polarbear

Good thread. Dust devils can easily collapse canopies, and there are numerous instances of jumpers who have safely landed having their canopies (and themselves) picked up by a devil and flung back into the ground, causing serious injury and death. Dust devils can be very hard to see, particularly when you are in the air and the devil is over grass. On hot days, I typically see at least one per day (not necessarily during a skydive), so they are out there... I'll throw this question out, just for the purposes of discussion. What do you do if under canopy you spot a dust devil near the intended landing area? I have heard two approaches. One is move away from the dust devil; put as much distance between you and it as possible. The second is that the path of a devil is unpredictable, but if you go to where it was, chances are it won't come back.

In the US, the reserve ripcord on a standard sport rig is required to take less then 22 lbs to pull. This is required in the TSO. If it takes more than 22 lbs, the rig does not fulfill the TSO requirements. It is the rigger's responsibility to insure that in the field the pull force does not exceed 22 lbs. I have no idea how easy/hard it is to pull a soft ripcord handle at 22 lbs...but I would suggest you try it and make sure you're up to it before getting one. It does strike me as odd that hard cutaways are known to occur in the sport, yet most jumpers use the standard pilow cutaway. The TSO requires less than 22 lbs on the reserve...but under a spinning mal with line twists, the cutaway force could easily be more than 22lbs. It does seem like if you're going to trust you can pull the cutaway in this instance, you should also be able to pull the reserve... As far as soft ripcord handles, personally I agree that I don't want to make reserve deployment any more difficult. I want my thumb through a ring. But, I only do maybe 50% freefly, and never let people dock/grab on to my harness in the vicinity of my emergency handles, specifically because I don't want them pulled by accident. I would agree that a premature deployment of a reserve, particularly while at higher speeds in freeflying, is bad. Soft handles are just one more variable in the gear equation. As with all gear, the jumper needs to be familiar with the approproate issues before choosing.

Yes...we should all take responsibility for ourselves. Each jumper's safety lies primarily in his/her own hands. Getting a gear check from someoneelse should not be a substitute. I still think that many/most of us will at least once make some equipment error (albeit not necessarily a major one) at some point in our career...it is times like these when having someone else check the gear pay off.

Cool - I haven't ever been called "peeps" before

I meant when I ask for a check on the ground, not in the plane. When you are on the ground, waiting for the plane, why not check everything? It only takes another 15-30 seconds, and there really isn't something better to do for that short of time. In the plane, it is a little different, specifically because you can't see everything and because it is harder to move around. In that situation, I do agree with the "check what you can see" attitude, unless specifically asked to do otherwise.

"This guy shouldn't be jumping" That is such a hard decision to make. Serious safety mistakes defineitely need to be addressed, but it is very difficult to tell somebody they can no longer participate in their favorite passtime. This is especially true when that jumper has many hundreds/thousands of jumps. When do you draw the line? Another post in this thread mentions a jumper with 14000 jumps who experienced a pilot-chute-in-tow and tried to fix it instead of just deploying the reserve. He bounced. A stupid mistake. Clearly, he would have been better off had he been grounded, but who really would have grounded that highly experienced jumper had he survived? I have heard of several people who have incorrectly routed chest straps and either had them caught by gear checks or "miraculously" managed to stay in their harness on opening. They also made a serious, "stupid" mistake. Should they be grounded? It really is a difficult decision to make. What about the many, many jumpers who land aggresively and find themselves deep in the corner on occasion. They are also very close to bouncing...should they be grounded? I am not commenting on how I think serious safety incidents should be handled; I am just posing a question. I can only say in the case I mentioned in my previous post, it turned out to be a good thing...no one was hurt, and everybody involved got a real wake-up call to doing gear checks. The jumper in question became so safety consciouss it hurts. Complacency kills in this sport, but it is a very, very easy pit to fall into.

I wouldn't even say it is anal, it is just plain smart. It really discourages me how people will stand around with all their eqipment on, waiting for a plane, complaining about the wait, but won't spend some of that time checking each other over. It also discourages me when I ask for a pin check and get just that: the checker looks at my pins and that's it, doesn't bother to look at cutaway assemblies, leg or chest straps, other equipment... I always go with "The check of 3's": 3 rings (cutaway assembly), 3 handles (main, reserve, cutaway), 3 straps (leg and chest), plus make sure the jumper has goggles and altimeter. Several times I've seen a plane have to turn around on the runway and come back because someone left behind goggles or an altimeter. I remember an incident where a jumper actually made it on the plane and all the way to 5'000 ft. before someone realized he didn't have a rig on. Dumb mistake, yes, but this particular jumper is actually one of the safest, most cautious skydivers I know. He just wasn't paying attention on this jump and got ahead of himself. In addition, the other jumpers and pilot on the load failed to notice. No need to say that could've been ugly.

I seem to remember my heatwave being 725.

I would agree that ellipticals are more efficient and give the pilot more options, allowing him/her to fly their way out of trouble. However, they require correct inputs. The term "Forgiveness" generally means how hard the canopy will punish you for making incorrect control inputs. According to this definition, ellipticals are not more forgiving. An example would be you come in to land on a Sabre and flare an inch lower with one side. You go into a slight turn, but with a little balance you manage to stay on your feet and run it out. On a Stiletto, flaring an inch lower on one side will put you into a much hader turn, and while it may not injure you, you will have a harder time making a graceful landing. Thus it did not forgive your incorrect flare input as well. Now, if you realized that you had flared unevenly and made correct control inputs to fix it, the more efficient Stiletto should give you a better chance of getting straight before having to touch down. There are some people who have a better "feel" for how to fly more demanding canopies; they can do alright with more responsive nylon with lower jump numbers. Many can't. Generally speaking, I think it is a good idea for someone to learn how to fly a square or semi-elliptical zp at somewhere between 1.0-1.2 before flying an elliptical; just my $.02

The proof load for 850 spectra is 850 lbs, meaning a single length of line should take 850 lbs in tension before breaking.

The maximum weight for a reserve is dictated by the TSO under which it is certified and is based on strength requirements. Most of the reserves we use today are under TSO C23c, Category B, which specifies 254 lbs. maximum weight (this is why most of PD's reserves have 254 as a maximum weight). This isn't the weight at which the reserve will fail; it is just the weight at which it has been certifed to not fail. I think the TSO actually requires the reserve to be tested with 300 lbs, but don't quote me on that. Some designers, like Precision, take it a step further and introduce a facrtor of safety in the maximum weight for a reserve, thus, the Raven has lower than 254 lbs. for a max. The Dash-M is under a different TSO (TSO C23d), which allows the manufacturer to specify its own maximum weight. For main canopies, the maximum usually has more to do with performance, specifically, landing performance. Some canopies are designed for lower speeds and just don't do well with more weight.

The "freefly" handle has been around along time, being used on pull-out pilot chutes first. I don't think Wings "invented" it. I have one on my Mirage. I have only used it for a handful of jumps, but my first impressions are that I would rather have a hackey. The handle is a little more difficult for me to grab (especially with gloves on). It really feels like part of the rig, while a hackey (to me) is very distinctive. The first jump I used it on, I had to pat around for it. Subsequent jumps weren't a problem, but I would still rather have the hackey. Once I have it, pulling it isn't any more difficult. I do think it is a little more secure...but I never had a problem with a hackey. I still wouldn't tolerate loose spandex. It isn't really any harder to pack. I don't think it will make dealing with a horseshoe any more diffilcult, except that if the bag is loose and the bottom of the container is flapping around, it will make finding that pud handle that much more difficult.

Inverted flight would be cool. Hey, somebody else mentioned checking out a Spectre. I would agree. I personally like something a little more high performance, but in my opinion, the Spectre is the nicest all-around canopy I know of. If I had a second rig, it would have a spectre.

The only real safety issue I know of is that you need to make sure the snap shakcle is attached to something, and that it will in no way interfere with the operation of the rig (especially the 3-rings). Get a rigger help you decide what to do with the discionnected end.

I haven't flown a Silhouette, but I am not a big fan of Triathlons. Not that they are bad canopies, I just don't like how they fly. The Silhouette has ZP TOP SKIN, F-111 BOTTOM SKIN. Generally speaking, I find that PD canopies are very good. Demo them and decide for yourself.

It is also the rigger's responsibility to pack it according to manufacturer's instructions. THAT IS IN THE FAA REGULATIONS. There are no if's, and's or but's about that. If the manufacturer's instructions specify a service life, then the law says it must be followed. If there is no specified service life, the rigger gets to decide. There is such a thing as riggers discretion, but it does have boundaries.

I agree about the bottom surface inflation, but...I'm not sure I'd want to land my 150 with only bottom surface inflation.

Good question...sort of puts a spin on my "like new" requirement. I am a slow, methodical rigger who spends much too much time inspecting. Having said that, I would say that if the reserve passed my inspection, and I was aware of the history of the reserve, I would feel alright packing it. As far as the permeability of the fabric, I would have to consider the potential pilot of the reserve. If it was going to be flown at a high wingloading, and/or if the pilot (who presumably put some or all of the 16 jumps on the reserve) complained of a poor flare, I would SUGGEST that it be sent for a permeability test and take the opportunity to educate the jumper on the issues involved. I believe the permeability test focuses on the top skin, so having a ZP topskin would negate the need for a check. As far as the stains, I would certainly check the affected areas for sufficient strength. I generally use the "thumb" test, but if it was severe, I might actually get out the fabric pliers and scale. I never really fully understood the term "riggers discretion" until I got into rigging;)

I actually had it happen to me on my old Talon. It is hard to explain without having the equipment in front of me, but the Talon toggles can have the brake locking loop sort of half hitch at the toggle attachment. This results in a situation where the toggle will come loose from the riser, but the brake loop doesn't slip off the toggle, preventing the canopy from going into full flight. Rigging Innovations actually has a service bulletin out on this. When this happened to me, I had both toggles loose and in my hands, but the brakes hadn't released on one side. I was on a Heatwave 170 at 1.4. To make a long story short, I did a controlability check to make sure I could fly straight and flare effectively/straight, and then landed the canopy. It wasn't the softest landing, but it was alright. Something that occured to me after I landed was, what if that stuck brake had suddenly come loose, particularly close to the ground? It could have created a problem. In general, I would recommend doing a contolability check. If it passes (and you are comfortable with it), land it; if it fails, chop it (pending you have altitude). Don't bounce under a bad parachute when you have a perfectly good reserve on your back.

I was actually in almost the same situation as you with my first canopy. I would have been loading a 190 at 1.1, a 210 at 1.0. I flew a Sabre 190 and really liked it, but went with the 210 size becasue I sometimes jumped at a DZ with a high field elevation. While I sold the 210 and moved on after only 50 jumps, I think it was the right way to go.

Maybe, maybe. I just don't know. Like I said, I have seen no data that confirms that airlocks make a difference.

Yeah, I would agree with that. I would think a higher aspect ratio canopy would be more likely to bowtie. Also, I would think that a canopy which has "more tail pulled down per toggle stroke" would also be more likely to do the pre-bowtie. But the airlocked just looked different in deep brakes. All the non-airlocked canopies have a sort of "soggy" look to them, sort of like a helium ballon that has been laying around and has had some of the helium leak out. The airlock, like I said earlier, looked like someone had taken a ballon and was squeazing it. Being a test engineer, I fully recognoze the importance of data. It certainly is true that I have seen no data to confirm that airlocks have an effect. However, I also have seen no data that confirms that my Mirage will actually accept a 3000 lb shock load like the TSO says, or that elliptical planforms lend themselves to higher performance, or that cross-bracing actual makes a canopy more rigid, or... I have found it very hard to come by actual data in this industry. Without data, I am only left with my intuition and experience, both of which tell me that airlocks must help, albeit maybe only a little bit.

I went home and checked my PD reserve owners manual. I couldn't find any explicit statements, but I did find something that said "this parachute is designed as and intended to be used for a reserve only. It is not intended to be used to acrue a large amount of jumps". I guess it comes back to, how would the FAA interpret it? Specifically, how would the very-likely-not-a-skydiver FAA inspector interpret it? Personally, I would agree that assuming a parachute is in LIKE NEW condition (and, of course, that it is certified), then it would be OK to use it as a reserve. I would be very cautious doing this, however. I would demand to know the ENTIRE life history of the parachute, and it would have to pass a VERY thorough inspection before I would sign my name to it.

As I said earlier, the other design parameters (airfoil, trim, planform, etc.) are probably more important to both stability AND performance than just airlocks. However, my personal experience has been that airlocked canopies really do feel more solid and don't change shape as much as other canopies when in turbulence, and they also perform very well. Just yesterday, I was playing around with a Samurai in deep brakes. I immediately noticed that the canopy looked different than any other I had seen. In non-airlocked canopies, in deep brakes, the sides of the canopy "pull back" a little while the nose "protrudes forward", sort of a "pre-bowtie" shape. The samurai did not do this. In fact, the best way I can describe it is that it looked like somebody had taken a balloon and was squeezing it. The only explanation I see for this is that the internal pressure was maintained by the airlocks, which provided the "rigidity" I talked about earlier. I will say it again. Airlocks are NOT the be-all-and-end-all of canopy design, but given that the rest of a design is sound, airlocks do seem to help.

As I said, it is in the owners manual (pg. 8). In fact, this comment is made in your post, and George acknowledges it. I guess the question is, if it is in the owners manual, is it "manufacturers instructions"? My thoughts are yes. I think the FAA would go with the documented manufacturers instructions. If George says it's OK, he needs to change his owners manual.