riggerrob

Agreed. I have worked at the Butler factory, Softie factory and Aviator factory. Most of the squares in PEPs had standard skydiving toggles. Never seen any fancy steering toggles on Softies or Butler PEPs. If anyone has pictures of fancy toggles on Butler or Softie PEPs, please share them. I have only seen Aviator 280 with fancy steering toggles. The Precision P124A-280 canopies packed into Aviators have all the steering lines attached to the rear connector links, then an extra steering line goes down to a steering toggle. The extra steering line is primarily a steering line. It only helps a little for braking. If you pull an Aviator steering line below your shoulder, dramatically increasing control pressure. The increased control pressure discourages anyone from pulling an Aviator steering toggle below shoulder level, making it almost impossible to stall a P124A-280 canopy. But you don't really need to flare a P-124A-280 canopy, because it already descends slowly enough at the factory steering setting. Towards the end of the manned drop tests, I landed down-wind, hands-off and my landings were softer than under most rounds (C8, C9, T-10 main and reserve and a couple of LoPo 26' conicals)

After seeing pictures of long convoys struggling to escape the forest fires and house fires in the Northern Alberta oil patch .....

Risk of whacking your head against another skydiver .... Did anyone notice that Bell motorcycle helmets fell out of fashion about the same time 10-Way Speed Stars (small door Beech 18s, etc.) fell out of fashion? Hee! Hee! After Capewells disappeared, even fewer skydivers wore Bell motorcycle helmets ......

."....... ........ Could you share what systems you are referring to? ......." I was quoting a conversation with Bill Booth (owner of the Sigma factory: UPT). Bill was grumbling that the US military had drop-tested Sigmas considerably faster and heavier than required for civilian TSO-approval. The US military then approved Sigmas for heavier weights and faster airspeeds than civilians. Bill's complaint was that the military refused to share test-drop data with him.

Addressing the protection offered by popular skydiving helmets .... 8 years ago I survived a King Air crash. Helmets ranged from my PRoTec, to freefly helmets, to a leather frappe hat to no helmets on students. All the staff members suffered concussions. While wearing a PRoTec, I suffered a concussion, broken nose and needed 9 stitches to close a gash in my forehead. Both the other TIs (wearing freefly helmets) suffered concussions. One TI suffered short-term memory loss for a week after the accident, though he eventually recovered most of his mental faculties. The only guy wearing a leather frappe hat suffered life-altering brain injuries. His corpus collosum (sp? the part connecting his two brain hemispheres was severed). Doctors kept him in a chemical coma for a month. He has slowly recovered to the point that he can ride a motorcycle, but will never be half the man he used to be. We all suffered long-term anger, frustration, depression, unemployment and PTSD. If had to repeat the crash, I would wear a seat-belt and install an Oregon Aero liner in a hard-shelled helmet similar to a PRoTec. As for why we were not wearing seat-belts ???????? ........ the accursed lawyers are still arguing that question 8 years after the crash. Lawsuits have caused more financial damage and more emotional damage than the airplane crash. Go figure ...... I share this bloody experience in hopes that young skydivers can learn from my mistakes .... without the scar tissue.

Specifically addressing motorcycle helmets: back during the 1970s lots of skydivers wore certified, fibreglas, open-face, motorcycle helmets made by Bell. Over the years motorcycle helmets evolved to provide better energy absorption. Better energy absorption came at a cost: more bulk. Modern full-face motorcycle helmets are too thick to turn your head between risers: avoiding traffic under canopy, etc. Fortunately, there is a new generation of "retro" motorcycle helmets that look as thin as 1970s-vintage motorcycle helmets. Will check out a motorcycle dealer that sells "retro" helmets as soon as the spring rush is over.

.............................................................................. If that policy was written in the USA, we would blame it on the FAA's "molasses mind." If the policy was written in Canada, we would blame it on Ottawa's "maple syrup mind." ....... but since the policy was written in France, do we blame it on "Merlot mind" ?????..... Or "Merde mind" for short?????

"..... the 'molasses mentality' of the FAA. ......" Jerry Baumchen" .........................:::................................. Similarly, Transport Canada has a "maple syrup mentality!" Hah! Hah!

I would just install fresh, MIL SPEC rubber bands and repack it as per the manufacturer's instructions. For comparison, remember that first generation Racer free-bags were closed with rubber bands. Now current-production Racer Speed-Bags are closed with MIL SPEC rubber bands.

No, I have not packed a tandem reserve into a PEP. The closest I have come was packing a pair of Para-Flite 340 military freefall reserves into Butler long-back PEPs. Even 340 square feet and Dacron lines did not "bulk-out" those 40 inch (1 metre) containers, so I recommended that in the future, Mr. Butler limit squares to 20 (ish) long, back type containers. We sold those huge canopies to a pilot that "weighed more than 254 pounds" and no civilian canopies were certified for his weight. However, if a 300 pound pilot asked for a PEP, I would be sorely tempted to sell him a Precision or Racer tandem reserve.

Limiting bandwidth .... Please limit this conversation to current-production chutes that are legally available to civilians ... nothing smuggled out the back door of a military warehouse.

Narrowing bandwidth ..... Tandem manufacturers need to prove that reserve canopies will survive opening at "tandem terminal" which is around 200 knots.

We need 2 or 3 levels of inspection to catch common errors. A second set of eye balls is always the best inspection tool. For example: multiple gear checks. I used to think multiple gear checks were just another military method to remove the fun from every activity, but now I understand the logic. Pre-flight check your gear before you put it on. JM check student gear immediately after dressing. Casually glance over other people's gear as you walk to the plane. Formal gear checks just before boarding the plane. Casually glancing over other people's gear during the plane ride. "3 of 3" checks after un-belting. Asking your buddy to check your pins just before jump-run. When you are checking your own gear, use 2 or more senses: eyes plus finger-tips. A second set of eye-balls is always the best inspection tool. For example, yesterday I finished sewing a batch of harnesses, but will do the final inspection today. Hopefully another rigger will be available to do an independent final inspection.

Yes Beatnick, We can agree that faster (than 200 knots) warbirds deserve MIL SPEC parachutes certified for more than 200 knots. Next question: where are you going to find MIL SPEC parachutes? .... considering that Crown Assets Disposal started cutting off lines circa 1980? Yes, Softies and Strong PEPs offer new-production, MIL SPEC C9 canopies as options, however neither use MIL SPEC quarter bags. Softie offer C9 with Butler (Type 4, full stow) diapers while Strong offers them without diapers????? Odd since Strong was one of the first to manufacture sport reserves with diapers and has been advertising how much more reliable diapers are. I don't understand Strong's logic???? We all know that free-deployed (Type 1 with all suspension lines stowed in the pack tray) rounds suffer too many mals and the mal rate increases with airspeed. Diapers help up to 200-250 knots. Since rubber bands become unreliable at faster deployment speeds, you need a MIL SPEC quarter-bag, reefing ropes, spreader guns, etc. I have not seen a quarter-bag going on 20 years. And I gave never ever seen reefing ropes on a man-rated canopy. MIL SPEC ejection seats have all those deployment gadgets, but they are not available to civilians. So that gets us back to the original question of how to equip warbirds flying more than 200 knots???? If you have seen Butlet's video comparing a C9 versus one of Butler's slider-equipped rounds (sled, ejection seats, etc.) you would immediately how to the greater wisdom of Saint Butler!!!! Sorry, I got carried away by Butler's engineering genius. So faster than 200 knots, we need a staging device (diaper, quarter-bag or freebag) and a slider. That narrows our decision to Butler's HX series rounds or squares. As for why the Aviator is only certified to ??? knots .... our old B-25 drop-plane would only fly 205 knots with the bomb-bay doors open. After we had completed all the certification drops, George Galloway (Precision) told us to keep adding weight until we tore a canopy. We ran out of daylight and lead weights before we tore a P124A-280 canopy. I was too tired to count by the time we exceeded 400 pounds. IOW we never tore a P124A/Aviator. Military tandem reserves have been MIL SPECed to much heavier weights and much faster airspeeds, but soldiers refuse to share their data with civilians. As for the arguement that damaged rounds land better than damaged squares .... that is so 1970s .... I have landed 2 damaged rounds and more than a dozen damaged squares. That is out of 70 jumps on rounds and more than 6,000 jumps on squares. All of those damaged squares were first-generation (1980s technology) tandem mains. First-generation tandem mains have all retired. Bottom line debating the relative merits of landing damaged canopies is an admission that you are jumping unreliable, out-dated gear.

Enjoying this debate with Jerry ... Hah! Hah! Military rounds are extremely reliable when packed in accordance with the military manual. However, when you remove: reefing ropes, spreader guns, quarter bags, etc. you reduce reliability. Yes, I have landed two round mains that suffered inversion malfunctions. The first steered weird because it was totally inverted, with the sleeve and pilot-chute hanging inside. I did a FIRM PLF in the grass beside the bowl. The mal was blamed on "sleeve slump" and a new, experimental packing method. The second inversion straightened itself out and landed softly in a snow-drift. That T-10 lacked an anti-inversion net. The West German Army was frantically testing its next generation of canopies back then. Both canopies suffered so many dozen small burn holes that they were scrapped (by the Canadian and West German Armies respectively) I suffered both those mals during only 70 jumps on round mains. Line-overs on squares can be eliminated by neat packing ... specifically keeping steering lines centre, rear. As for square reserves landing hard? Yes, we agree that small squares land hard. But when discussing PEPs, we try to limit conversation to 250 square foot reserve canopies that are docile and descend slowly. As for speed: I was primarily referring to MIL SPEC static-lined canopies. During WW2, British paratroopers did not wear reserves because their X-type parachutes were so reliable when jumped from slow-moving DC-3/c-47. However, when the British Air Force updated (1960s) to faster turboprop transport airplanes, inversion malfunctions increased so much that they needed to add anti-inversion netting. As for the US Navy 26 foot conical being the strongest round reserve? Agreed! Sadly, circa 1980, the US Navy started cutting the lines off surplus canopies. So we have not been able to buy military-surplus US Navy conicals for more than 35 years. String's first few LoPo reserves were close copies of US Navy conicals, but reinforcing tapes have gotten weaker over the years. The low point - strengths of round reserves - was circa 1980 - with flimsy Phantoms, Featherlites, etc. only certified in the Low-Speed category. I wish all those Low-Speed round canopies would retire because they are not strong enough to be flown in anything faster than a glider .... and some modern gliders are certified for pretty fast top speeds!!!!! Acid-mesh is a second excuse to retire Low-Speed PEPs. Not wanting to waste money on bromocreasol and pull-testing tools is a tertiary excuse (third level).

On a related note: how long do you keep student harnesses in service? Recently, 5 Sigma student harnesses visited my loft. The worst was faded, frayed and filthy after landing on Mexican beaches. I told the owner that if I touched it, it would need all new webbing and most of the rusted hardware also needed to be replaced. It was cheaper to buy a new harness. The owner replied "I just need to keep it in service for one more season."

330s are more stable in turbulent mountain wind gusts ... says the DZO from Whistler Skydiving.

If an experience jumper routinely ignores a local safety procedure, either he is "too cool for school" or he suffers from "generational stagnation." "Too cool for school" means that he is the most important person on the load and he does not care if he sets a bad example for young skydivers. "Generational stagnation" means that he learned everything he needed to know decades ago. His brain is full, so please don't waste your time telling him anything new. Hah! For example, I recently listened to a lawyer beak-off about seat-belts for skydivers ... He repeatedly said: "not enough data" while ignoring recent forced-landings in New Jersey, Switzerland, Italy, Poland and Dubai.

Back in the day .... camera helmets were heavy, Homebuilt contraptions. They started with Fiberglas motorcycle helmets with a variety of sheet metal contraptions screwed, riveted, bolted, duct-taped, etc. on to contain cameras that were longer than the helmets. Some of them weighed 20 pounds (10 kg) and could kill if they flew the length of the cabin! After the Perris crash (1992), DZs changed rules to insist that helmets be worn during take-off to reduce risk of secondary injuries. A few DZs installed helmet lanyards - near the door. Helmet lanyards w ere long enough to allow videographers to film take-offs, but too short to allow heavy cameras to flail the entire length of the cabin. As for leaving helmets loose during take-off .... you will end up with the brain you deserve. During the 2008 King Air crash, I suffered a concussion and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. 8 years later I struggle with anger, concentration, depression, etc. My buddy JP was only wearing a leather frappe hat and suffered brain injuries so severe that he will never be half the man he used to be.

Thin aluminum only pulls a little heat from hot knives. Alternately, you can make patterns from the galvanized sheet steel .... used for making ventilation ducts. Most factories use "tin" patterns.

Yes Jerry, The other mysterious factor was that acidic mesh only degraded some batches of LoPo fabric.

Hackish, you started with an accurate assumption: at low airspeeds, you can deploy a round with a decent chance of survival. However, as airspeeds increase, rounds become less reliable .... less reliable than squares. Round deployments and round malfunctions differ in many ways from squares. My knowledge of rounds is limited because I only did about 70 jumps on rounds "back in the day," suffered 3 malfunctions on round mains and landed 3 round reserves. My last jump on a round canopy was in 1986 .... 30 years ago .... so my memories have faded. However, rounds are less tolerant of higher speeds (more than 100 knots) and unstable openings. A key factor is keeping the skirt level during deployment. Diapers help keep the skirt level, as do deployment bags and sleeves. OTOH If things start "going sideways" you develop an entirely new class of malfunctions known as "inversions." Before (1980s) we fully understood the process, we called these mals "line overs" or "Mae Wests" but they are different from the "steering line overs" suffered by squares. Inversion malfunctions start when fabric blows sideways during initial canopy inflation. If one side of the skirt blows across the centre-line and starts to inflate outside the opposite skirt, then an inversion malfunction starts.

The Raven Dash-M field-fix is to sew extra bar-tacks into the original (weak, sub-standard, wimpy, sissified, girly, limp-wristed, cowardly ...) Type 3 tape line attachments. OTOH If you mail a Raven Dash-M back to the Precision factory, they will replace the A-line attachment (Type 3 tape) tapes with Type 1 webbing and sew them with two bar tacks. Most other reserve manufacturers use Type 4 webbing for reserve line attachments.

Dear Hackish, When you are that low ... and have made that many mistakes .... squares deploy more consistently than rounds. Please remember that large, docile squares suffer fewer malfunctions than rounds. I saw a dramatic reduction in main mals as we (1980s) transitioned from rounds to squares. The only rounds that I would trust (to deliberately deploy) below 500 are military static-line canopies with direct-bags, anti-inversion nets, etc. The only round PEP canopies that come close (in reliability to squares) are Butler's HX series of PEP canopies with sliders, but they cost as much as square canopies. The belief (that rounds deploy more reliably than squares) was true back in 1980, but squares have gotten more reliable since then ... more reliable than rounds. Just another case of "generational stagnation" with pilots quoting whichever fragment of ancient lord that supports their purchasing decision.