riggerpaul

Okay, thanks. Just wondering... The old cloverleaf and/or Martin-Baker handles were stowed in an elastic keeper. Any idea what it took to extract them? Would they stay in place in today's environments?

Thanks Ian, I didn't really consider the issue of notification at all. I've never used that feature, so it didn't occur to me. I guess my idea was better than I knew in the first place! Damn, I'm good! -paul

Those numbers you mention, 5 lbs and 22 lbs, I was always told they were the limits for extracting the pin, and that they were to be measured without the seal thread. I never heard anyone say numbers regarding extracting the ripcord handle from the ripcord pocket. Do the same numbers apply?

It had never occurred to me that I could just edit the subject line in the post composition page, but someone mentioned it, and now I know I can. No need to take my suggestion any further. Sorry to have bothered you. -paul

Actually, I don't think you are describing an error. The Wings container has 2 layers of webbing that form the main lift web. The pocket for the reserve handle is just a gap in the sewing that holds the two layers of webbing together. Inside the pocket, one side of the Velcro, I think it is the hook, is sewn to the back of the front layer of webbing of the main lift web. The Velcro loop is on a separate flap of a lighter webbing. This flap of lighter webbing is only sewn into the back of the pocket between the two layers of the main lift web. So this flap of lighter webbing is supposed to be free on 3 sides. The Velcro that is attached to the separate flap should be sewn all around its edge to secure it to the separate flap. This configuration is the one Lee mentioned when he said "Some rigs use a separate piece of tape to help with this." When you put the handle into the pocket, you must take care to open the Velcro and then put the handle between the Velcro and close the Velcro. Otherwise the Velco is not securing the handle at all. If this is the configuration of the Velcro in the reserve handle pocket, it is not an error. It is the way all Wings are built. -paul

Thanks Lee! All great things to think about and check. I appreciate the help. I am sure d123 does too. -paul

You know, I should have asked. I don't really think this is going to be helpful, but I should ask to be completely sure. The reserve handle is a bit tapered. The cable goes through a hole in the top of the handle. The top and bottom of the handles join two side, one of which is a bit longer than the other. It is the long side of the handle that should be put in the pocket. You are putting the long side of the handle in the pocket, aren't you? If not, turn it around and see if it fits better.

I am not aware of any regulation that concerns the force required to get the handle out of the pocket. But I don't know everything either. Maybe Terry (councilman24) knows something about this that I do not. I have a question. In my experience, the stitching at the top and bottom of the pocket for the reserve ripcord handle should hold the handle pretty tightly all by itself, even if the velcro was not very strong. I don't mean it is enough to keep the handle secure. But you should have to push a bit to get the handle in the pocket. Is this true on your rig? Or is the pocket itself quite loose in the first place? If the pocket is loose, maybe that at least part of the problem. If I recall, you said this is a new Wings? If that is true, you should contact the manufacturer and your dealer to see if they can help.

They intersect with the bottom skin, fulfilling the definition's requirements. The PIA document defines a cell as, "The compartment formed by the top and bottom surfaces and two adjacent load bearing ribs." I read that to say that a cell has 4 sides - top skin, bottom skin, left rib, and right rib - that combine to enclose a space. Some of the cells as you count them are triangular, having only 3 sides. The bottom skin that intersects does not serve to define the compartment. That, in a nutshell, is why I don't think it is correct to call a Velocity a 21-cell canopy. I don't expect that we will come to an agreement on this. That's okay. At least we are clear about how and why we disagree.

Now you are mixing apples with oranges. The manufactures are required to provide a manual for new equipment. TSO-23d c (2). The industry standard I referred to is what is the standard when buying and selling used gear. If you sell a canopy you have no need for the links because when you replace it, it should come with links. When you sell a container it should include the risers and toggles because you would have no use for them. The only reason I can see to keep parts of component is stock pile for yourself at the expense of the buyer. Sparky Okay, I see your points. And I agree that when you are dealing with manufacturers or with other professional people selling gear, you should expect that such professional standards would be followed. I will mention that this standard of service does not appear to be codified when I looked on the PIA website. So it may well be that it is passed informally from professional person to professional person, with little opportunity for JoePublic skydiver to become aware of how things should be done. So, I still say that when you are dealing with a private, non-professional seller, that industry standards would not necessarily apply, and that it is through no fault of either party that this is so. You said "If you sell a canopy you have no need for the links ..." and this is generally true. But I have seen at least one canopy that I removed from risers for an owner that had home-brew sewn-on soft links. The links were destroyed in the process of taking the canopy off the risers. I have no idea what happened to that canopy, but the owner, who might have subsequently been a seller, would not have had links to go with it. I can think of other situations that might occur in a private sale is where the gear is incomplete with no nefarious or even selfish purpose. Maybe a non-jumper is selling the gear that used to belong to his dead friend. Maybe a relatively new jumper just had a horrible reserve ride and is leaving the sport. Maybe his freebag was lost during the incident. Sure, these are fringe conditions, but there really can be reason for gear to be incomplete, and in the case of a private seller, he might not be aware of any industry standards. So it could just be a case of an uninformed seller and uninformed buyer ending up with an unhappy experience. As far as dinging the seller for a cost of soft links, I don't see that you have the unilateral right to ding him for the most expensive option. You should contact him and agree on an equitable solution, not just take it on your own to use the solution that you like the best. Maybe he would tell you to do that, or maybe he would send you a set of french links. But whatever the solution, he should have some say in it. I don't think we really disagree that much. In a professional setting, we should expect professional behavior. I just feel that in a less formal situation, you might not always expect performance to the same standards. I do want to say that I really enjoy discussions like this with you, as I get the opportunity to clarify for myself how I feel about things. I hope that others have found it thought provoking and that they will form their own opinions of how things should or should not be done. If this discussion helps someone avoid an unpleasant experience, then I, for one, count the discussion a success.

Hi d123, Sorry you are having a bad experience with a rigger. I want to be sure I understand your complaint. I remember a few weeks ago you told us about your rig that has a bad habit of letting the reserve handle float out of the pocket. You took it to a rigger, but he didn't find anything that would explain your problem. So you now have your rig back, but he didn't do anything to fix it, at least partly because he didn't see anything wrong. And you don't want to jump it because a floating ripcord is too dangerous, which is something that we folks on dz.com told you a few weeks ago. Does that describe the situation? How much did you describe your problem to him? Can you show him that it is easy to get the reserve handle out of the pocket without much effort? Did he tell you there was anything you were doing that might explain your problem? Not all riggers are the same, that is true. But I don't personally know any rigger who would intentionally tell you wrong information. It sounds to me like there is a communication problem between you and your rigger - that he doesn't understand that you are having a serious problem with your rig. The first step to solving the problem is to be sure he understands what your problem is. If you cannot do that, then you should find a different rigger.

Sure the definition can be used to describe a Velocity. Counting each cell, i.e.each compartment formed by the top and bottom surfaces and two adjacent load bearing ribs, we come up with 21 cells. Until PIA changes the definition of a cell, the Velocity is legitimately called a 21 cell canopy. It isn't a marketing ploy; it's an adherence to the definition of a cell as defined by PIA. Whether or not PIA should change the definition is a separate topic and one deserving of it's own thread. I need to understand exactly which sections you are calling a cell. To begin, I think you are saying that between 2 line attachments, there are 3 cells. Is that right? Now I'll try to describe what I think you mean when you talk about the first of the 3 cells. Each of the line attachment points has a roughly vertical rib above it. Is the first cell the compartment formed by the aforementioned rib, the top skin, and the diagonal rib? If this is not what you mean by the first cell, please explain where the first cell is. Anyway, now on to the second of the 3 cells. Is the second cell the compartment between the two cross-bracing loaded ribs, including the 2 unloaded ribs? Is the third cell the compartment between the second cross-bracing loaded rib and the next roughly vertical rib? Is this about how you are defining the 3 cells that are between 2 line attachment points? If so, I do not accept that your first and third cells have any bottom skins. The compartments I described as the first and third cells are triangular. They have a top and two sides, but no bottom, or rather, the bottom is a line going from front to back, not a skin. According to the definition, and according to your own post, you need a top skin and a bottom skin to talk about a cell. If you are defining the cells differently from what I described here, please explain to me where each of the 3 cells between the line attachment points are. (Really, I'm not being sarcastic here. I just what to understand what you are calling a cell. Because we can't really discuss it if we aren't understanding what you call a cell.)

The ambiguity, as I see it, is that the diagonals, while clearly load bearing, have only another load bearing rib between them. This very different from what the current definition leads you to expect. With the current definition and a conventional construction, you can have any number of cells that you want. There has, in fact, been an eight cell canopy, of conventional construction. With conventional construction and the current definition, we have seen 5 cell, 7 cell, at least one 8 cell, and 9 cell canopies. No problem applying the definition to any of these. With the Velo, if you are calling it a 21 cell canopy, you cannot make anything that is not a multiple of 3. So I have a problem calling each of those things "cells". In my view, a "cell" should be an indivisible unit of construction. You should be able to make a 1 cell airfoil. But you cannot do that if you are saying that a Velo is 21 cells. If you use the line attachment as the defining attribute, the definition can be applied uniformly to a canopy that uses either conventional or cross-braced construction without any sort of confusion. Look at the line trim chart for a Velocity and you clearly see that it has 7 repetitions of something. If you want to say it has 21 cells, then the definition of cell is not consistent. If it is 21 cells, tell me, where is the middle cell of the first 3, and how does it relate to the PIA definition of a cell? Would you be saying that the middle of the first 3 cells is that one that has a non-bearing rib on either side? That doesn't fit the current definition at all. Calling it 21 cells is just a marketing concept. Over the years, we came to a sort of conclusion that "More cells equals more performance". This held true with the progression from 5 to 7 to 9 cells. Performance is really about aspect ratio, drag, rigidity of the wing, and stuff like that, not the number of cells, per se. In the end, the current PIA definition cannot really be used to describe a Velocity at all, so using it to count the cells doesn't really make much sense. To describe a Velocity, we NEED to modify the PIA definition. The easiest way to do that is to talk about the line attachment points, and when you do that, the Velo is a 7 cell.

Cell: The compartment formed by the top and bottom surfaces and two adjacent load bearing ribs. Each cell is usually divided by a non-load bearing rib to form two half cells. Cells are numbered from left-to-right by full-cell number; use left (L) and right (R) to designate the appropriate half cell. The entire compartment” between load bearing ribs is just one cell. Any divisions within this cell are “half cell” or in the case of Velocity 1/3 cell. It is a seven cell with 2 non load bearing ribs in each cell. Sparky Source: PIA TS-100 The diagonal ribs are load bearing ribs, hence 21 cells by the PIA definition. I've got to go with mjosparky's interpretation here. In light of the new construction of a cross-braced canopy, the PIA specification needs some small changes to avoid ambiguity. In the PIA definition, a load bearing rib is one that has line attachments. In the past, the count of load bearing ribs and line attachment points was one and the same, and distinguishing between them was irrelevant. The spec also mentions that load bearing ribs are usually separated by non-loaded ribs, and that part of the definition becomes a bit ambiguous when you consider the construction of the Velocity. So now maybe it would be better to discuss the line attachment points directly, rather than indirectly though the concept of the loaded rib. I would argue that it is the line attachment points that are important, not the load bearing ribs. To be a cell, you really need a line attachment point on either side of it, or it will not be able to hold its shape when you inflate it. So, rather than saying "between load bearing ribs", the spec would say "between line attachment points". This altered definition is equivalent for a conventionally constructed canopy, and it is unambiguous when considering the construction of the Velocity as well.

When you buy from a private party you should get what is considered the industry standard. That would mean on a container the free bag and pilot chute, the risers with toggles and the “d” bag with pilot chute. With canopies that would include links. In most occasions the buyer is the new guy without enough knowledge to ask the right questions. The seller is the more experienced jumper and should know what goes with what. Its not a matter of what is expected it is a matter of what is right. Yes it would but the scenario was a canopy shipped without any type of link. Since the buyer can’t go out a buy a used set he should get the cost of a new set. Sparky What do you ding the seller for when he doesn't send you the canopy manual? That is "industry standard" and expected from a manufacturer. When was the last time you got a manual when you bought something used? If you didn't get what you expected, the first recourse is to contact the seller and ask if he will send you what you feel you are due. Simply changing the deal without prior agreement leaves the seller to post here on dz.com that you are not to be trusted to stick to a deal. When you buy used, caveat emptor is the rule. Assuming otherwise is hopelessly naive. It is nice if you get everything without clearly specifying, but it is not really to be expected. Even an inexperienced buyer is able to say "Is this everything I would get if I bought from a manufacturer?" Buying used presuming that the seller is going to take care of you out of the goodness of his heart is not realistic.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but since you brought it up, I feel it is reasonable to respond. While I generally agree with the concept, the devil is, as always, in the details. Dinging the seller for the full cost of a new set of soft links doesn't seem quite right to me. The canopy is used, and so would be the links. Also, it would be reasonable for the seller to include a set of the applicable french links. A set of the plain steel french links costs a lot less than a set of soft links. When it comes right down to it, when you buy used gear, you should get whatever was agreed upon by the seller and the buyer. If you didn't ask about what links might be included, you don't really have the right to change the deal after the fact. This is really no different than how you expect to be treated when buying anything used, whether it is a used car, or a household appliance, or a used parachute. Buy from a manufacturer and you expect to get a complete package. Buy from a private party and you get what was agreed upon. Don't ever leave it to chance - ask up front so nobody gets disappointed.

Thanks for even considering it!

Soft links can be reused if their condition is still satisfactory. Many people will tell you that if you've had the same set of soft links on a canopy since the lines were new, that you should change them when you reline. That puts the expected life of the links at several hundred jumps. That's a whole lot more than 40 or 50 jumps. It really all depends on their condition. While they can last hundreds of jumps, it is also true that they can be damaged in far fewer jumps. Show them to your rigger. He can tell you if they are still okay. If you cannot do that, and are concerned about their condition, by all means replace them. But if they are still looking nearly new and showing no signs of wear, they can be reused.

Sometimes when I am posting to an existing thread, especially a long one, I wish that in addition to "Quote" and "Reply", there was a "New Post" button. The button would differ from "Reply" and "Quote" in that the new post would not be a reply to anything that already exists. I have noticed that sometimes people get a bit upset when they think that someone replied to them when really the new post was not a reply at all. I suppose one could go back to the original post that started the thread and reply to that, but on a multi-page thread, that can be difficult. Another solution could be to have a button that says "Reply to OP". If every post other than the first MUST be a reply, having a button to automatically make it a reply to the original post on the thread would serve my purpose just as well. Thanks! -paul

There are pictures on the USPA website.

Most of the bridles I see are made from 2 layers of what appears to be Type 3 binding tape. It is pretty easy to push a pin through it. But I have another concern about the way that the pins are attached to the bridle. Usually I see a piece of Type 3 tape folded over, put through the hole in the pin, and sewn to one side of the bridle "tube". If this tape is not secured adequately close to the pin, the pin can move to and fro instead of just being able to pivot about the point where it is mounted. If that's not too clear, let me try to explain another way. If you secured the pin to the bridle with a bunch of loops of Super Tack cord, then the pin would only be able to pivot at the place where it is attached. It could not be slid along the length of the bridle. If you try to push the pin through the bridle, you must be able to pull the pin back enough so that it will stick through the bridle after you pierce it. If the pin could only pivot, you couldn't pull it back far enough to push it through is a place where it would actually stay. So I wonder if the bridles are constructed without enough attention to the way the pin is attached. If that is too "floppy", and you combine it with bad bridle routing, then you can put the pin through the bridle. So, in addition to poor bridle routing, I wonder if we are seeing a problem in the construction of the pin attachment to the bridle as well.

I know of a bunch of A2 canopies that have been lined in HMA. The first HMA line sets have hit about 600 jumps and are they are being replaced because they look pretty worn, and I believe the openings have started to degrade. (I am not a TI, and I don't jump them myself. This info is second hand). They have not broken any of the lines yet, so we don't really know how long they could really last. Even though the lines have noticeable wear in some important areas, they are still quite difficult to cut through even in the wear areas, so we don't really know what it would take to jump them to destruction. Overall, we're quite pleased with the HMA lines and will keep using them.

What is wrong with a collins lanyard? This incident could have happened with no skyhook or RSL. I dont care what you choose but at least be informed on why your makeing the decision. But the Collins Lanyard introduces the possibility that it could have released the left side main riser had the snag been able to yank on that lanyard hard enough. Maybe that possibility is pretty small, but it does exist. The recent modification to the Skyhook's RSL where the Collins Lanyard loop is on a separate leg of the RSL reduces this scary possibility somewhat. But I can still imagine a snag that could make that dreadful possibility a reality. All the safety systems have their pros and cons.

Hi Bill, First, I want to thank you for being active on the dz.com community. Its great to be able to reach you directly here. Would you explain the necessity for the large cable housing? With no marine eye on the end of the Spectra ripcord, wouldn't it fit through the narrow housing? Or is the large diameter housing of a superior quality to the narrow housing? Pretty much my whole consideration about the system is the difficulty inspecting the inside of the cable housing. With a steel ripcord, that was not much of a consideration. If the housings that are used are somehow guaranteed not to need such inspection, then my concern is reduced to a negligible amount. Do you think there would ever be a hope to retrofit existing gear, other than a Vector with the large housing, with a Spectra ripcord? If not, why? Thanks!

Okay, you got me there. Sort of. (I'm not going to give up that easy.