Hooknswoop

Yes; "the maximum generated force of the canopy must not exceed the certificated category force of the harness and container; i.e, Low-Speed Category (3,000 lbs.) and Standard Category (5,000 lbs.)." So if, for example, a PDR-99 produces 5736 pounds on opening, that exceeds the certificated catagory force for a container TSO'd under TSO C23b low speed or standard catagory. I have zero worries about the strength of your harnesses, or any others for that matter. I worry about the FAA. The FAA couldn't care less about reality. The 'install' vs. 'assemble' Cypres's fiasco comes to mind. Derek

From: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=402232;search_string=5%2C000;#402232 This is the revelent part of AC-105-2C: "The strength of the harness must always be equal to or greater than the maximum force generated by the canopy during certification tests." If the reserve produces more force during certification tests than a container is certified to, you cannot assemble them together. This would apply to any container certified under TSO C-23b and any reserve TSO'd under TSO C23d. Aren't Racers TSO-C23b, standard catagory? Derek

AC-105-2C 11e states: “The strength of the harness must always be equal to or greater than the maximum force generated by the canopy during certification tests. (1) In a case where the harness is certificated under TSO-C23b and the canopy under TSO C23c, the maximum generated force of the harness and container; i.e, Low-Speed Category (3,000 lbs.) and Standard Category (5,000 lbs.). In this instance, no additional marking on the container is necessary. (2) In the case where the canopy is certificated under the TSO-C23b and the harness under TSO-C23c, the strength of the harness must be equal to or greater than the certificated category force of the canopy” I hope you can clarify this for me. I don't see where you can certify to higher than 5,000 pounds under TSO-C23b. Derek

For the PR-99 and PR-106, the average force was 5736 pounds. For the PR-113, the average force was 3639 pounds, and for the PR-281, the average force was 5945 pounds. This means you cannot put a PDR-99, 106, 113, or 281 into a Mirage and you cannot put a PDR-99, 106, or 281 into a Vector. Derek

Arming someone with the information needed to make a good choice is not sticking your nose anywhere. Information allows people to not repeat others mistakes. Good job. JP-What do you think of things like Consumer Digest? Derek

No, but there is a maximum, post deployment configuration (brakes set for a square), descent rate of 24 FPS for TSO C23d. So if a round is TSO'd under 23d, it couldn't exceed 24 FPS with 264 pounds under it and it would be rated to 220 pounds. Of course, you can't flare a round, so this must be land-able safely. So if a square reserve passes TSO 23d and is TSO'd to 220 pounds, it must descend at 24 FPS or less with 264 pounds under it. So with 220 pounds under it, it will decend at less than 24 FPS. If a Raven 109-M doesn't descend at less than 24 FPS with 220 pounds under it, how did it pass TSO tests? According to Poynter's, 250 pounds under a 24' round will give a 24 FPS descent rate. I think I'll submit a FOIA request to the FAA for some TSO testing documents for a reserve or 2. Especially since the -M's do not have the required avg peak force on the label as required by the TSO and the manufacturer could not supply me with that information. Derek

Not at all. With the brakes set a reserve TSO'd under TSO C23d to 220 pounds and 150 knots must not exceed a: "max descent rate in the post deployed (brakes set) configuration is 24 FPS and total velocity not more than 36 FPS with 264 pounds under it." It should not have too high of a descent rate with 220 pounds under it if it can only descend at 24 FPS with 264 pounds under it. If it flares even a little from there, it'll be an OK landing at just under 24 FPS. If it is a round, it will be an OK landing at 24 FPS. if the stall point is at your ears, then the toggles are set too high. In the case of reserves, the factory decides where the toggles should go. If they increased the length of the steering lines from the brake to the toggle, it would move where the jumpers' hands are when it flares/stalls. I think MEL is onto something by not packing them. At least we agree on something Derek

Gear should perform up to the TSO limit. If a container is TSO'd to 254 pounds and the manufacturer recommends a max exit weight of 220 pounds, that doesn't mean it is OK if the harness fails with 245 pounds in it or the jumper is a test jumper. If a reserve is rated for 150 knots and 220 pounds, it should perform at those weights and speeds. If it doesn't, how did it pass TSO testing? For TSO C23d, the max descent rate in the post deployed (brakes set) configuration is 24 FPS and total velocity not more than 36 FPS with 264 pounds under it. Derek

The WSJ had an interesting article today, titled; "Mastering the New Rules of the Road: Driver's Ed Adapts to 21st-Century Cars" Some interesting points were a 20%-40& reduction in accident rates after attending an advaced driving school. "One of the main lessons of the driving courses is to train the driver's eyes-through repeated skills drills-to automatically look in the direction the car needs to go rather than looking at the danger. In the MasterDrive course, lights are used to simulate a drunken driver veering out of a lane into the driver's path. Initially, most drivers slam on their brakes and steer directly into the oncoming car-some of them even close their eyes and let go of the steering wheel. By repeating the simulation over and over, the driver learns to look and steer toward an open area to escape the oncoming car." Other points were how modern cars should be operated. Airbags, Steering, Braking, Skids, and Tires require new techniques in modern vehicles. All this applies to modern canopy flight training. Derek

As long as it isn't lumped in with the other reserves that came out in the 1990's. It doesn't have any extra re-inforcement. The bottom skin is built span-wise, with span-wise seams, but no re-inforcement tape along those seams like a PD-R. They are actually weaker than the Raven's they replaced (Raven-M SB). Definately. For the same price you could get a PD-R, why get a Raven or Raven-M? Derek

Right, my question is, which is worse? Several objects burning up in the atmosphere or one big one hitting the planet? Derek

As bad as getting creamed by a huge object? Derek

The Raven-M's came out in the 1990's and don't perform as well as PD-R's. Derek

The PD-106R and MR-109-M are both TSO'd under TSO C23d. I have flown both. No comparision. The PD opened, flew and landed MUCH better than the Raven. Most of the PD-R's are under TSO C-23c, all the Raven's and Raven-Ms are also TSO C23c. The Raven -M's and Raven Max+'s are TSO C23d. I don't think the TSO has anything to do with it. The -M's were TSO'd long after the PD's and don't perform anywhere near as well. They are also not reinforced spanwise across the bottom skin like PD-R's. Derek

So did -M's Derek

For the same price, a PD-143 will open, fly and land a lot nicer. Quality control is better, as is customer service, in my experience. Derek

It's not too late. A tandem would still increase canopy control abilities, confidence, air awareness, etc. Derek

OK, so we do not have the capability to defend against a realy large object yet. But a smaller one that would pose a danger to the Earth could be blown into small enough objects, right? If an object triple the size of what would be burned up in the atmosphere could be blown into 3 pieces, we would be safe, right? Derek

You should really do 2-3 learning tandems before AFF. Using a ripcord on students status means you have to re-learn how to deploy your main later with a throw-out PC. This can lead to problems. Clear your ears under canopy. Also, the learning tandems will teach you how to fly the canopy without relying on radio control. Expecting someone to perform well on their first freefall with the strssors of having to arch, read an altimeter, deploy, fly and land a canopy is un-realistic. I have taught doing traditional, old school AFF (like you experienced) and more modern AFP which starts with learning tandems. The difference is night and day. Find a more modern, progressive DZ to learn to skydive at. Derek

But don't smaller objects burn up in the atmosphere? If you could break up an object that would get through the atmosphere into enough pieces, they would burn up, right? Or at least a bunch of small impacts, which happen all the time, vs. a single, large impact? Just thinking out loud. Derek

(5) No reserve (6) Often at night (7) Etc. Derek

No, airliners take off all the time above max landing weight. If they have a problem, they fly around and burn fuel or dump it. If they don't have time and can't dump the fuel because they are over a populated area (although dumping a few thousand gallons of Jet-A on Houston might improve things) they may have to land above their max landing weight. This could easily blow a tire. Derek

Cessna makes 172 and 182 RG's. RG = Retractable Gear. Derek

Being able to land accurately is an important safety skill. Having a beer line with nothing terribly dangerous on the other side allows peer pressure and ego to make jumper more accurate with their landings. This way, when it is for real, they can get down safely, avoiding injury instead of avoiding buying beer. If a jumper repeatly crosses the beer line, they have canopy control issues they need to work on. One of the SCUBA diving associations stopped teaching buddy breathing because they were having problems. So, to avoid those training problems, they stopped teaching it/actually doing it under water. That does stop the problem, but then if the diver needs to do it for real, they aren't trained. A better solution would be to improve how buddy breathing was taught, not stop teaching it. Derek

http://www.miragesys.com/Specialists/Riggers.aspx http://www.miragesys.com/Downloads/MiragePSB1204.pdf Derek