Hooknswoop

There is a difference between constructive crititism and playing debating games for sport. Sure, but you are not helping. People are pounding in on canopies they shouldn't be jumping and need guidence and education and you want a study. This isn't NASA. Not at all. The concept that we need a study or that BSR's that are not researched with big budgets and commitees are a bad idea. There are more than one person with a lot of experience and time that realize that a WL BSR is a good idea. Seems to me that is the only thing we have and it works. Why screw with sucess, especially when we aren't going to get stastics, committes, budjets and reserach studies. Yes, I know. So let people that do have good ideas figure this out. Good. Let go of this one. Some problems are difficult to solve. We should not get distracted by trying to turn lead to gold. Exactly. There is a problem. Let's fix it. It isn't that complicated or that difficult as you are trying to make it. We can afford to impliment a less than perfect BSR and change it to make it as good as possible. A pilot program should work out any problems or even reveal if the whole idea is bad. But you want to continue to debate the issue. How many more people have to hammer in under canopies they aren't ready for before you'll wake up? And it is important that this gets done, the sooner, the better. You seem to be willing to debate it forever and against it as long as there isn't proof that a WL BSR will work. Stop putting your efforts into slowing things down, and put your efforts into speeding things up. This idea has been debated for a long time and has been refined down to a very good proposal. Stop debating and help, or don't help and be quiet. Derek ***

Are you posting because you like to debate or because you have an opinion? With regards to a WL BSR proposal, why not be more positive? Instead of trying to tear everyone else down, which it appears you are just doing for sport, and do some research? Come up with solutions. Put YOUR ideas out there to stepped on and hammered into nothing. I/we do not have to get past you or prove anything to you. You are not the self appointed "BSR-reviewer". You want a study? Too bad. You aren't going to get one. At the last FAR NPRM, the USPA was against mandatory incident reporting, so the stastics just don't exist. I'm sure there will be pilot program and if the whole idea is bad, it'll be discovered and dropped then with little harm done. You don't think time and experience count for anything? I'll arrange for my old VX-60 to get shipped out to you for you to jump. You shouldn't have a problem, if time and experience don't matter. We are trying to make things better and you want to play debate games. In the meantime, people are getting seriouslt injured and killed needlessly. Just like pilots, canopy pilots need time and experience before downsizing. They need training and instruction before jumping smaller, faster canopies. Otherwise the risk factor is simply too large and people get hurt too easily. You can link disctionaries and argument web sites all you want, but that doesn't change the truth. The truth is caqnopies have evolved, but jumpers haven't. No BSR is perfect. This one allows for it's failings with the test-out option. If the jumper can exceeed the BSR, they will be allowed to. If you don't think their is a problem, I'm sorry. When someone with a lot more experience on a subject than me tells me something. I listen. I didn't always and have some bad experiences to show for it. If you still won't listen, then I don't want to listen to you say the same things over and over again anymore. Stop 'helping', because you aren't helping. I;m sorry for the rant, I'm just sick and tired you your games. Some people are trying to make things better and you don't give a damn. Derek

Why? Do you think the minimum deployment altitude BSR is a bad idea? What is the difference? Derek

No worries at all. I completely understand. Derek

Wouldn't have missed it for anything. Talk about putting lead on target. Derek

I thought you handled stuff like that by saying, "Someone un-fuck him!". Derek

Why pay $20+ and have the rig down for a week, when Mirage could pay Master Riggers to do the SB and the owner isn't down any money or down time? That is a much bigger hassle than just having the rig down for a normal re-pack? If the weather is good and they have students, rigs being down for a week+ is going to cost them money. Again, all that could be avoided, even Mirage would save money. Derek

That isn't an Airworthiness Directive, it is a Special Airworthiness Advisory Bulletin and isn't mandatory. They send out one for the Capewell ripcords too and it specifically states the inspection is only recommended. Derek

That is for AAD's, if installed. I'll look up part 65 when I get home, but it has different wording. The FAR means that when you peform maintenance, youhave to follow the manufacture's instruction for that maint. Like when you replace a propeller on a 172, you have to do it I/A/W the manufacturer's instructions. You can't ust torque the bolts to 5 in lbs and call it good. The FAR doesn't say that you have to do SB's. Here is the FAR: §65.129 Performance standards. No certificated parachute rigger may -- (a) Pack, maintain, or alter any parachute unless he is rated for that type; (b) Pack a parachute that is not safe for emergency use; (c) Pack a parachute that has not been thoroughly dried and aired; (d) Alter a parachute in a manner that is not specifically authorized by the Administrator or the manufacturer; (e) Pack, maintain, or alter a parachute in any manner that deviates from procedures approved by the Administrator or the manufacturer of the parachute; or So if the manufacturer says you have to use "E" thread to patch a canopy, then you have to use "E" thread to patch the canopy. SB's are not maintenance and are not mandatory. Derek

1) Because it isn't just pennies. It's dollars. As in $20+ for shipping. The real cost is the down time and shipping. How many jumps would a fulltime instructor miss getting this SB done. How many AFF jumps would a DZ w/ Mirage student rigs not be able to do because of the SB? It isn't just pennies. Derek

The risk (zero, or very, very little) of a Velcro slider keeper (that isn't over-built with gobs of Velcro) not releasing versus the slider going back up the risers and causing a control or visibility problem are in favor of having a slider keeper. The Velcro simply won’t the jumper’s weight (X any “g’s” they are pulling if spinning). The way I build them is so that there is 3 ways for them to release. The Velcro holding the slider will probably release first but if it doesn’t, I attach the keeper with Velcro under the reserve flap. Since this Velcro has to shear to release, it holds better than the Velcro holding the slider. Lastly, if neither Velcro connections release, the reserve flap should open with the jumper’s weight is placed on it. Derek

A Velcro slider keeper will release w/o a difference in a cutaway. I tested it, on the ground and on a live cutaway. Derek

Comfort is subjective, hence the "Sleep Number" beds. Two people can try on the same rig and one can say it is the most comfortable rig ever while the other says it is the most uncomfortable ever. Some of the rig comfort opions are affected by what size rig they are used to and what size they try on. I have never put on a tiny rig and though it was uncomfortable. Take someone that is used to larger rigs and let them try on a tiny rig that fits tham and they wil think it is comfortable, compared to what they are used to. They may find the same container, in the size that works for them (larger) isn't comfortable. Derek

http://www.donwsmith.com/AirAces.html Has a pic and the front seater is wearing a rig. Derek

I heard they did, but couldn't/didn't get out because the wing came over and crushed the canopy area. Either knocked them out or prevented an emergency exit. For the type of flying they do, unusual attitude recovery, etc, they have to waer bail out rigs. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20041216X01995&key=1 Nothing about it here. I remember reading something about the wing hitting the cockpit though. Derek

Hopefully that won't happen during their intital flight training. In the T-34 I used to fly, we wore them regardless of what we were doing. There are a bunch aircraft with bail out rigs that don't do acro or drop jumpers. Derek

No, for flight training, the only time you need them is for acrobatic flight, which isn't required for your license. I don't know if it is still true, but you can be a captain on a 747 and have never spun an airplane. Derek

No difference. I do think that 1) If the rigger doesn't want to pack a rig that has a SB that applies to it, that is their option and 2) If there is an SB due the rigger should notify the owner that they either have the option of getting it done or the rigger won't pack it w/o the SB. I used to believe that SB's were mandatory. Derek Derek

When both containers have the appropriately sized reserves and packed right, they are both so secure that they are non-issues. They are both bullet proof. Derek

That is what our proposal says..... It combines CC training at each license level with an increase in the WL the person can jump. If you gain weight, can't find a canopy in the range you need, whztever and next size down works but is above you max WL, then just demonstrate the ability to handle the higher WL and you get signed off. Again, the proposal is not meant to hold anyone back that doesn't need to be held back. If someone with 50 jumps want to jump a Stiletto 89 at 1.6:1, they either won't be allowed to, or if they can demonstrate they are an exception to the rule, then they will be allowed to. No BSR is perfect. Should every D license holder pull at 2,000 feet on every jump? No sometimes 2,000 feet is unsafe. Can someone get away with pulling below 2,000 feet? Yes, but the risk factor starts to really go up. The min pull altitude BSR was set at 2,000 partially because it is an easy number. Why not 1,900 feet or 2,100 feet? The BSR needs to be as simple as possible to be accepted. Does the BSR stop everyone from deploying under 2,00ft? No. But it does make a positive difference and give DZ's and easy BSR to enforce. You could make ahugely complicated WL SR that accounted for every little detail, but it would be so complicated it would be impractical. Derek

They can't do that because you can jump the rig w/o an AAD. Airtec can say you have to wear a pink jumpsuit when jumping with their AAD, but doen't mean you do. They can set the maintenance requirements for their AAD, they can't require SB's be done to containers. Derek

Doesn't matter. The FAA says the AAD must be maintained, etc.... This SB is for the container, not the AAD. Nothing is being done to the Cypres or Vigil or Astra. The maintenance requirements for the Cypres1 are the 4 and 8 year maint checks and batts every 2 years or 500 jumps. As long as it meets those requirements, it's legal. Derek Derek

No, this SB is for the container, not the AAD. Nothing is done to the AAD. Derek

Sounds like Amy has a new rigging project....... Derek

You didn't read my post carefully enough then. I never said I did the Mirage SB. In fact I have said I wasn't going to do it to Kelli's rig. I have done some RI PMP's to RI"s rigs, with their blessing. I used that as an example that Mirage could state for "Authorized Personnel: Senior or Master Rigger" If you want to call the FAA and report me, go ahead. I'm sure they will drop whatever they are doing, knock on my door, and demand to know what I did. I'll show them the fax from RI with the manufacturer's permission to do the work. Or maybe I'll shrug and say I don't know what they are talking about and to come back with some evidence. Or maybe the FAA doesn't give a damn and won't come knocking on my door. Derek