RiggerLee

It can be tuff for long skinny low ballistic coeficent types to fall fast. Once you learn to fly I think you'll have more range then a lot of skydivers. It can be a great advantage. Eventually you may want to look at a weight belt to help put you more in the middle of your range and make it more comfortable for you. I'll be the first to tell you that it shouldn't be the first solution. A tight jump suit, a decent fitting rig, and a little practice will take you a long way. You don't want to make your self dependent on a crutch to correct for body position and flight. Besides tall leggy girls look good in skin tight jump suits. It will make it much easier to get on loads. When the time comes give me a call and we'll set you up with a sweet weight belt that will help put more mid range in your fall rate. Lee 512 772 4293 Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I remember when they came out a guy at the DZ had one. It was an ok canopy but then he had it relined with vectran. I guess it was that little bit of extra drag on the slider but he had the worst, wildest off heading openings. the canopy is less stable when it has the ends towed down like when you have line twist or in this case when the slider is part way down. It's like it hesitated just long enough for the canopy to try to spread and start flying with the slider still part way up and it would spin off and dive like a bitch. It was fine with the old specter lines. and yes the trim was right. it was just an odd quirky little thing. They were ok canopies but they weren't the next sliced bread so other designs just surpassed them. It was part of the air lock craze that went around for a while till people realized that a canopy is ether a good canopy or a bad canopy regardless of whether it has airlocks or not. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Looks like a totally easy patch to me. Why spend $200 when it can be good as new for $20? Even better. Ask your mother if she still has her old sewing machine? Time to learn to sew. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

The link in my last post seems to work. If you look close you can see it. I don't know any thing beyond what you can see in the video. But I think it's pretty clear. It appears to be a RW-2 on the end of a short lanyard, about 12 inches. The ring is able to slide on the existing RSL allowing the RSL to extend when one riser releases preventing the RSL from pulling on the Rip cord till the Other riser releases. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Because that's the old one. There's a vid of the new lanyard here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s6IyjvcnYa4 It doesn't show real good close ups but if you look close you can see how it works. With the new sliding extension the system actually works now. It doesn't fix any of the other... issues but it now works as advertised with out firing your reserve into a spinning main. As quirky as it is it now makes for an interesting system. It's enough of an up grade that I don't think you should pack one of there double sided RSL's with out it. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

800 people, epic? I used to work the rigging loft with Wag at the WFFC. We shared a trailer with registration. Wag got to see the real numbers. Curlin used to pad them to make it look big but no shit at it's peak it was 5,000 actual skydivers plus extras on the airport at one time. This was back in the days when the police were afraid to come behind the fence. That was a Boogie. I just wish I could remember more of it, but I'm sure I had a good time. And I don't even drink, exhaustion is a bitch. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

They came up with that lube, "snot", to make the loop more slippery so the tail can turn the corners around all those "pullies" easier. Great idea. But have you ever noticed how stiff those loops can get after they've been packed under the pull of a stiff pilot chute for months. I think it's mostly the tension but heat cycles might also play a part. Some times I wonder if we might be better off with a dry loop. It's like over time the silocone soaks into the yarn between the tiny fibers by capulary action, as the fibers of the loop are squeezed together over time by the tension it's almost like they bond. They don't want to shift relative to each other thanks to the surface tension of the siocone. It's like the loop is slick but stiff after a few months. Don't get me wrong, I'm still a liberal user of Snot. At the moment it seems to be our best bet but I wonder if there might be a better lubricant out there or if we might actually be better off with a dry loop. A lot of small changes have been made over the years and a real effort has been made to go back and reevaluate the rigs in terms of pilot chute launch by cutter. I remember lissening to a conversation about it at a PIA where they were discussing possible standards for this testing but I was not clear if there was going to be any ageing in the test. If the rigs were getting poped as soon as they were packed it might explane why we are seeing hesitations in the field. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Actually have you seen the NEW racer RSL? The new sliding RSL extension is a legitimate upgrade. It actually makes the dual sided RSL functional. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

To be clear these are just a few packing techniques. People do this in different ways. In the end all that matters is that the pilot chute not loosen over time. I'll give you some examples. Most of them involve closeing the rig part way and the in one way or another encouraging the pack job to compress, settle, age before closing the rest of the flaps. This can allow you to close the rig with a much shorter loop then you would normally be able to and prevent it from loosening over time with out creating an excessively high pull force. Every one has there own tricks. I know one guy that closes the fist two flaps and the pilot chute then puts the rig under the cussion of his couch and eats dinner, watches movies, etc. while he sits on it. He's... kind of big, actually he's fucking fat so it works well for him. Some people like to use a bowling ball and leave it setting in the pocket of the pilot chute over night to compress the rig. Walking on the rig and using there feet and weight. I like to put it flat on the floor in the corner of a door frame and put my back against the other side. This lets me hold the frame and use the mussels of my legs over my weight to walk on it and compress it as I use my feet to... shape it. I'm kind of a small guy. Any time I have the chance I try to let it stand over night after I close the pilot chute before I finish closing the rig. The flip side of this is that it sucks to stop in the middle of things. In truth it's not the best rigging practice. It's easy to loose track of where you are in the packing and it's a good way to make mistakes. Particularly if you are working on more then one thing at a time. But letting it settle over night really helps the pack job to compress and lets you close the last 4 flaps the next day with a shorter tighter loop. All of these things is the equivalent of retightening the loop after the rig has been packed for a few weeks. You're just artificially accelerating the process. If you do this right the rig should not be a hard pull. The key is not forcing it. If you tried to just close it straight through you would have to force it but with technique and patience it should not be hard to close. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Loop cutter AAD's. I don't see pilot chute launch as being affected by compatibility. Many other things are, but not PC launch. The two major factors I've seen are container design, and Rigging. Container design, other then choice or rig is out side your hands. Even small changes in the pattern set or construction can affect hesitations. Although they may not publicly advertise it this is something manufacturers are putting a lot of effort into. Rigging is about the only thing with in your control. I don't like the idea of published loop lengths. There are too many variables, from canopy selection to bulk distribution in the pack job. Some canopies just pack up bigger then others. Or if you put an optimum in there it will obviously be thinner. Humidity is another large factor. So the loop length that is right for one rig may not be right for a container of exactly the same size. And the loop that is right for one rigger may be too long or too short for another. The real root question is how much tail is left locking the flaps closed when the loop is cut. I phrased is that way on purpose. That is in truth of what is really happening. I'm not saying cutters are a bad thing. They solve a host of problems and make what we conceder modern AAD's possible. But it does come with issues. For most rigs the loop length does not effect the amount of tail that is left. It's the amount of looseness. Big thick rig stuffed full of a bulky canopy, long loop tight as fuck, no problem. On the other hand, smaller canopy fluffed and stuffed with a shorter loop, loosens over time, and the pilot chute wobbles. Now you have an extra inch of loop passing through the lose spring to the cutter below the sub flap. The biggest problem here is old school sloppy lazy rigging practices. A good example would be a relatively thick container packed quickly in one session in a dry environment. Looks fine when it leaves but over the next few days or weeks the canopy settles letting the bottom of the spring compress down wards pushing the cutter down away from the end of the loop creating a longer tail. If the pack job is not neat, folded rather then stuffed. If they do not take the time to compress/pre age the pack job as they close it. If the humidity is too low, there is actually a published range. If they try to close it fast rather then letting it settle over night before closing the last few flaps. All of these things can lead to the pack job settling and the pilot chute loosening. We used to just consider this to be the sign of sloppiness, an esthetic issue, at worst a risk of developing ring around the pilot chute. Now it's become clear that it is a real threat to functionality. It's very much a rigging question. So the real acid test is whether your pilot chute is down tight. Can you push on it? Does it wobble? Or does it fell as solid as a rock even after six months? If it ever stats to feel loose say after the weather changes and it gets humid. Take it back and have him replace the loop and tighten it. What I've said here mostly refers to rigs with the cutter on a sub flap. If the cutter is above the pilot chute the tail become very consistent in length. The only problem is that the cutter isn't really happy there. Issues of routing, thickness, wear, appearance, and the possibility of damage to the cutter or wires argue against this placement. There have also been scares about the cutter pinching the loop and locking the container closed, think Argus. The most extreme design is to have the cutter on the base plate. Javelin does this. You would think this was a horrible idea But it actually seems to work well for them. A lot of this is a product of the design of there rig/freebag/and base plate. With the molar bag and relatively small base plate they wind up with a relatively short loop regardless of the size of container or canopy. It's like the pate suckes up into the pack job and the PC sucks down. The tail can wind up being shorter then a badly packed Mirage. And it's going through only two pullies rather then four like a "normal" rig. So even with a relatively wimpy pilot chute spring the container still performs well. The biggest wild cards are the pop tops. In theory their performance is not hindered by cutting the loop. In theory the deployment sequence is exactly the same. But they do still suffer from the pinching issue. Let's say you have a two pin like a racer. If one cutter pinches rather then cutting cleanly even just slightly what happens? So one loop is pinched. That means the other side of the cap henges up and the bottom of the pilot chute flips out and the thing just sets there flopping on it's side like a fish on your back held be that loop there is nothing trying to pull is loose. A single pin would have a 40 lb spring trying to break those final fibers of the loop but not with a two pin. You know I wonder how often this really happens. some people say that they need a certain amout of force on there loops for them to cut cleanly. Ever pulled the ripcord slowly on a strong seat pack so one clears before the other? Some thing like this happened to a guy at Dallas many moons ago. It wasn't an AAD thing. It was just bad rigging. Probably a bit of fabric caught in the top loop. Pulled his reserve and nothing happened. He looked over his shoulder and saw white flapping got a hold of the pilot chute and pulled it loose with a tug and through it out. I'm not sure if he had time to unstow his breaks or not. Point is that some thing similar could happen with a cutter. You can tell I'm board. The point is that there are real problems that people are struggling with when it comes to loop cutting AAD's. Right now there really isn't a performance standard for them. I still remember the performance of the FXC 1200 that I jumped as a student. It was what it was. It's an AAD. We accepted it. No one expected greater accuracy from it. And you know where we set it 1200 ft. You planed your opening altitudes accordingly. Now these spoiled little bitches are whining about there cypresses as if they weren't the most impressive thing since sliced bread. They seem to feel that they should be magic and infallible. There has even been the suggestion that if they are less then perfect and fail to meet if not exceed the performance of the base system then they in some way make the rig unairworthy. The only way in which they could make the rig unairworthy is if they in some way prevented it from working as designed. In other word prevented the rig from deploying when you pulled the rip cord your self. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

The "Orange Thing"? I'm sencing a trend here. Your doing well on your design and Ok on your construction, but you need to work on your marketing. Take my word for it. Cool names and half necked woman, you can sell any thing that way. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Let's break it all down. I'll try to reply concisely to each point. I'm sorry this got long again. Lee, If you really think that the gear is not the major issue, you have an issue IMHO. Are there gear issues? Yes, I think there are gear issues or I should say potential gear issues. But I don't think it's fair to simply point to the rig with out looking at how and why those changes were made. Where did these decisions come from? Not just what has changed but why. All design is compromise. Any design taken to any one extreme is inevitably a bad design. I actually support why some of these design decisions were made and I'll try to explain why. Note I said some not all. I will lay it out in plain text for you. There are five issues: 1. The OPT reserve snivels. Several openings have been filmed at longer than 3 seconds which is the standard for TSO certification. Previous canopies meet the three second rule. So there is a major difference in performance and design. This is true. Or at least to some extent. I've seen some of the video and some times it's a little hard to tell exactly when to time from. But that's beside the point. The Optimum is a slower opening reserve. Here is the difference. I don't actually see that as being a bad thing. Are people dead from it, yes. Dead, spat, crater in the ground, grave stone, pushing up daises, mothers crying, the whole nine yards, dead. But I think we have to look deeper. People don't seem to understand design. There are all these forks in the road where you make decisions one way or the other. What people fail to grasp is that there is not really a right choice. It's just a decision and colectivly they form the shape of the final design. You seem to think that if you make the "right" choice at each fork that you will some how find your way to the perfect design, with out flaws and no one will ever die again. Pipe dream. We keep looking for better paths in the end it just comes down to trade offs. If you want better glide you lose flare authority. In the end you seek a balance and where that balance lays depends on the priorities you set. That's the "why" in the design. I don't think you can evaluate the function with out examining the intent. How fast should a canopy open? It's easy to say that it should open fast enough to save your life before you hit the ground. Good priority. I might also say that it should also open slow enough that it should not be injured or killed and you're rig should not tear in half. I've seen with my own eyes people die from hard opening so I say that that is also a good priority. These two issues are at odds with each other. The compromise you select determines your operating envelope. It determines how fast you can be going with out failing the harness or the body on opening shock and it also determines how low you can cut away. I can build/pack you a canopy that you can jump from 100 ft 0 airspeed but you wont be able to take it to terminal. The optimum can be deployed head down at 160+ mph with out killing you or tearing a well built harness apart but It does take longer to open. This is just the reality. The question here is what is the intent. Life was easier back in the eighties. People on the whole weren't as fat. They wore bigger jumpsuits. They fell on there bellies. They jumped bigger canopies. It was a different world when the PDr, Raven, Firelite(still have one in my rig) were made. Life has changed and it could be argued that those designs are no longer good designs for todays skydivers. I remember a conversation once where I was predicted that we were going to start seeing things blow up and that it would start with reserves. Remember all the broken lines on super ravens? Then along comes the M-series. A "good" fast opening canopy that blew line attachment points off on opening. I seem to recall some line breakage on tempo reserves. I think there were two different incidents on those. And the truth is that those came from a relatively small pool of openings. Terminal openings on reserves are relatively rare. And yet we were seeing failures. But look at mains, a far bigger pool. These canopies are actually designed to open soft. Far slower then reserves but we have seen a number of hard opening fatalities and injuries. Imagine if those deployments had been reserve fires head down rather then mains. Althoue it's a smaller end of the curve we can not ignore the issue in the design of this next generation of reserve canopies. There have always been fatalities from low cutaways/deployments. That's not new. It's not an canopy problem it's a margin problem of not enough separation between our decision/opening altitudes and the envelope of our equipment. That hard deck will always be there regardless of what the number might be. It's up to us to shape our selves around the performance envelope of the equipment we chose to jump with. TSO. There's another thread about interpritations of the TSO requirments. You can make arguments about the letter of the law. You can rant about what you think the performance should be. We can talk about loop holes and "cheating". Does any one actually doubt that PD actually did the drop test? We are talking about the most reputable company in our industry. And they did receave there TSO. You might say that they squeaked by on the slower end of the spectrum but what we are really talking about is a design decision made to address a very real issue in our sport. I think it's a good thing. The rest of the world may have some catching up to do, starting with changing our ideas about deployment altitudes, but I see this as a good thing. 2. H/C's ( all of them) have been gradually locking down the reserve and main flaps with "new and improved" methods which hinder deployments. Yes, this is an issue. If there are any real problems that need to be addressed I think they lie here. But in all fairness I feel the need to remind you of the flip side of the argument. Let's review some incidents. Remember the video of the guy that had a riser come louse and it got under his arm and he Spun and spun and spun and... Remember that one? It was a big push towards the attitudes about how tight the shoulders and riser covers had to be. How much coverage they had to have. What was "safe". How about all the uncommanded main deployments from PC's or bridles snaking there way out of pockets in "unusual" flight attitudes, now common. How about the mall where that guy cut away from a spinner and tumbled. The bag was tossed out of the container and tumbled through the lines and he towed his free bag to impact in a bag lock with the lines twisted around the bridle. So those are some of the real reasons why staging and security are important. Those are all real incident's/accidents. There have however been many design decisions, some small, some large that in my oppion are primarily esthetic in nature. From subtle things in the way patterns and flaps are cut, all the way to fundamental decisions in the design and I think these are contrary to the function of the rig. Too tight, too inclosed, too dependent on the geometry, fit, packing, etc. And where did some of these decisions come from? Demands from, expectations of, and catering to the jumpers. If Booth had his way he'd still be building vector II's. It's like an arms race to see who can though the most bells and whistles and flaps on a rig and it's driven by you, the jumper. They are competing for your money. I suppose the real question which at times seems to be ignored in this thread is what we should do about it. In all the bickering and finger pointing no one seems to be focused on the real problem. To some extent I don't blame them. It's a hard problem. I don't think it's easily solved. It's much easier to point finger and rage. The truth is that we have built our selves into a corner with thousands of rigs out there that might be subject to a problem. The worst part is that I don't see any way to really get a grip on them. There are just two many variables. I don't think we will be able to pin it down to a design, model, sequence of rigs. Too many are susceptible dependent on compatibility, packing, geometry of the harness or the whims of god. It's my opinion that we will be plagued with this till we fundamentally change our designs to no longer be dependent on these things. I think it can be done. But it means a move away from fashion to functionality. Maybe it's time for the staging of the rig to no longer be dependent on it's tightness or it's geometry. Your going to give me grief about this because there were issues with them, mainly do to miss rigging, but what about staging loops? Maybe it's time to stop trying to retain the free bag with the tightness of the container, which is far too variable, and get old school on this shit. Have you ever taken a pare of scissors and cut one of those multi stripe flaps in half? Between the 1000 denear cordura, the ballistic cloth, all those stripes, and pinstripes... Look how stiff some of those things are. And it's holding your pilot chute in. How wide do the side flaps need to be? Heven forbid the inner top flap show any where. You know that space to hinge at the top flap was there for a reason but then it just seemed to go away to make the rig look sleaker and thinner. Do we need riser covers, yes, but do they need to be so restrictive of the reserve bag? It's getting better. At first I thought they were gimmiky but I'm more and more impressed with the magnetic riser covers. I think there are things that could be done that would be less restrictive on the free bag. We might want to be looking at a slightly smaller diameter spring and cap. If we're set on building smaller rigs how can you expect that large cap to push out of the flaps in the same way. And how small do rigs need to be any way? This is another one of those things that could be a couple of threads on it's own but in the end it's some thing that can only really be solved on the cutting table as they draw new pattern sets for the next generation of rigs. In the mean time we might do what we can to deal with this situation. Like get more serious about what constitutes acceptable compatibility, improving packing techniques, swopping out existing canopies for newer lower pack volume options like the Optimum. And I think raising all of our altitudes is a good stop gap measure. We can try to test for these issues but the problem is so wide spread that you would almost have to do a distributed program. IE. having every rigger do there own testing in the field like they are discussing in England. But the problem is so complex that I'm not sure that it's practical to do it in a meaningful way in the field. I honestly doubt it's practicality. 3. Reserve Pilot chutes had been filmed "towing" after a successful cutaway on the Wings container. I personally have witnessed one towing after a dual deployment. The main came out just before the Cypres fired. The Cypres fired and the pilot chute deployed and was towed at 30 plus MPH and never extracted the freebag. In this case it was a good thing; in other cases it was bad. I'm not saying that you can't have too big a pilot chute because too much snatch force can have a negative effect on the staging of high speed openings. But I am a base jumper. I like big pilot chutes. I like drag. I'm with you on this. Sherman's been up in arms over this for years. I see it as a complimentary problem to the container. and I think the primary problem rest in the container design rather then in the pilot chutes. Yes some are minimal, I just think it shouldn't take that much to deploy the bag. I suppose we could retrofit larger higher drag pilotchutes into existing rigs. Pilot chute changes have been done before. It might be a good chance to go to a slightly smaller cap/spring on some rigs. This is one of the few practical retrofits that we could do at this point. 4. Speedbags from Jumpshack take longer to deploy a canopy than did the previous, simple two stow version freebag. Simple physics applies here. Ya, that's true. I'm not sure if it's needed for this purpose but for some applications it works great. You know I hate stroking his ego, it's big enough as it is, but I have to give him credit. I guess it's a question of how much you value the added staging. I will say this. Speed bag or no speed bag racers seem to perform just fine for the most part. Do you think this is a significant issue in what we are discussing? 5. TSO standards- The TSO standards have changed over the years which has allowed some manufacturers to slide through some loop holes regarding deployment times. Deployment times are a key component in not dying in this sport in case one does not know this. Yes and no. Part of this I agree with but part I object to. I don't think there is any real excuse for slow deployment to line stretch but I think there is good reason for extending the opening time on the canopy. I think these to things should be judged separately. I've played with things from one end of the spectrum to the other. I think it's more about respecting the realities of the operating envelope. You build the best gear you can, but the people involved must accept and respect the limitations of it, what ever they may be. Only in this way is safety achieved regardless of what environment you are in. Yes, the person needs to responsible enough to the pull handles, but at the same time if the gear is equipped with an AAD, it should save the life of the user. This is why we install them. When we install the AAD into a system, it as a system should work as designed. If it does not, we have effectively a failed system as a whole. So when several people are lying dead after an AAD fire on those systems, those systems should be reported as such to the FAA as failed systems. Whether you realize it or not you stated a major point. "When we install the AAD into a system, it as a system should work as designed." In point of fact it doesn't. And it was never intended to. And that was never promised at least with the current designs we are using today. None of the "modern" AAD's pull the pin of the reserve. So by definition none of them have any intention of causing the system to function as it was designed. Now that begs the question of what if any standard we feel they should be held to. As I under stand it right now there is no standard, none. You seem to be implying that the system when fired by the unit should be held to the same standards as in it's manual deployments in TSO testing. Furthermore you seem to be implying that if it does not meet this then the system as a whole fails and is some how void of it's TSO. Well first off that is not my understanding and furthermore I hope you do not have any of these devices in your rig as it should by your statement be grounded. Cutting the loop is not the same as pulling the pin and does not work as well. We've seen it. It's no secret. True it's more of a problem on some designs then others. This I see as a separate issue from the others we have discussed. Time for PC deployment vs time to line stretch vs. opening time. These are all separate issues. The aggregate has been and is becoming a problem but we shouldn't confuse them. I can assure you neither the PIA, USPA, or any manufacturer has done just that. Maybe we were spoiled or maybe we were cursed but we used to have a fed around here by the name of Gene Bland. He showed up at every fatality and took great interest. He wasn't generally aware of all the non fatal incidents but it's hard for me to believe that no one is paying attention. He sure did. By reporting this to the FAA, they (FAA) will in turn go to the manufacturer of each component to assure that that equipment meets the TSO and also could issue an AAD to pull the equipment from service. Testing for performance standards and compatibility is the responsibility of the manufacturer and the FAA; not PIA. The data that the manufacturers test for is submitted to the FAA. I don't think they take any responceablity for the testing. PIA is the manufacturers collectively. PIA has been setting these standards for testing. PIA, although not capable of controlling and regulating the testing it self does have ethics standard for membership and if a manufacturer was found to have violated it could in theory chastise them althoue all they can really do is say that you're not one of us any more, bad boy, turn in your plack thingy. The bottom line is this: We never had these issues with Vector IIs, earlier Javelins, earlier Talons (except for all of the ADs and pilot chute issues),Ravens, Firelites, PDR reserves, and etc. We do now have issues with the newer gear. The new gear IS the difference between then and now....period. And things have changed between then and now. And the gear has changed. Some for the good and some for the bad and needs to be fixed. But the bottom line is that now we need to change to keep up with both the changes in skydiving and it's gear. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I don't have it in front of me so I can't answer you're specific question. But it might be moot depending on how you want to look at the life span issue. It's a question of whether you believe the current incarnation of the company can retroactively apply there current limitations to designs that were previously certified with out a life span limitation. It's a hot button issue. Althoue I'm not a fan of the idea I think they should be able to have that power. If they determin that there is detereration over time and they are getting old I beleve they have the right to declare it un airworthy. I'm not wild about it. I feel people are trying to do this arbitrarily to try to limit their liability. I beleave it should be a question of condition. And there has been a statement but even if you are cool with the FAA do you really want to be trying to explane this in a civil court? Just saying, a lot of people wont pack them. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Warning: What follows is a rant and you might just want to skip all of it. I've been watching this thread for a while and I just don't get it. I'm not saying there aren't real issues here, actually I think there are several that deserve there own threads, but I don't get where it's being approached from. Here are some of the things I don't get. What's wrong with helping and protecting the manufacturers? Are they not skydivers? Are they not a vital part of the industry? Are they not one of the most critical parts of the sport? You really want to build your own gear? I might be able to. I even know some body with a TSO. But most people would be fucked. Now for the record I have railed against some of the games people have started to play over the last few years with liability. Like trying to shift it off onto some one else and leaving riggers, pilots, and dropzones hanging out in the wind. I don't see this that way. I don't see this negatively affecting, 95% of the people out there. I'm one of the few people I know that would be comfortable pulling at 2000 ft regularly and more often then not spots dictate that I open higher any ways. Maybe professional demos but there is autherazation for it to be waved. The only people I can see complaining are S&TA for fear that they might feel pressured to wave it. But they don't have to. They don't have to accept that responceablity. I think that's key. So they don't even have the right to bitch. Any of you guys S&TA's? AAD manufacturers. The operating limitations and margions on the deployment sequence are tight. They have always been tight. And it's become clear they may have become too tight over the last few years. There are a thousand possible reasons why this might be and I don't see the AAD manufacturer being responcable for any of them. The units actually work really well. Better then I would expect. They are however only one link in the chain. Rigs are not opening fast enough. That has become clear. So they decide that to do there part they need to raise the firing highth of there unit. Some thing I have no doubt they had wanted from the beginning. There lawyers say that they can't do that unless the "regulated" minimum opening altitude is raised. Any body really doubt that it was a lawyer that said that? So they start campaigning for a BSR change. Now my rig doesn't have an AAD but I realize that puts me in a very small minority. So if you want reasonable reliability out of these devices that the vast majority want installed in there rigs then you need a BSR change. How is that not in the best interest of the vast majority of there membership? Why is this wrong. We need more margin for error. The BOD is helping in that. So I don't blame the AAD manufacturers. Rig manufacturers. This gets a little bit stickier. But in the end I don't all the blame on them. I don't think most of you appreaceate how complex this problem is. This could be several threads all on it's own. They have made some decisions over the years that are part of this problem but the decisions were caused by you. That would be the customers and there demands. You are ultimently respocable for this escalating war of esthetics over function. You have voted with your dollars and you have voted poorly. Now you are stuck with thousands of "suspect" rigs out there. But it's not just the design. A lot of the designs are not fundamentally bad. How much can you really blame them for when they can not control what is put in to them? And who's to blame for that? The dealer who you pressured into selling you the combination? The rigger you strong armed into packing it? How bout that sky god of a coach that convenced you that you had to jump a container as small as his if you wanted to be able to fly. I've got stories about every one of those and I've been one of them. How are any of those things the fault of the rig manufacturers? Canopies manufacturers. Canopies have continued to evolve. The thing is that the sport has evolved. When did we ever fly at these speeds before or demand these wing loadings? The newer reserves are built for the demands of a new environment, different from what we have ever faced before. One of those changes is they open slower. How is that a bad thing when 75% of jumpers are flying head down. Are you forgetting the canopies we have blown up? You should just thank your lucky stars that more things are not failing. It's a fundamental and nessasary evolution to keep pace with how you are flying. You know people use to brag about how there reserve opened so much faster then every one else. Do you really want that opening at 160 mph head down? Now the goal is to open as slow as possible and still pass the TSO. Maybe they have gone over board and they might be a bit slow now. But that's what we need in some areas of the envelope we are flying in. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's a trade off. I think this is a good thing. If any thing I'd say that what really should have been done was to relax the requirments in the latest TSO. If I'd written it I'd extend the opening time and distance. Hell I might even put upper limits on acceleration. As I see it, in the end it's not about the gear. It's about the people. Although I do see problems out there. People are bouncing. I see most of this as a failure to come to terms with the reprocusions of the decisions that they have made. And for the record I'm talking about the jumpers there. You want to free fly, you want this super tight clean rig, with a reserve that wont slam you, but you are not willing to face the reality that it requires different operating peramiters. I honestly see this BSR change as a good first step towards fixing that. There seems to be a lot of finger pointing going on. I see a lot of misconceptions about what peoples jobs are and what powers they posses. To half of this I want to scream, "It's not there job." Or "Where do you think they get that power." Or "How do you expect them to do that?" I'll bet all of these people wish that they had the authority, power, money, or ability that you give them credit for. What, you think USPA has aircraft? A tailgate? Money or resources for a testing program? Any thing to do with TSO certification? The FAA? You think they certify any of this shit? You think they test parachutes? They don't even want to deal with it. You have no idea how lucky you are that they have done as much as they have. You really wont to force a change. You can do it. I don't remember it off the top of my head but there is actually an office you can write to in the FAA where you can report any airworthiness concerns. I want to say it's actually in Washington not OK city. If you really feel there is an addressable problem write it up, and send it in. You'll need a stack of well documented accedents with conclusive evidence against a spicfic design. If your evidence is compelling enough they can issue an AD or even pull the TSO grounding that entire line of equipment. Good luck with this they don't even like to issue AD's any more. You can do this your self. You don't need the USPA or PIA or any one. Go convence them. If you think all Vectors are Evil then convence them and you can ground every one all the way back to the first Wonderhog. After that you're on your own. I wish you luck finding a hole deep enough to hide in. If you want to return to practical reality and have a rational discussion about problems we face there are a lot of bright people here. My personal opinion is that raising our over all activation altitudes is the best practical solution to dealing with this issue. Another might be a comprehensive and binding sizing chart for each rig. A compatibility list. No body really wants to go there. As a rigger I'd be all behind it. Do you realize how much easier life would be if all rigs fit. That's like jack off fantasy material for all riggers. No more bricks. But can you imagine the uprising? Hell if you want to really make it fun put real enforceable wing loading limitations. Hell that might be a good time to recut some pattern sets as you'd be replacing 2/3 of all the rigs out there. We could actually fix a lot of shit if we were willing to go through the heart ache. Ok, I'm tired of writing. Shot my wad for the night. End of rant. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

They shrink. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I've seen some malfunctions with PC in bags. I don't really like the way they deploy from them. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Actually yes I do. I've been looking around but I don't think I have the line trims. The canopy I'm taking apart has already been modded and not very well. Part of me would like to build it as an exact replica. The truth is that most people would not want to jump a conventional, belly wart, container that would hold it, pussies. Building it from modern lighter fabric and materials could greatly expand it's practicality. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Ok, no more games. I'm board. Board, board, board. I've got a big roll of F-111 in the corner, rolls of 1/2 in type three tape. a double needle with a puller. And time. It's time to build a PC. I'm soliciting oppionions on what you would like to see in a modern version of a PC. Here are some questions I'm kicking around. What type of... tape for the radial seam, type of line, type of line attachment, length of line, slot configuration, diameter. I've got an old mark 1 sitting here but it's ben modded to a comp configuration. I don't have the shape of the back panel. It's been cut out. It's such a commen mod that I'm inclined to leave the big vent there. How much increase does this cause in decent rate? I think I'll build it with the original Mark I turning slots. I doubt any newbies will want to sink it hard for competition. Does any one have the original line length and the length of the center line relative to the skirt. The lengths for the ellipse along the front edge are there but the whole thing has probable been short lined and I don't know by how much. How long do I really want them? How much are you sacrificing in terms of rate of decent? Again this will probable be jumped recreationally. Lines. The damned thing has type three 550 on it. I do in fact have a whole roll on the shelf but I really want to cut down on the weight of the thing. I'm tossing around the idea of using a light Dacron or even specter. I'm even tossing around the idea of cascading them. Any thoughts on how bad the opening would be. I honestly think the lines only really help with the snatch force. I'm thinking about ways to simplify the line attachments. Keep the V tapes of go with something else? Is F-111 too light? Or too tight? Should I be thinking about type 1 fabric for the Apex? Why did the early ones have that and why was it abandoned? Would it improve the opening? PC's seem to have been prone to burns. Or at least all the old ones I find have them. Will F-111 be too light and burn too easy? Would some of these other line types be more prone to burning or being burned? Spectra has a rather low melting point. Thoughts on sleeve material? I'd love to get away from that heavy cotton. Thoughts on shortening the sleeve so that the stableizers fold on top of the canopy when packed. Narrowing it so the canopy folds in thirds rather then to center. Burn issues? I'd like for this to pack up small enough to fold into a large student rig. That's my goal. I have my own thoughts on all of this but there are some smart people here that date back to this time frame and have done quite a bit of experimentation. If you can save me from some time comsuming errors I'd love to hear the benefit of your expereance. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Yes, that's exactly what I'd asked for. Sherman sent me a link to it. They were having a little trouble posting the slow mo portion of the video. If you look closely they've added a short sliding lanyard that rides on the RSL and can slide over to ether side. This allows the RSL to function as designed with out putting any strain on the rip cord till the second riser releases. Actually it looks like it could be about an inch and a half longer to me but I wont split hairs. It's a really cool mod. The system is actually functional and reliable now. Who'd of thunk it? This as a real no shit functional upgrade to the system. I think they're writing up a notice or instructions or some thing for it. I get the impression that it's still in process and we may be stealing a little of his thunder here but you brought it up. It's a shame. He was probable planning a grand party/celebration/news conference, etc. I mean it's his first chance to announce a true up grade in his product in, what... forty years? It's a big deal for the guy. All jokes aside. If you own a racer and you want to jump an RSL give him a call about this. It's a simple little thing but it makes a big difference. Seems like all the best ideas are that way. So what does this give you? It's a truly functional double sided RSL. If one riser breaks or releases you wont die. Let me clarify, the reseve ripcord will not be pulled. Actually it would be more accerat to say that if one riser failes to release the rip cord will not be pulled. It's a subtle difference. but let's look at it's compitition. I'll use the sky hook as an example. So if the right side releases, the pin is pulled, bag released and the riser yankes the reserve bag out of the container. The Collans lanyard, if hooked up properly should pull out the cut away cable going to the other side. But what if for any reason that release is delayed? Fails? Let's just say delayed. Stiff webbing, lot's of resson, hard set, nobody bothered to flex them. You know you're supposed to take your risers loose once a month and flex and masauge the webbing of the three rings, right. Any body do that? It's in the manual. So the bag goes up but the riser only pulls it about a quarter of way up the line set. Remember the other side hasn't released on time. So the canopy, the half still inflated, pinwheels around in a circle whith your free bag and lines in the middle of it. Then the other side releases cenching all this shit around the lines and bag of the reserve. Now you could say that that would come under the heading of failure to perform matanance. But there is something to be said for a system that doesn't try to perform actions out of order in the event of a minor failure. The only other truly double sided RSL that I can think of is the LOR system. It's been a long time sence I've had to deal with a lot of Euro gear. Do they even use that any more? It had it's own pain in the ass issues. This is getting off the topic of this thread. If we're really going to get into this, and it is an interesting question/design then we should probable start another thread. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

It's getting a little bit off topic but I was able to find this... http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fftp.rta.nato.int%2Fpublic%2F%2FPubFullText%2FRTO%2FEN%2FRTO-EN-HFM-113%2F%2F%2FEN-HFM-113-03.pdf&ei=vX4EUobhD4PyyAH_yICoDg&usg=AFQjCNHK7DBbNWS_dwDkQo9j_XXSIyi4kw&sig2=JApgHH335k1qsxiVgpyh7Q&bvm=bv.50500085,d.aWc I think it is a good question but this might be the wrong place for it. I don't see deceleration being a limit or hinderance to meeting TSO standards. That's not to say that you can't build a hard opening canopy. I see this as being more of a problem with deployment time to line stretch not with the "opening speed" of the canopy it self. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Contact Apex. They do a lot of it. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

I'll be the dick. Is it worth it? One or two or even ten deaths a year is actually not that many when you look at the number of people involved in aviation. You have to balance it against the weight complexity, matanance, cost, etc. of the installation. You're going to use it on every landing? How long to wear it out. then you're going to sit there while the free turbin spins up again? And of all the places to try to implement such a thing, skydiving? Yes we hot load all the time but 90% of the people out by the plane are or should be contous knowlagable people. The "woofos" near the planes are generally accompanied and corralled by an instructor. Yes there have been accedents, mostly involving a break down in that supervision. There was even one here in texas. A fatality resulting from the violation of a rule is not a reason to rewrite the rule book. It just reaferms the right ness of the current system. The answer is to keep woofos away from props, not to try to make props fluffy and safe with little ribbons on them. So you'll say that a single life is beyond price. Well... no. If you talk to an actuary he can give you very good numbers for the price of some ones life based on age, income, and a dozen other things. The fact that engions don't have breaks on them attest to the fact that they are not justified and if we just follow the rules never will be. Don't walk in to the prop. Don't let woofos walk into the prop. Done. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

My first reaction is that the panel shape would not be optimized for that trim. The nose cut might also be less then ideal for that angle of attack. But that other wise it should behave more or less like a saber 1. Then I started thinking about the taper. It's not a lot but the cord length is shorter on the outer rib and with the saber 1 lines on there you would have a steeper angle of trim on the outer cells. So basically the outer parts of the wing are twisted nose down wards to a lower angle of attack. This bothers me a bit. I think you might be more prone to rolling under the outer cells if you let the canopy surge forward as you let off breaks or as you release break comeing out of a turn or in turbulance. the severity of this will depend on the taper ratio. I obviously haven't jumped it but I would be suspicious of this canopy. I'd be carefull with it till you've really had a chance to play with, read that as "test", this canopy. But I'll go on record as thinking that this is not a good idea and you may have trouble with it. Ok some time I'm a little to subtle. I felt the need to come back and add a translation. YOU'REGONADIEYOU'REGONADIE!YOU'REGONADIE! Ah, much better. I'll sleep easier now. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Hmmm. Let's see what I can remember... Jack Pilon,now the south west rep for USPA, Had one of the first Racer tandems in Texas. He was a big boy and pretty well tested the limits of there gear. He jumped at a different drop zone so I was not his rigger most of the time. I want to say that the line attachments were made in the standard way but with a piece of type 4 tape. As I recall he was telling me how he pulled several of them off on an opening on his main. I beleave he said that... ether the tape or the line attachment or the bar tack was in the wrong place and some of the attachments were just loading the fabric. The scary thing was he said that they found the same problem on the reserve when they opened it up. later at peach state I was talking to... it must have been ether Joe or Chris. And they were talking about going to a Rib tape for the attachment and how bomber it was going to be. Later at the 95 Rayford attempt I sweet talked Chris into building me a base reserve for my sorcerer with that type of line attachment. I still have that rig and canopy. So the issue had to have been pre 95 if that helps. Did they ever make that change on the reserve? By the way Pilon always liked the canopies. They treated him very well even maxed out on weight. He was a big boy back then. Have you seen how trim he is now. I didn't recagnise him. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com

Help me out with my history here. Wasn't there an issue with the line attachments of some of the early canopies? A QC problem where they missed the tapes when they sewed the line attachments on? I think Pilon had one of the canopies. I seem to recall they made a change so that the line attachment is now formed by a tape that runs all the way up the rib? It has been a LONG time since I've seen one. Lee Lee lee@velocitysportswear.com www.velocitysportswear.com