captain_stan

Battery replacement is version-specific. Look here for complete information: http://www.sskinc.com/ Go to the mfr's website and look for service bulletins (SBs). You'll need to know the equipment date of mfr (DOM) and/or serial number (SN). The SBs specify if the rigger who performs the work must record it on the data card and/or equipment itself. If you're buying your first rig, now is a good time to establish a relationship with your local rigger. If you intend to do business with him or her in the future, it's appropriate to ask for advice while shopping. This is usually a great source of learning.

What? "Any time you operate a parachute?" A "barracks lawyer" might say that if he didn't actually read the FARs. FYI, part 65 certainly requires us to maintain approved parachutes within the mfr's "procedures," but does not regulate their actual use. It's part 105 that regulates the use of the equipment, and no such restriction is to be found in 105. Master and Senior Riggers both have taken the same writen test on FARs. We are responsible to know something about these. It doen't require any kind of lawyer to read these, and I think it's inappropriate to bash anyone for taking interest in them.

I appreciate that Joe, and appologize for being under-qualified to comment on FARs for certificated pilots. I'm sure that specific FARs do indeed regulate the conduct of pilots. A pilot who violates an FAR as in your example may be subject to enforcement and disciplinary action because of his conduct. However, FAR sec. 105 that regulates the conduct of skydivers doesn't include any requiremt for adherance to TSO-label max weight and airspeed, only that H/C and one canopy must be approved. There's no language that indicates these become "unaproved" if the weight and airspeed specifications are exceeded.

The FAA "approves" parachutes, not skydivers. A parachute is either "approved" for use, or it is not.

Do your homework and cite the FAR. Speculation is "hillbilly."

This is not a legal issue with the FAA in the US. As prudent as it may be to consider these specifications, there is no FAR to prohibit a skydiver from exceeding these. The TSO weight specification does not mean the system will fail when exceeded, merely that this is the extent to which it has been tested. The OP's gear-up weight will exceed 254 lbs, but not by much. Caution is certainly appropriate if specs. are to be exceeded.

A solution in search of a problem. Good--now maybe we won't be breaking so many of those old metal ripcord assemblies. And don't forget how much less these weigh.

But you do seem interested enough in jump #s to fill in that field of your profile. Most of us find that data moderately interesting. I personally know some folks who claim high jump #s but don't keep any records at all--makes me wonder why they claim such if it's so unimportant. My ratings require jump #s and dates in order to stay current and renew them. And USPA demo insurance affidavits require this info, including specific canopy size, to qualify for coverage. Electronic recording devices don't automatically indicate which canopy I jump, so I'm always back to handwritten records. As inconvenient as this is on a busy day, I keep a notepad in my drag matt and tally this info between jumps. Then on Monday morning I usually ink this into my permanent log book in my best handwriting. I agree that having these signed is no longer necessary for many of us.

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS "HUMOR" Right: Our sport appearing on the cover of a major publication, possibly stimulating public interest. Wrong: Our sport being associated with a person who has a marginal approval rating. But then that might describe most skydivers anyway. Whuffos who read this are only aware of political correctness, not technical correctness.

Thank God for newbies who bring fresh enthusiasm with them.

An estimation would be: the number of DZs listed on this website minus the number of DZs listed on USPA's website or magazine. Of course DZ.com's data may not be as current if DZs don't update their info. Since USPA only lists paid members, their data should be very current. BTW, one reason for buying a group membership has been that a DZ may then host an unlimited number of USPA certification courses without paying an additional fee for each one--someone please correct me if this has recently changed. Group member fees and course fees do change over the years, but in a relatively recect case, the cost for our non-member, Cessna DZ to host one course was equal to an annual group membership fee. We got a group membership, hosted two courses, and came out money ahead.

Your question sounds reasonable enough to me. I bought a new Javelin J1 in 2004 and have occasionally packed a Monarch 155 (similar to Sabre 150) and consider it to fit well. Although container mfrs do publish canopy size guidelines, these don't always allow for differences in canopy-specific pack volumes or the owner/packer's preference for how tight these fit. After reading the mfr's recommendations, I too would prefer to also talk to someone who jumps a similar combination or, better yet, watch them pack it.

All true, of course. My comments relate to the OP's question regarding the plastic part of a damaged cable being lodged in a closing loop, a different scenario than you describe. I'm not interested enough in any of this to go off-topic.

An FAA-compilant PCA device may release with as little as 28 lbs. tension. The few types that I have rigged would permit the device to snake past the flaps and leave the PC inside a locked container once the tension is overcome. This release tension combinded with the PC spring pressure may or may not be enough to pull/push the flaps open, but is certainly less than the snatch force generated by the full weight of a jumper reaching the end of the SL that is connected directly to the bag without a release device.

Makes sense to me. It's hard to imagine the entire coating sliding off the end. I'm inclined to think it would flake off in smaller chunks and that someone would notice the damage. And if not, the jumper in tow would indeed result.

Not when the direct-bag system is used. With DB, the end of the SL is connected to the main D-bag. If the plastic coating was shed and left in the loop, the weight of the jumper falling away from the AC may be enough to pull the grommets past the plastic sheath stuck in the loop--helluva snatch force goin' on there.

At his profile's .89:1 WL, I say the difference is not enough to be noticed. But it will make the jumper look and feel like one of the "big dogs." At least right up until landing. I hope that the distraction of these extra tasks won't interfere with the safety of those with low jump #s. I've seen bad results from teaching this practice too early. A nice, soft landing can be made without doing this. Earlier in the thread, Brettski made this point well. I'm just throwing-in to emphasize the safety factor.

May have? Seemed to imply? My failure to subscribe to the beliefs of others and my defense of my own ideas hardly justifies calling my character into question. Some of "you guys" have thin skin. BTW, Nice olive branch!

That sounds so junior-high-school Peter. Yeah, you’d probably like to slam me and then disappear. But wouldn’t it be more interesting to stick around and hear the other side to the OP’s assertion? That’s because I give popular opinion less credibility than the FAA, the USPA, manufacturers, and recognized experts. Some people get really sensitive just because I disagree with their opinion. Having the approval of “most people” is probably not as important to me as it is to you. Are your feelings hurt because I don’t agree with you on everything? Get over it. I’m not offended by the opinions of others, but sometimes by their denial that some issues (like this one) are strictly a matter of opinion, and they will never be able to prove how right they are or how wrong I am. So then they turn it into a popularity contest, which doesn't interest me. FYI Peter, the 2009 SIM is available now. You’re an instructor; have you even read it? The USPA no longer makes any reference to “square parachute” or “square canopy.” The only such usage in the SIM can be found in an 18-year-old FAA doc that the FAA admits is outdated. But you will find the term “ram-air” in the glossary and elsewhere. Section 5-3 explains that “Different planforms (square vs. elliptical) will exhibit very different handling characteristics” [exactly quoted here, including parentheses]. I was bashed for making that same assertion earlier, because that terminology is not popular with all skydivers, yet. But this is indeed what we are currently teaching students and licensed skydivers. This is not just my opinion or even just the USPA’s; current FAA docs, Poynter’s PMII, and many manufacturers are using the same language. The part that you don't get, Peter, is that I don’t really care what terminology the rest of you guys use; I just think words like “elitist” and “snob” are not appropriate to describe those of us who are willing to change and adapt with the sport. In fact, I think that name-calling itself is a form of elitism. I can understand why others use older terminology, and I think that whether we admit it or not, we can understand each other even when we use different words to describe the same thing. I’m guessing that back in the day, the round pilots and ram-air pilots were also adversarial. It had a negative influence on our sport then and still does today.

The choices (and opinions) are endless. If you click on the "Gear" tab of this website, you'll get a side-by-side comparison. This has been helpful to me, because many actual users tell why they like or don't like a piece of equipment. BTW, I seem to give heavier weight to some of the "dislikes." As a starting point for anyone who has little experience, see what gear is popular where you jump, and then read some of the reviews.

Actually John, this far into your lengthy rhetoric, I think it's just you alone, I'm tired of trying to educate you, and I think most of the readers don't want to hear it anyway.

Clearly, you are indeed confused, John. I'm just not convinced that this is my fault.

Your words again John, not mine. I've made a total of some 1400 jumps on square (OK rectangular or non-elliptical) canopies, and none of these has resulted in a malfunction, my point being the reliabiltiy of this design. Since my profile shows 2000 jumps (actually 2063 after yesterday's activity), I had expected that most readers could do the math and realize those 1400 jumps don't constitute the entirety of my experience. YOU EVEN COMMENTED ON THE 2000 JUMPS SHOWN IN MY PROFILE, SO HOW COULD YOU NOT KNOW THAT?! The last 600+ jumps that I've made (and 2 malfunctions) after changing to eliptical canopies, have led me to conclude that elliptical canopies are less forgiving by design. I appologize to the readers for responding to an off-topic post like yours, and I think you'd serve them better by taking this subject back to it's appropriate thread.

The FAA and canopy manufacturers disagree with you. TSO requirements refer to AS8015 (A or B), which are entitled "Minimum Performance Standards for Parachute Assemblies and Components, Personnel." If you read these documents, you'll find a set of requirements for how a parachute must perform in a variety of tests that are all related directly to safety. Drop testing is probably the most significant among these. If a canopy's "performance" does not measure up to the requirements of these "performance" tests -- if it blows up when deployed at the specified speed with the specified suspended weight, or if it has an excessive descent rate -- it will not receive TSO approval because it does not meet these "performance standards." I hope we'd all agree that the safety of such a canopy would be highly questionable. Although main canopies are not required to meet these TSO "performance standards," you can bet the the manufacturer of a main canopy has their own set of performance standards that must be met to assure that their product is safe enough to be released to the public. When we buy that product, we not only expect it to perform the task of bringing us to the ground safely, but also to have good performance in glide, flare, etc. Those are your words, not mine. I haven't used the term "high performance" in this thread, but I'm glad you mentioned the round reserve. It might not be a "high performance" canopy, but it has performed well enough to meet the FAAs "performance standards" and receive TSO approval. And yet the FAA measures round and square canopies by the same set of "performance standards" [their words] for TSO approval. If either of these canopy types perform well enough to pass these tests, they are deemed safe enough for us to use. And thus you would be at odds with most of the industrialized, English-speaking world. If a parachute must perform any task, it is to lower us safely to the ground. If it fails in the performance of that task, I'm saying it isn't safe to use, and it certainly wouldn't meet the FAA's or the manufacturer's performance standards.

Dude, pick a thread and try to stay with it. Congratulations. He may be just as happy that he's not you.