. But it's got these... horns that extend farther up and tack down to the edge of the yoke higher up. this allows the top of the flap to go up at a higher angle farther on the yoke. It insures that the flap completely covers the top of the free bag. Even though the top flap is very baud. It's mostly esthetic but it does tend to retain the top ears of the bag. It all depends on the angle of the yoke and where the bend over the shoulders occurs. It looks like it has the potential to curve over the shoulder and form a pocket retaining the top ears of the bag. I can hook my fingers and pick up the rig from there. It's a subtle little thing that depending on the geometry might or might not exist on any given rig depending on the relative length of the main lift web and shape of the jumper. Let me contrast that with another rig which has less of this. The Icon, if I remember correctly has less extension of that flap along the yoke and the top of the tray is more open. I'm not advocating one over the other. Notice I just bought a wings. I'm just pointing out were small decisions in the pattern set can potentially affect the performance of one particular rig. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Let's take you're points one at a time. - Get a new pilot chute? Their is actually a statement in the manual forbidding you from doing that. There is no ambiguity at all. It gives a list of parts and states that only OEM parts may be used. Now how strong is that. We used to feel that we could swap out TSO'd parts. I started a thread on this in Gear and Rigging but no one seemed to have any interest in it. On the other hand there is a basic statement that all equipment must be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. In other words you have to follow the manual. If the pilot chute is under performing then the obvious solution to this is for the manufacturer to do a service bulletin offering a replacement pilot chute with higher drag. This would be by far the easiest solution. I don't know. It might be in the works as speak. It might be a little tricky with the FAA I think they would actually have to do a round of heavy drop testing to demonstrate that the new PC will not blow up. I don't think they could call it a miner change. This is why I was asking about getting a approval for an alteration through the FSDO to install another TSO'd PC from another manufacturer. I think that would bypass the statement in the manual, see other thread. As an example I think the stealth PC from RI would be a good fit. With small changes, two snaps and two pieces of tape, it would be compatible with their PC cap. It's about the same diameter of spring. It's a stiff spring and long. And it's way higher drag then the existing PC. So Sandy could do a miner change to his PC. He could get an approval through the FSDO. Or a Mirage PC in a Vector. What could be an easer swap then that? It can be granted as a general approval that any Master rigger can perform. Buttlers Dyper, or his four line come to mind. It might be far easier then Wings building a totally new PC of their own. - Get a different container? I just got a brand new fucking wings. It is setting right here beside me. All $2,000+ of it and that's with a 50% coupon. I'm looking right at it. It's really nice. The workmanship is out standing and that's coming from someone who builds shit for a living. I haven't put it together yet be cause I don't have the reserve yet. But it's so pretty and shiny! I don't know about you but even with the coupon that was a pretty big investment for me. That was not cheap. I am going to jump the fucking thing. And I'm not afraid to jump it. I've worked with all kinds of gear. All gear has it's limitations. We operate it accordingly. I will jump this rig but in doing so I will respect it's performance envelope. It seems that that performance may not measure up to the TSO standards that it's supposed to adhere to. Some people take issue with that and they probable should. It may one day kill some one. I have a slightly different perspective. I've worked with such a wide range of equipment that I am accustomed to bending my self around it rather then forcing it to my expectations. I can look at this and see what it is and know what I have to do to jump it. If you have the bones to swap out rigs because you changed jumpsuits and you want the colors to match, good for you. I don't have that kind of money. - Get Wings' MARD option installed? I actually did get the mard with this rig. Why, I never jump an RSL, too much CRW, I got it for resale value. I figured I can leave it unhooked. In this circumstance it could be a good thing. It could really help in the most vulnerable situation. It does not fix all the possible scenarios and some people might say that it's a cheat to cover up design issues but it's some thing that could save you're life in a low cutaway. You know if the TSO is ever challenged they might be able to make it standard and call it an alternate form of compliance. There is actually precedents for that in aviation with the FAA. The Mard might be a real option for you. - Downsize my reserve? There has been a lot of discussion about what part compatibility plays in this. It's an easy figure to point but I don't think that's the whole story. In fact it sounds like this canopy was in the middle of the approved range. I think it's a lot more complicated. I think there can be small things in the fundamental design of a container and the way it fits on the person that can affect it's deployment. This is not just a wings issue I see potential problems in a number of containers and I think that's one of the reasons why a lot of people are standing mum on this. It's just not an easy problem to track down. It's not as simple as one design or model or batch. So I'm not sure simple down sizing or going to an Optimum would solve the issue. I personally think a rig should be designed so that compatibility is not a issue with it's performance. And in the next generation of containers you may see that. - All of the above? What do you want me to say? What ever makes you feel warm and fuzzy when you're in the door. So it's a wings in the video. I don't think this should be treated as a wings issue. In fact it is NOT a wings issue. A lot of rigs out there have the potential to fall short of the performance required by the TSO. If we have an issue with that then we need to address it. And I don't think there will be any easy solutions but there are things we can do if we choose to. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

4. Pilot chute hesitation do to loop cutting rather then pin extraction. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

You are basically correct. but I don't think it's fair to say that no one is looking to find out. I have no doubt that people are taking a great interest in this. But you are correct that they are so far silent. I suspect that they have come to similar conclusions. That there are no easy solutions. That we will over time have to change and up date our pattern sets and over time build our way out of this just like we built our way into it. I started another thread in gear and rigging tossing out ideas of how we might fix some of this but there has been very little interest shown in it. I thought they were reasonable ideas. But how can you go forwards with changes when there have already been fatalities? Their lawyers may be telling them that there hands are tied for the next X number years till the time limit on the death is up. That's why I was asking about the possibility of FSDO approval for after market changes to the rigs that might help with the problem. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

And there you go changing the whole question. Once you add in an AAD fire the whole question changes. Now if you are cutting the loop it raises whole new questions of flap design, cutter location, spring strength and top diameter, etc. And that's all long before the drag of the pilot chute or the tightness of the tray becomes an issue. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I just ran some numbers. For 200 lb exit weight to achive a 20 ft/sec decent rate you would need some thing 28 ft in diameter. Please understand that I'm talking the inflated diameter of the main body which is my reference. That canopy would have the pack volume and weight of a... 80 ft diameter canopy? I don't know, i'd have to pull up the other program and start looking at panel shapes. But that should give you an idea of the relative efficentcy of the design in comparison to a real "Parachute". Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

You toss around the term Ballute style PC. Just to be clear there really is something called a ballute. It doesn't have any thing to do with pilot chutes. Apples and oranges. A Ballute is a drogue designed to operate at high speeds. It's design is driven by concerns of shock wave and heat management. One of the main characteristics is that it does not have an open bottom. They are generally inflated with compressed gas or have small vents near the equator. Drag is generally Not the driving design criteria. Survival at Mach is. There is more then enough drag at that point. They often have a burble fence to increase there stability when sub sonic. It breaks off the air flow from the side at a certain point so it has very little oscillation. Most of these designs have a drag coefficient which is... unimpressive. To be honest they down right suck as a parachute. None of this has any thing to do with PC designs. I don't know what would inspire some one to build a... parabolic PC. That's probable a better term. As I recall a Parachute with mouth narrower the equator is referred to as parabolic. The T-10 is a parabolic canopy and works well. Why you would take this concept to such an extreme, as in the vector 2 pc, I don't know. Maybe he was having trouble with blowing them up at high speeds during his tandem testing. I don't know, ask booth. The only question is whether it makes enough drag. And that relates to the system as a whole. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

The honest answer is that although it's potentially superior in performance no body wants to do it. Why? Do you realize what kind of convoluted, monkey fucking a football, Roul Goldburg, bull shit you have to go through to pack one of those things? And yes I know all the fucking secrets. I'm the one that gets all that shit dumped on him because no one else wants to deal with it. This is the truth. They can be somewhat more difficult but the main thing is that they take a slightly different skill set and they can take more time. People don't want to deal with it. Some flat out wont deal with it. And some people like me who can do it get pissed about having it all dumped on them because no one else wants to learn to do it. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

There are a couple of threads about reserve bag extraction forces. They most consist of bitching, moaning, and figure pointing. If we could set all of that aside could we try to have a productive discussion about possible short and long term fixes to some of these issues. Why, since bitching is so fun? Personally I just bought a new rig. I don't have a canopy in it yet so I'm not sure exactly how much of an issue it might have. But just eyeballing it, keep in mind I've built a lot of shit over the years, I can see where it could have potential problems. One thing I will tell you is that I will not be maxing out the reserve in it. I'm not sure the make and model are that important because I think there are a lot of containers out there that could have issues. It's not that I'd be afraid to jump it. And I paid too fucking much for it to shelve it. I will bend around what ever it's performance envelope is. But I can't help thinking about all the rigs out there and what we could do, what I would like to do, to fix it. So let's actually try to be productive. I'll start it off with a few thoughts. After market pilot chutes. The obvious thing would be for the manufacturer to replace the old PC with a new design, It's been done before, but I don't see any body jumping up and down to do it. So let's talk alternant solutions. There was a time, it was a while back, when we used to talk about the interchangeability of TOS'd parts. In fact some containers were fairly open only specifying the diameter of the pilot chute spring. We used to say that if a component had been through TSO drop testing with another system and that the rigger determined it to be compatible that it could be used on the system. This started to get muddy as more people started building all of their own components. Now I think every one builds there own pilot chute for example. Containers changed and components became less interchangeable. I think pretty much every one in the sport world has a statement in there manual saying that only OEM parts may be used. I think part of this relates to cypreses and issues with deployments or fears there of. But we've kind of come full circle where our equipment has in essence become similar again. And we have real indications of poor performance of some of these pilot chutes. So what would it take to put an after market PC in a rig? Let's assume there is a statement against it in the manual. Could a master rigger apply for an alteration through his FSDO? What would it take? I mean it's all TSO'd parts. They have proven them selves on other systems. There should be no structural issues with the PC blowing up. Or at least that's how the old theory goes. What would it take to get a approval through the FSDO for such an alteration? I mean it's like a 337 right? Just a little less paper work intensive. So it's not like there are no presidents for it. Butlers four line. There's a guy with a Javelin style RSL for a vector two. I'm sure there are others. So what would it take? Ground and low speed test drops? How much would the FSDO want to see. It's already been high speed tested. Low speed is relatively cheep. Or would just functionality test on the ground do? Could you argue that it's shown it self to meet the low speed requirements as well? Do you think they would buy that? Let's leave the cypress approval out of this for the moment. Container mods. Opening the reserve corners on the lower reserve tray. A lot of trays are sewn up the side and part way across towards the middle. There have been mods before where we pulled some of those stitches and moved the bar tacks back to make it more open and let the reserve bag deploy easier especially with a downwards pull. Remember the early Reflexes? I recall doing a couple of those in the shop. Could you talk the FSDO in to a container mod allowing you to open the reserve try corners more? What about retailoring the upper corners. A lot of these are coming up unnecessarily high on the out side upper corner. It would not be practical to change this on all rigs but On some you could. There are some containers where for totally esthetic reasons they have moved that point very high. With just a little tailoring you could greatly ease the deployment with out negatively affecting the function in any way. Main tray mods. People have been modding the shit out of main trays and riser covers forever. In theory a master rigger doesn't even need any paper work. A lot of these trays are seriously hampering the reserve during deployment. Some of the come way high over the lower corners and some of the riser covers are out of control. Any body got a seam ripper? Magnet mod? Let's hear your two cents on actual solutions to what might make this better. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Help me out. What was the name of the two pin piggy back that used a 900 lb Dacron reserve rip cord? It was two pins horizontal. Looked like a wonderhog. Was it an Omni or Omega or some thing like that? I want to say that it was an O name. We used to have one come through the shop back in Carrollton. That would have put them doing soft reserve ripcords back in the... late seventies early eighties? I want to say the rig was royal blue and yellow with capewells. I make jokes about it but I honestly don't see any thing wrong with the fundamental idea. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

The reflex crw mod did help with that and if it's packed right it should almost recess and set down tight. I will say this the two pin design of the racer does reduce the snag hazard of the pop top on the bottom side of the cap where the lines might come up on deployment. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Out of curiosity. What is the condition of the... brain locking I can't think of the term, but the swedged end of your housing. Is there any thing rough there? I would think that the end of the housing not the ripcord would be the more likely culprit here. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I think the G2 refers to the very early "modern" mirages. Remember the ones with the Velcro on the shoulders? They were actually an interesting design. They were doing some things differently in terms of their construction. I seem to recall that the reserve tray was sewn in a slightly different manner. I recall thinking that it would be more friendly for production. They were also some what wider and thinner as I recall. I'm not sure why they changed some of those things. Perhaps when they moved to tighter narrower, thicker containers they were having seam problems. As I recall they were also out sourcing there PC. I think they had a Stealth PC in there originally. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

It's not a dumb idea at all. And it's not a new one ether. Others have done the same thing in the past. It is in fact an out standing innovation. It is much cheaper to produce. He is no longer dependent on an out side contractor, capewell. There were problems with pins and this basically eliminates them. They do wear which means he gets to sell replacement parts, $$$. And he can charge more for them! $$$$. It's one of his biggest cues sence the three ring! And you bought the fucking thing! Now you're going to buy another one! I rest my case. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I was going back and looking at some of the pictures earlier in the thread. It's a great picture of the unit. Look how bowed the bottom seams are at the end of the flare right before the stall when the inflation pressure is so low. You can see all the lift that it's trying to support between the a and b lines. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Three seconds of free fall before the PC fires gives you substantially more dynamic pressure for the PC to work with. That kind of gives you an idea of the extraction force on the rig. Obveously the container opened on both jumps but towing a PC till you develop enough airspeed or being forced to take a delay to meet the min air speed for the gear to function are not very good options. I still see this as being an example of the design issues we have built into many of the rigs we have sold over the last few years. It would be interesting to know the exact model and configuration of this rig but in the end it's not really that important. I think there are a lot of rigs out there like this. The only question is what can we really do about it at this point? I for one might be interested in an after market PC. I would also like to see some mods made to the corners of some of the rigs. In some spots, like the bottom corners of the reserve tray, this is easy. It's a bit harder in places. Like the upper corners of the reserve tray. But I think this could help allot. And if you know how to sew it wouldn't be hard, I can do it. There are other things that need to be changed on some rigs but they are more... fundamental to the pattern set. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I have absolutely no fucking clue why you would say that I'm the best person to ask. Have you not grasped the fact that most of what I say comes straight out of my ass? I do enjoy setting around and theorizing on this shit. Scratch my head, scratch my butt, muse about a design. What else is there in my life? But please don't miss represent me as a knowledgeable source of information. But it is an interesting question. You've had me thinking a lot about the aero elastic issues lately. I'm not sure what would be the best way to model some thing like that. Let's say that the fabric is stable. In other words it does not distort on the bias. But it is fabric so it supports tension but it can not support compression. So what actually supports the wing? Each section of the cord is supported by a line attachment on each end. I suppose you could look at it as the lift distributed across that section of the cord and examine it as a beam with a bending moment. Based on the height of the rib would it be fair to look at the internal pressure. Thinking of it as a hinge point at the top surface and looking at the compression that you could support between the lines. You would also see a compression in the top surface above the line attachments. So the tendency towards waviness would depend on the rib thickness, the lift distribution, and the inflation. Rib thickness is a question of design. Lift distribution, a product of the Cp curves, line spacing, and wing loading. And inflation should depend on dynamic pressure and nose design. The internal pressure should mostly depend on the nose cut and the pressure across it at that angle of attack. So it should be some percentage of Q. I would expect it to be more of a problem at lower speeds like on flare. But at that point you're pulling down on the tail and adding support to areas where you might expect to see the most distortion. I guess it's a question of what you think you can get away with. For example larger canopies can have seven line attachments rather then four or three. And they may have fifteen or more cells rather then nine although they may not be that much higher in AR. I'm honestly not sure how much of that is rib distortion and how much is just distributing the load both during and after opening. I wonder if it would be better to look at the fabric as being some what softer. I suppose you could look at it in terms of forces along the fabric and tapes. Looking at it as the incremental lift along the cord transferd down along the fibers of the fabric to the diagonal tapes. Then based on the angle of the tape down to the attachment point. So it's three ways. Fibers down to the tape. Fiber between the diagonal tapes at that height, and the tape down to the line. You could integrate that along the cord and look at the compressive force between the two line attachment points. I'm not sure it would give you any better of an answer. It's probable just another way to think about it. It still comes down to the same thing. I got to thinking about this because you're friend sent me a pic of the single skin canopy he was playing with and I was thinking about how big the flares would need to be with out the inflation of the bottom skin. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Did Ferdays design come before or after the sorcerer? What was the first mard? Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

A mard would have helped in THIS circumstance but it is not a solution to fundamental errors in design. Keep in mind that this is the easiest possible condition from which to extract the reserve bag. Every thing was open and still the bag hesitated in the tray, or so it appears. What happens when he has to make a low exit with main tray and riser covers closed? No help from the mard there. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Hell that diaper looks pristine in comparison to the one at Quency. That one wasn't even there any more, at all. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Actually I was referring to the two verities of two pin vertical mirages. The first ones where the loops were in the top flap. They ran from the top down through the rig to the pins on the back pad. The pilot chute launch was not great. The later two pin vertical mirages had the pins on the out side like a more conventional rig. I would put the original rapid transit in a whole different category along with the wonderhog, warp 3, handbury, briefcase and all the others of the like. I'm trying to recall but I remember the sides closing first on most of these rigs. I remember the pilot chute basicly being under the bottom flap and part of the top flap. Were there any rigs where the PC was under all four? In comparison to the Modern rigs of today it was just so wide open with nothing stiff or heavy in the way. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

That seem backwards to me. At least in terms of inflation. What you may be seeing is that the unloaded ribs will shift upwards. This also narrows the canopy. As the canopy slows if flare for example this will exaggerate. I'd say the distortion is a balance between inflation pressure and lift at that point of the cord which would cause more of this type of distortion at front and perticurly at low air speeds. Also if you pull down on the tail you squeeze the air out of the tail of the canopy which means the tail is able to fully expand span wise. This explains why the canopy looks so pinched, narrow at the front when you flare and land. You're out of airspeed and inflation. So At the point when you need all of the area it's actually at it's worst. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

And the swift containers with their military counter parts. Lets not forget those. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com