polarbear

There are so many factors...reputation, workmanship, aesthetics, ease of use/packing, price, customer service, durability, etc. Since you specifically mentioned safety, I'll elaborate on that. I look at what TSO category the container is under, what materials it is made from, how well it is made (stiching, grommet seating, etc.), pin/bridle/riser protection, correctly made 3-rings, how the reserve (and specifically the reserve pc) is packed. Overall, when I talk to the company, I look for an attitude that they are genuinely interested in providing ME with a safe conatiner, and I shy away from a situation where I detect bullshit.

I fully agree that development is of paramount importance...I have more faith in a product that has been "overly" tested. There are reasons I do not currently jump certain canopies and the reasons could have been addressed BEFORE releasing the product if more/adequate testing had been performed. I like PD's approach, and I like their products. I feel comfortable with them because I do not think there will be any surprises. My only point was that they do seem to suffer from not being the first ones out with a new technology...some people seem to place a great deal of importance on "innovation". I am not one of them. In fact, when something new comes out, I prefer to watch it for a year or two to see what the "field testing" (I say testing cause that's what it is) reveals. It is also worth noting that some "innovations" are really just old technologies that have been re-applied with more success, or more marketing power.

I'll mention names. Icarus has some very successful designs, and some very happy customers. But in this engineer's opinion, the Crossfire was released before it was ready. Maybe their second version will do better. Personally, I think it is much more important to fully test the product...but I am not a businessman. I don't think it is wise to buy canopies based on innovations. New design tricks are cool, but they don't neccessarily make the difference between good and bad canopies. They are only new tools...different designers will use them differently and get very different canopies. Bill Coe (PD) came up with cross-bracing, but wasn't super successful with the Excalibur. Icarus takes it and makes the Extreme, a very successful canopy. Who cares if they copied the cross-bracing idea? They made a nice design. Buy a canopy becasue it flies nice, not becasue it has the new whoopty-do-whirly-ghig-whizzbang design trick on it.

I don't think that's quite fair. PD has its share of innovations, like those mentioned above. I think the most distinguishing thing about PD is the amount of testing they do on a product. It is good, because the products they release are all pretty good. In my opinnion, every PD canopy I have flown has been excellent. But, they shoot themselves in the foot with all of the time spent in development. They loose the distinctition of being the first to come out with something, and thus get accused of copying other people's technology. It's the same old business story...it isn't the person who comes up with a new idea, it's the person who gets it marketed first that gets the glory. Who really knows what canopy design trick belongs to what person/company? As far as copying precision..I don't think PD has to. They have a whole line of good canopies...in my opinion, Precision was falling behind the curve and needed to get new stuff out to compete. As to new products from PD... I am sure that all of the companies are working on new stuff.

I believe the FAA has the final say. If they rule that assembling canopies requires a Master rigger, it doesn't matter what the manufacturer's say. Again, this question came up because a DPRE seemed to think the FAA required a Master rigger. Having said that, I have checked all the owner's manuals I could get my hands on, and they all require just a senior rigger...it seems unlikely that ALL of them would say just a senior rigger, if the FAA required a Master rigger.

I agree with everything you said. I am starting to think that maybe the FAA does need to re-do rigger standards. Not only becasue a junior rating would be good, but because I forsee there will be few master riggers in the future. I would love to get a master certificate, but where the hell am I going to pack 100 chest, seat, or lap rigs? It gets to be such a hassle to locate rigs, then actually get to pack them (100 times), that I don't think many people will be doing it. It is very frustrating that more people don't want to know much about their gear.

You will need to request it, and it will probably cost extra, depending on the rigger.

I stand corrected. I would guess the soft handle would still need to pass the TSO specs.

An aspect of this that hasn't been mentioned yet is that risers do wear out...particularly mini risers. The load reduction of the 3-ring system can be greatly changed by improper geometry, which can come from improper design, improper manufacture, or just plain wearing out (stretching/shrinking). You sometimes hear that mini risers should be changed every 300 jumps or so...it is my understanding that this is because the geometry of the 3-ring has changed enough to affect the load reduction. While it is true that most jumpers are capable of hooking up a 3-ring system, and that jumpers need to be able to do this for maintenence reasons, I don't think most jumpers change their mini-risers with great frequency. I would argue that on a sport rig, the cutaway is a major safety system, almost as important as the reserve system. It needs to be properly built and maintained. I think the majority of risers are built well, but not maintained well. However, it would be a major pain in the butt to have to have a rigger do this. There must be some way to regulate the manufacture but not require riggers to do the assembly. AC 1052C has a section (11f)where it says that the owner of equipment can perform assembly and disassembly necessary for transportation, handling, and storage, if the dis/assembly consists of simple processes. We have many years of experience that say a jumper can connect 3-rings correctly; maybe we (the sport parachuting community) can argue that it is a simple enough process that a jumper can do it. I don't know...there isn't an obvious answer.

The reserve ripcord (including handle) is part of the TSO'd section of the rig. Putting a different handle on it will count as an alteration; alterations require master riggers. Alterations to TSO'd components (including the ripcord) further require authorization. This authorization could come from the manufacturer(the one who built the rig, not a different one) or the FAA. I'm guessing it won't happen, but maybe it will. In any case, it will require showing that the new handle meets TSO requirements.

With regard to your quote from AC 105 2C, that's what I think. It's just that my supervising rigger specifically got asked this on his practical, and got it wrong; the DPRE (who is a highly experienced rigger and an FAA official) said that the FAA considers assembly as an alteration and thus requires a master rigger. Not if it is considered an alteration...alterations require master riggers, period. Alterations to TSO'd components require further authorization from a manufacturer/FAA. To reword my original question, does anybody know for sure if the FAA considers assembling a canopy as an alteration? This seems really weird, but the DPRE ought to know what he is talking about...

I am just about ready to take my riggers exams, but I have a question that I am having trouble getting a definite answer to. Knowledgeable people, please help! Simply put, the question is: Who can assemble a canopy to a container? The rigger I am under was asked this question on his practical, and the DPRE told him that assembling a ram-air canopy to a container counts as an alteration and thus requires a Master rigger (for either main or reserves). It does make sense that assembling a canopy can affect the airworthyness of the system, which defines major repairs/alterations. However, nowhere in the FARs do I find anything that reinforces this. In fact, AC 105-2C says that the owner of a parachute system can assemble/disassemble components for storage or shipping purposes if the operations required are simple (installing slinks/rapide links seems pretty simple to me). In addition, a senior rigger can pack a ram-air; when he packs it, he puts his name on the card certifying the ENTIRE rig as airworthy. Part of inspecting/packing the rig is doing a line check and making sure the links are correctly attached...if a senior rigger can do this (and thus verify it has been attached correctly), why wouldn't he be able to assemble the canopies? Finally, all of the owner's manuals I have seen have called for just a rigger to assemble, not a Master rigger. So, how 'bout it?

Of course...I'm sure I would of thought of that after I drank enough beer, AND I blasted a hole in the equipment I was trying to clean.

Right. Parachutes are designed with the stagnation point in front of the cell mouth. When the AOA is changed, the stagnation point migrates...if it migrates off the cell mouth (to the upper or lower surface) air will flow across the mouth instead of into it. This will effectively suck the air out of the cell and collapse it. This translates to piloting parachutes as if you change the AOA too much, you invite a collapse. I haven't managed to do it with front risers on any canopy I've flown, but there are A LOT of canopies I haven't flown. You can collapse a canopy with toggles, but I think this is because the forward speed gets reduced to zero/negative, not because the stagnation point has migrated off the cell mouth. I haven't ever tried it with rear risers.

Yeah, that's how the Parachute Manual recommends cleaning containers. I imagine it works well on jumpsuits too..just, as you said, make sure the place doesn't recycle the water. Also check the amount of pressure...I have heard that some pressure guns can be strong enough to rip through fabric.

My experience has been that rolling the nose increases snivel time. My old canopy would search around, hunting for a heading during the snivel when I rolled 4 cells on each side in. It did seem to increase the frequency of off-heading openings. I started rolling three cells in on each side, and leaving the middle three cells open. It seemd to give a good balance of snivel and heading stability. Ultimately, it depends on a lot of things. I think you just have to try it and see what happens.

You've got my attention!

Cross-bracing will make a canopy more rigid and smoother, even at lower wing-loadings (lower speeds). There is still a great amount of pressure in the canopy cells "pulling" against the bracing at lower speeds. As far as designers saying they need to be heavily loaded, well, keep in mind that cross-bracing by itself doesn't necessarily do this. The combination of design parameters (planform, airfoil, trim, etc.) create a design that "likes" more loading. You could put cross-bracing in a Para-Foil and a have a canopy that does better with light loadings.

Good point, I forgot about that one (hey, it's new). One thing I should say is that there isn't necessarily anything WRONG with flying a lightly loaded cross-braced, it' just that the performance gains won't be there/the same. As stated earlier a canopy designed specifically for higher wingloadings might feel sluggish at lower wing loadings. This might be desired in a Tandem. Whatever the case, I feel comfortable saying that a Tandem isn't intended for the same performance envelope as a swooping canopy...it's supposed to be at lighter loading and more docile. The original question applied to swooping X-braced canopies, meant to be flown at higher loadings. Also, everyone I have heard from says that Cobalts also "fly big", meaning that they will feel sluggish at low wing loadings...I think the whole premise of the ultra-performance canopies is that you get the diving characteristics of small highly-loaded canopies coupled with better low-speed performance of larger canopies; you also don't get the twitchyness associated with some small highly-loaded canopies. Thus, you can fly a smaller canopy.

I've used Tide and the washing machine on my Tony Suit; it works. Let it airdry. My suit did shrink a little the first time I washed it. It's made of heavy cotton and polycotton.

I think the cross-braced canopies out there now were all specifically designed to be flown at high wing loading and correspondingly fast speeds. They probably have a thinner airfoil section to reduce drag, but this means they need a higher speed to produce the necessary lift. *Note...there seems to be an argument as to whether or not the VX uses a Stiletto airfoil; knowledgeable sources have come in on both sides. Without having been able to fly a 170 sq. ft. Velocity, I would guess that such a canopy at low wing loading would feel very sluggish. I think it is true that the smoother airfoil that results from cross-bracing is more beneficial the faster the canopy flies; a slower canopy may not benefit as much. This is all just an informed guess. Somebody else mentioned pack volume; a Velocity 170 would pack up like a tank.

Yep...I've rode a runway back a couple of times. It is amazing how long brakes + thermals can keep you up in the air. I haven't had the 'pleasure' of having to deal with one (at least not a big one) on landing.

Sigh...I don't see why my post is drawing the responses it is. I can tell this is a touchy subject. I think my first post went above and beyond the call of duty as far as not being oversimplified. I tried to keep it as unbiased as possible and just give a detailed description of what I understood as facts; people had problems with me (apparently) not stating "just say no to toggle hooks". So, I present my personal opinion that using front risers is safer than toggles; I get accused of "oversimplifying". If you want my interpretation of the physics involved in both cases, read my first post. If you want my personal opinion, both kinds of turns can kill or maim; front riser turns generate more speed, longer swoops, and generally leave the pilot a bigger window to save himself if he screws up. Don't toggle hook, it is not worth it. There. I'm done with this thread now. My sincerest appologies to everyone involved for starting this whole mess.

From a jumpers perspective, let me just say how truly aggrivating it is to sometimes not be able to find good information (especially technical info) on parachutes. The information shared by knowledgeable manufacturers can be invaluable. Having said that, I also recognize the plight of the business man. Anything you choose to share is appreciated.

In short, hot air rises. During the hot weather period, as the sun is out, it warms up the earth, which in turn warms up the air next to it. As this air warms up, it can become less dense then the air above it, so it will rise. This upward-moving column of air can influence how quickly your canopy descends.