riggerpaul

Maybe you heard something from me. I was taught to stitch fingertraps with a zig-zag, not a straight stitch or a bar-tack. The theory is that a straight stitch should not be used where the stitching needs to stretch. Bar-tacks have some straight stitching underneath the zig-zag, so they don't stretch well either.

I think you probably meant to aim your post at me, so I will reply. I have used this technique on other lines. Dacron lines, being generally thicker, are the hardest of all. I don't make any claims to the advisability of this technique on all line types. I have used it on Spectra and Dacron, and I found it in the first place on a canopy with HMA lines (IIRC). YMMV. I will not suggest using it for the loops needed to reline a canopy. I am not a Master Rigger, and I am not allowed to reline a canopy (at least not unless I am under the supervision of a Master Rigger). That said, some linesets that come from the manufacturer, PD for example, would not be compatible with this method. The cascaded lines in a PD lineset have the cascaded B and D lines sewn in. You could not make the loop on the free ends of the B and D lines because they would have to be lark's headed around the attachment tab already, so your could not push the flattened loop through the second hole. I suppose that if one was making his own lineset, it could be constructed using this technique and have no sewing at all. If the lineset is not cascaded, it would be a simple matter. If it was cascaded, a similar technique could be used to join the cascades after the loops were attached to the canopy. But this is way beyond anything I have tried or might suggest. I have only used this technique to make loops on steering lines, and I don't say it works for anything else.

That presupposes replacement parts are required to continue airworthiness. But what about units that would still pass the maintenance checks at 12 years? Some certainly made it through the 8 year check without needing parts. How do we KNOW that a unit wouldn't pass another check at the 12 year mark? We could even call for bi-annual checks past 12 years. If a unit won't pass without new parts, and the parts are not available, then fail it. But right now, there are still parts, and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to continue to use my AAD if it can be maintained. Sure, at some point the parts run out. But that isn't now. So, for the record, AIRTEC and SSK, can you tell us if some units make it through the 8 year checks without needing replacement parts? Thanks!

Hi Jerry, Okay, I think I understand now. But you know what? I think I have a simpler method. I am attaching a PDF of the method I use. You'll see that it is similar to the JumpShack method, but when you pull the loop through, you will only pull it through a single layer of the line you are using. I think this makes it easier to do and less bulky. Please let me know what you think. Sadly, I won't make it to Reno. I am bummed out by this, but some of our business interests here require me to stay nearby. I am still hoping to manage a day trip, but it is not a big possibility. Anyway, take a look at the PDF I've attached, please, and tell me what you think. -paul There should be 4 PDF files attached.

I have looked at these instruction several times, and maybe I am just missing something. Does this method require both ends of the line to be free? If so, isn't this a problem on the end of an existing steering line? I found a method that does not need both ends free and is significantly simpler, but no less secure. I cannot take credit for this method. I found it on a canopy I was working on and reverse engineered the making of the loop. I'll post something if people are interested.

Thanks! Silly me, I was looking in the "Public Documents" area.

Because I am so anal, I just visited the PIA website with the intention of downloading the document "from the horses mouth" as it were. I was unable to locate your document on the PIA website, though I can still see the earlier version. Can you please post the actual link to the document on the PIA website?

Requirements for notifications and permissions depend on where the jump will be made. FAR 105.15 - FAR 105.25 has the requirements spelled out.

The comments about velcro etc refer to earlier versions of the Vector family of containers. The current Vector 3 family of containers is not the focus of those discussions.

or PM PeteS on this site

Yes, I understand that UPT has changed their statements regarding who may do the work. To be sure, I did not mean to argue. I asked only because what UPT had said and what you had said were in conflict.

Is it allowed for the manufacturer to say who is required to do the work? I ask because the manufacturer's instructions say either a senior or a master may do the work. Of course, I don't have the equipment required to set a SS grommet, so it is sort of moot to me.

I wrote a response last December. I didn't see it at all, and I looked at the list from top to bottom. I did see many other names that I associate with skydivers, As someone else said, maybe the search function is lame.

I just got a reply to my email to Skydiving. It confirms that the magazine is folding. It says that refunds are on the way.

I can and have, but that is not the point of this thread. I know I can and am allowed to skydive and will continue to do so. As far as USPA is concerned the clearances i have obtained are even sufficient to let me skydive in the US, as an official was kind enough to inform me upon my request. What I sought to accomplish with this thread was a more general discussion, not an analysis of my specific case

Do you have an unrestricted driver's license? Can you get a pilot's medical certificate? I don't the know rules where you are. My point is can you get the governing bodies to say you are fit enough for these activities?

It seems to me that the biggest single factor common to most gearing-up problems is HASTE. If you don't allow yourself to get rushed, you have a much better chance of doing such a simple thing correctly. We all let ourselves get rushed from time to time. Rushing to finish packing to make that extra load. Being late for the dirt dive. And on and on. If you take the time to gear up with your full attention on it, these things are far less likely to happen. We all know how to put the gear on. All we need is the time and a little attention to do it right. Don't let yourself get rushed. Don't manifest until your packing is done. Be aware of your airplane call and don't get drawn away to other things when it is time to gear-up. Don't let people rush you, it really isn't worth it. There's always another load, but not if you fall out of your harness. This is serious business - take the time to give it the attention it deserves. There's also usually a bit of time while the aircraft is being loaded, especially if there are tandems on the load. Don't waste it. Take that moment to check your handles and straps. Make a habit of it. Failing to put the gear on properly is 100% avoidable. Lots of people say how they'll reconsider the sport if they have their AAD save them for a dumb reason. Maybe we should apply some similar logic to the problem of mistakes putting our gear on. If you find that you made the mistake with your chest strap or your leg straps etc etc, maybe it is time to step back and recheck your priorities. There is very little that is more important than putting your gear on correctly.

The new Parachute Rigger Handbook (FAA-H-8083-17) has the following to say about the distance between the top of the riser and the ring: "Check the distance from the end of the riser to the top of the ring. The industry standard is 4", but there may be special dimensions for some applications." This standardization would be specifically to ensure that deployment brake setting and steering line specs would not change from riser to riser.

As Chris Clark said, you want to be sure you've taken into account the "+3 months" part of the allowable CYPRES (1) life. Maybe the extra 2 months from the repack change is covered by the "+3 months" that is allowed in the "12 years + 3 months" life of a CYPRES (1). But even if you get the extra time on the CYPRES itself, you must also be careful about the life of the battery that's in there. There is no grace period on the battery life. The battery life is limited to 2 years or 500 jumps. Even the recent FAA document about National Policy is clear that if the battery expires before the repack does, it is not legal to jump the rig.

Great! Glad to hear it! Keep it up. Another thing you might consider is to get some exposure to the lower opening altitudes that are more commonly used. That way, if/when you go somewhere where you are not ALLOWED to open so high, you are not in an unusually high stress situation. Because high stress situation can make you do silly things.

He also needs to know that what he is used to is, in fact, pretty unusual. If he isn't already aware of that, he could be in for quite a surprise when he goes elsewhere, even without multi-plane or a boogie. Part of taking care of yourself is knowing when what you are doing is out of the ordinary. That way you can be proactive when you go somewhere that procedures might be different. If he doesn't realize that 5.5 openings are unusual, and he goes somewhere where that expects 3.5 openings, it could end up being a case of nobody telling anybody else anything. Mistakes happen. Most places won't expect such a high opening altitude, and they could, by mistake, fail to tell him. So, it is best all around if he learns now that what is normal for him is not necessarily normal everywhere. Forewarned is forearmed.

As I said I think it depends on the original configuration. Maybe some master rigger has a better answer. If so, please chime in! If it is a bridle attachment like a PD bridle attachment, where the ring is in the middle of the loop, and you attach the bridle to the webbing loop, I would pick out the bartack that held the ring and put a new ring there. Or you could use a quick link, which is easier. Be sure the quick link is big enough. If the bridle is one where the ring is at the end of the webbing loop and you attach the bridle to the ring, I like putting a quick link there a bit less. I worry that it is more likely to trap some fabric between the link and the grommet, especially because the quick link has the barrel. If the webbing loop was large enough, I would try to lark's head a new ring to the loop. If I couldn't do that, I'd still try to find a way to attach a new ring. As I said, I'd love to hear from some of the masters who are reading.

Thats actually got me wondering. On a standard non-collapsible PC I would say that is definately true, but what about a collapsible one? What I mean is, on a collapsible PC it exerts force until the canopy comes out of the bag at which point it immediately collapses because the kill line allows it to. So I wonder does it actually put sizably more force on the attachment during deployment than in flight (the PC I mean)? Not that it really matters at all. People have been jumping gear like this for quite a while without too many issues. I'm just one of those guys who likes to understand the physics of things, and forces involved. I'm also a little confused about Bill's comment. Bill, are you saying the forces during opening are high compared to the forces during flight? The canopy's pilot chute attachment point should not be taking the load of lifting the bagged canopy. The bridle should be effectively attached to the bag, and the bag does that lifting. In the case of a non-collapsible pilot chute, or a bungee-collapsible, the ring on the attachment point should be stopped by the bag gommet. So the bridle pulls on the bag. In the case of a kill line collapsible, the bridle should be attached to the bag. There are several ways that this might be accomplished. One is having a quick link inside the bag between the "wings" of the end of the bridle. UPT puts a giant mass of sewn tape at the end of the bridle that is hard to get though the grommet in the first place. Either way, the bridle should be pulling on the bag during deployment, not the canopy's bridle attachment point. In the case of a kill line, there is a moment as the canopy exits the bag when the pilot chute is still inflated and the force might get to the canopy's attachment point. That force would be greater than the collapsed pilot chute pulling on the attachment point, but it should only last a fraction of a second. But I think that in most cases, the force of dragging the bag and pilot chute is higher than the force during opening, because a properly constructed system has the bag doing the lifting, not the canopy's pilot chute attachment point.

I'm not getting your point. The reports in the BPA mag withhold the names of the people who got hurt, right? I think this thread is talking about the anonymity of the people making comments and judgments. In the mag you certainly know who is publishing the report, don't you?

My sentiments exactly!