councilman24

Let me give you a perspective from discussions at PIA committee meetings. It's been clear that over the last decade we've had several instances of AAD's firing at normal altitudes in seemingly normal circumstances, speeds and body attitudes but reserves failing to open before impact. A few years ago USPA and PIA issued a joint statement asking riggers to help us investigate this issue by reporting anything unusual when opening reserves and extracting bags on the ground. Last I knew we had received three reports. Members of PIA have discussed this issue for a number of years. There are many circumstances that may be contributing but no single issue has been identified. MANY people who post on here will tell you that THEY KNOW what the problem is. I've sat in on most of the discussions an I'll tell you we don't know. It may be that each instance has been caused by a DIFFERENT issue. I know things that CAN cause problems but there are now common circumstances between the occurrences. In any case we know the gear, canopies and H/C's, have changed since the introduction of the CYPRES and VIGIL. We know that canopy/rig choices made by jumpers have changed. We know that rigging practices vary. We know that skydiving itself, the maneuvers we do before we open our parachute have changed. We know lots of stuff has changed. The PIA technical committee has been trying to understand why this has become an issue and have some studies planned. Again, some folks on here will say THEY KNOW. You can agree with them or not. Given these changes and the seeming increase of AAD activations not giving enough time for reserves to open the PIA Risk Management committee has been lobbying all AAD manufacturers to increase activation altitudes. One argument against his is "My product works as designed and that was good enough when introduced and should be good enough now." Again, many of us believe things have changed and that perhaps the historical activation altitudes no longer give enough cushion. Finally Airtec offered service center increase of 100' or 200' as a permanent, non user adjustable change. That was good but little publicized and little used. Now, as an answer in part to the lobbying of PIA, Airtec has offered the user adjustable activation altitude. While I believe the company still thinks that 750' is the appropriate balance between high enough to open and not high enough to cause a large number of two outs they now give the user the choice to make a different decision. I believe this is a good thing. But, each jumper will have to consider there own deployment altitudes and their own main (and perhaps reserve) characteristics and chose their activation altitude accordingly. If you go to 2500' and jump a canopy that takes 800' to open (which didn't exist when the CYPRES was introduced, we called those streamers, or Units), or jump a Wonderhog were the reserve bag falls out, then maybe 750' is still right for you. If you deploy at 3500' (old farts would ask how many points do you want to turn exiting at 3500') and or like me you still jump canopies that open when deployed instead of streamering forever then maybe a higher AAD activation altitude, to give your reserve a little more time save your life is appropriate. So now, every jumper with a CYPRES has to do the calculation for themselves. We've been doing it with slower opening canopies causing higher opening altitudes anyway but now there is another reason. And some of my customers have raised their activation altitudes. BTW many people quote the three hundred feet standard in the TSO specs. (Now somewhat more complicated) But remember that is the alternative standard if you can't meet the 3 sec. standard. Three seconds at any terminal speed is more than 300' and pushes real close to the 750' activation altitude. It's always been a LAST CHANCE TO LIVE. When I get mine back, even though I'll get out lower and deploy lower than most younger jumpers, because I jump Triathlons and original Sabres I'll raise mine a couple of hundred feet. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

There is another thread somewhere about this. My advice is to buy an older rig. You will then have the same rig all the time, have it when you want it, know how it has been handled and maintained, be jumping the same canopy all the time making it easier to learn canopy flight, be able to order demo canopies and put them in you rig to try out, have the rig at home to practice packing, have a rig if you want to jump somewhere else. These are just some of the reasons. But I wouldn't want to be renting/sharing my last chance to live. BTW a perfectly serviceable and in many ways best helmet, a ProTec, is less than $50. And buy an altimeter. You'll always need it. I'm using the one I bought in 1980. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I agree with everything Lee said. But..... The reason all the articles are old is that it's become a non-issue. Most of the issues have been resolved. If you not really big, pick a weight maybe 170 or 180, you'd be fine with small rings and risers. If you've sat on you ass too much like me then I'd stick with full size. I haven't heard of a riser breaking in a long time or cutaway issues that aren't related to twisted risers. This.is more an issue.with one inch risers but is solved with hard cable end housings on the risers. I say unless.you big get what you want and don't worry. Or be an old conservative fat. fart like me and get big rings and type 8 risers. Or split the difference like I did and get small stainless rings and type 8 risers. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Embroidery is done before the rig is assembled. Also many side walls are more than one layer. Rig may have to be deconstructed in order to do it. Not worth the effort IMHO. If you want to pursue it call the manufacturer and ask about having it done or new sidewalls put on. Or have a flag patch sewn on. Some old time rigs were more patches than rig. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

It's not.wrong to run E/69 thread through a.16 its just.not optimum. It make work.fine on some.materials.but not on others. What forms the.loop.is the.difference in friction on the thread between the needle and the material. One side if the needle has the.long groove and allows the thread to hide in the groove and slide while the needle is coming up in the material. The othe side has a short groove and pinches the thread between the full round needle and the material. This create the loop. If the thread is pinched on the long groove side it won't form the stitch right. Bigger needles have bigger grooves for bigger thread. E thread should need a 18 or 19 but may work in some fabrics in a 16. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I was quoted about 20U s and and I stand by what I said about new versus older blue and tan ones. That being said I'm ambivalent about 20U's. Red from Glide Path really likes them or at least used to. I've sewn on some nit.so.good.one but I have two pfaff 238's, a Bernina 217 and a Consew 199. If I found a good deal on an older 20 u I'd get one would.have gotten one but not.now.with.what I have. One key differences between zigzagz is if the.move.against a spring and the.spring pushes.the needle bar back or if they have positive physical linkage moving.the needle.bar.both.ways. You can tell by seeing if you can push the needle bar to the side, left if I recall, by hand. If positions by a spring you can deflect it from a good straight stitch with inadvertant sideways pressure. Frankly right now I can't remember which is which but IIRC a singer 20u is a spring machine. I like the 238's , haven't sewn with the bernina yet. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Making jumpsuits is tailoring, not rigging. I've tried it and I'm not very good at it. But when we talk about nylon E thread we are talking about patching parachutes, sewing lines, and building gear bags and other accessories. But even for those things other size thread are used too. For.jumpsuits, made out of various materials, you may very well need/want to use other sizes and materials. "Heavy duty" polycotton may be appropriate for a polycotton jumpsuit. You may also need to zigzag or serge seams and do other types of sewing. IF you want E thread for non parachute items size 69 nylon upholstery thread available at any good fabric store is fine. To will be in some odd colors, some you want and some like mauve you may not. But it's a lot cheaper than buying a sixteen or even 8 ounce cone of e thread. Have fun. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I hope its 4/1 BUT I have seen that done. Not with an empty container but with another skydiver for Mr. Bill. Jumper fastened his full rig face to face to the tandem from three rings to tandem rings with caribiner. They survived but had a hell of a time getting enough load off the caribiners to unhook. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I have to disagree about needle size. It's not whether it gets through the eye it's whether it's "hidden" in the groove to form the loop for the hook to catch. E thread actually works better with a 19 or 20 but your machine will probably only take up to an 18. Some of the reference spec a 19 for it. But you do need at least the 18. One key to easy sewing is to keep a good, read new, needle in the machine. Needles do not last forever. Especially if you hit something with it. Don't sew over pins. When ever you sit down to start something new put in a new needle. Buy them mail order to cut the cost significantly. Also don't forget that presser foot pressure is adjustable. Parachute construction and patches on ripstop parachutes are routinely done with e thread which requires an 18 or 19 needle. Using a 12 is not realistic. Its the thread that determines the needle size not the material. We use that same needle.and e thread to sew F111 and 6 layers of 1" type for to make a toggle nose. Some bad advice there. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I think the temperature gradient from the top of the canopy to the risers is causing it. That or the fact that you have one testicle. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

His poor skills are even more reason he should do the training in realistic conditions. While unintentional water landings are rare they are deadly. Going last may add confidence but ISN'T realistic. The canopy and rig are wet/saturated. Packed dry reserves will may provide some flotation. A dry canopy will hold air and be much easier to get out from under. A dry jumpsuit (I used to make the student take off a jumpsuit. Of course a wing war suit) Have him try to have a separate rig so he doesn't go first but it is dry. He should have a PFD and use it as instructed. Lots of inflatables available now that they are CG approved. Worth burning a cartridge. I'll leave the rest for his class. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Yes it will take an 18 but that machine may not be as strong as the one I used. Should be okay though. The viking would be better, at least I know more about it and it has the low gear, I think. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

What your looking at isn't worth buying. Nothing new in your price range is. I searched ebay for machines within 100 miles of holiday fl. http://www.ebay.com/itm/HeaVy-DutY-Necchi-zz-serviced-loaded-uphols-vinyl-lite-leather-very-clean-/281293449432?pt=BI_Sewing_Machines&hash=item417e6568d8 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Husqvarna-Viking-Sewing-Machine-6020-/261433382441?pt=BI_Sewing_Machines&hash=item3cdea4d629 I used versions similiar to both of these before I got my first commercial machine. Either one of these would be a good choice and are withing 100 miles of you. I wore out the hook on my viking and a new hook was as much as I paid for the machine so I went and found another one. You can either buy or make a table to make these flat bed. The viking has a slower speed/higher torque setting available. Still works better for sewing 6 layers of type 4 for toggles than my commercial machines. If your willing to pay for shipping lots more available. At your budget you want a viking, necchi or similar home machine from the 50's or 60's. I'm sure there are Pfaff, singer and probably white from the same time frame that would be equivalent. If you were closer a 31-15 and a Necchi bu are available nearby in MI near or below your budget. Both on commercial tables with knee lift. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Well actually there are a couple that do. Strong Enterprises is one example. I'd fully expect them to meet the standard. But the only way to know if any rig meets the performance standard is to drop test it. That's my point. The combinations and sizes aren't. I agree that towing a PC with the bridle straight from the PC to the bag is unacceptable. But the blame goes farther than just the container design. I don't like many of the container designs either but a smaller canopy may change that 'test' result. My point is that a skydiver shouldn't wait until 310' to open their reserve. In a perfect world I agree that a design meeting a TSO test standard should meet it in the market. Parachutes are too variable and what we've done with them hasn't helped a bit. Just curious with no implied criticism, how many rigs do you have to refuse to pack? I don't do a lot of sport rigs but I haven't had to refuse one in a long time. According to the FAA, it probably will happen pretty soon. JFYI, the last AD (parachute related) that I know of was issued in 2001 IIRC. MEL Actually 1999 Relative Workshop amp fittings on cutaway housings. I keep hearing specific FAA types say why not issues parachute AD's but I'll believe it when I see it. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I'd agree with you if manufacturers made entire integrated systems, had to test all.sizes and only reserves tested in a specific container/size were allowed. We may want the testing and QC manual to guarantee meeting the standard but it doesn't. How can anyone guarantee that canopy x size y( size y never tested ),never tested in container xx size yy (size yy never tested) will meet the opening performance standard? And given with the wide variation inherent in manufacturing with fabric (what other TSO item allows 10% variation) and wide variation in rigger performance along with items left to their discretion I think absolute expectation that any given rig would meet the.performance standards is a reasonable hope but not a certainty. Especially in untested orientations like back to earth. Anybody saying "It WILL open in three seconds, the TSO tells me so" or " the PC should have rolled.them over" is dreaming. I'm not talking so much about the strength standards. As Lee pointed out material and manufacturing controls should handle that. And we still need to get the FAA to issue AD's on parachutes again. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Any photo credit? I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

This must be a trick question. The right answer is "I don't pack Security Safety-Chutes, all of which ar 30 years old or older." I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

This must be a trick question. The right answer is "I don't pack Security Safety-Chutes." I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

What also isn't discussed is the value of having the rig available when you want it, knowing it's maintenance and jump history, knowing how it's been treated, always jumping the exact same rig, having a rig that fits you and is appropriate for your skill level and performance desires, etc. All of this refers to your LAST CHANCE TO LIVE. To me having full control of the rig is priceless. As menitioned above this calculation should not be done using new gear costs. You aren't renting state of the art brand knew gear in most/all cases. It's not like buying versus leasing a new car and I don't know of anyone leasing new rigs yet. I'd guess value of most rental rigs is around $2500. Maybe more depending on age of AAD. And in my opinion no one should be buying a new rig as their first rig. Unless they're an oil prince or equivalent that can spend $6000 a year on gear. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

This is the first time I think I've seen someone qualify their rigger request on someone knowledgeable on PEP's. Of course with Dave DeWolf not including rounds in his base senior course it is appropriate. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

BTW the Civil Air Regulations are where a double throw zigzag shows up in civilian literature. It states in 15.3106 "... All zigzag sewing shall be done on a 2-stitch sewing machine." I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Whoops, I don't know my alphabet. I got it right in the first paragraph, f. I'll blame it on my 7 and 5 year old girls bugging me. And we have g on our mind because it's the next one. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

First there are some DPRE's and FAA inspectors who will tell you as a senior rigger you are not allowed to replace the lines on a main. There are others who will tell you that you are allowed. I will tell you that it's not a good idea to do it by yourself without any resources other than those you've mentioned. Main line replacements done wrong have killed people. I won't get into the argument now but if you want the answer that most applies to you call your local FISDO and ask their interpretation. You may not want to here the answer. Do you know what stitch patterns are used by PD? And what threads? Do you have those available? Hint: there are two DIFFERENT thread sizes used in relining a PD canopy and more than one stitch pattern. Here is not the place to learn how to do it. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Nothing was ever called C23a. The first was C23, and the second C23b. I assume TSO C23 was the same as the regulations in the Civil Air Regulations. I have those as published in 1944. NAS-804, Aug 24, 1949 was the technical reference for TSO C23b, implemented in 3/29/62. After C23d the Parachute Industry Association, rather than the Society of Automotive Engineers, was tasked with developing the underlying technical document spelling out the performance standards and testing required as well as other things. PIA issued that document at TS-135. (I won't get into versions.) When the FAA issued the TSO C23e document referencing the PIA TS-135 standard the listed many exceptions the the PIA document that we had worked for over a decade on. Then 'changes' they mandated were unacceptable to the Parachute Certification Standards Committee (PCSC) so the PIA rescinded the document and removed it from our website. Without the underlying technical document the FAA had to cancel TSO C23e since it referenced a non-existent standard. Later negotiations Between the PIA PCSC and the FAA resulted in some modifications to TS-135 and the issuance of TSO C23f referencing the current version of the PIA standard. There is still one exception negating an alternative landing performance testing procedure. Read the current TSO at the link in the post above and the TS-135 at PIA.COM to see what was removed by the the FAA. The committee was divided on including this paragraph in the TS but extensive lobbying with the FAA could not change their mind about not excluding it in the TSO document. Nothing was ever certified under TSO c23e. It only was in effect from 10/31 to 12/04/08 and TS-135 was removed much more quickly from the PIA website. That's why e is under cancelled instead of Active Historical. b,c, and d are under active historical because there are current products being manufactured under this versions today(i.e. Vector III under TSO C23b, a 1949 standard, couldn't resist) The new Strong Tandem is certified under f and the new rig from Peregrine is being developed under f. These are the first items going through the process under f. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE