Hooknswoop

USPA doesn't want a CC course, so why waste the time to present them with something they won't use? The first step is getting support for the idea. Derek

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=740901;search_string=WL%20BSR%20proposal;#740901 Derek

Nah, I misunderstood what you meant

And since it was a ferry flight, that would explain the fuel in the wings. Does the -300 engines feed from the belly tanks like -200 and -100's? Derek

TSO C23b and TSO C23c both require that a reserve canopy have a descent rate of no more than 21 FPS in the post-deployment configuration i.e. brakes set, no inputs for a ram-air. 21 FPS=14.3 mph. TSO C23d require that a reserve have no more than a 24 FPS decent rate (16.4 mph) and no more than a total velocity of 36 FPS (24.5 mph). These rates of descent limits apply to round or square reserves. I wonder what the rate of descent would be for a few rounds would be and what size reserve would have the same descent rate with the same weight? NAS 804 applies to TSO C23b. In it, it states that for the low speed (the other category is standard, no high speed), the container must be marked with on the outside of the container with 1-inch red letter, “Low Speed Parachute”, and in ½-inch red letters, “Limited to Use in airplane under 150 MPH”. Mirages have those placards under the reserve flap, but not in 1-inch and ½-inch letters. I’m guessing that means it is TSO in the low speed category. The Mirage harness seems as well built and as strong as any other rig. It must have been originally TSO’d in the low speed category and the manufacturer doesn’t see any reason to spend the money to get it re-TSO’d when it really won’t change anything. Using what TSO a rig was certified under doesn’t seem like a good way to judge the strength of a harness. Also in NAS 804, it requires an external and internal pocket for the reserve data card. Vectors have them, but the Mirage does not. AS8015B, which applies to TSO C23d, states that “The manufacturer shall publish and make available a list of interchangeable components which have passed the following tests in 4.3 [qualification tests] when tested in conjunction with the assembly or component(s) being certified. AS 8015B also states “Primary Actuation Device/Ripcord: The following information shall be marked on the primary actuation device/ripcord: a. Part number, including dash number b. Manufacturer’s identification c. SO-C23() d. Batch, serial number, or date of manufacturer (month and year) A rig certified under TSO C23b, standard category does not have a max weight or max speed. Derek

Type 7 webbing is rated to 6000 pounds. A stainless steel #4 Rapide link has a safe working load of 615 pounds. 725 Spectra has a strength of, well, 725 pounds. 725 X 4 lines = 2900 pounds total. Seems like the Rapide link is the weak link. A Rapide link can work loose and then fail on opening, a Slink doesn’t. Derek

I skimmed it and didn't see anything either way. Thanks. Derek

Do you have a reference that shows exceeding the manfucturer's recommended max weight or speed is illegal or that exceeding the TSO max weight or speed is illegal? Also, the manufacturer can put any max and weight speeds they want on the label,t hat doesn;t change what the reserve w3as TSO'd to. Derek

It is the picture or does it look like the engine is angled down, as if the entire wing is bent downwards? Derek

I would think #1 strength. If a link was stronger without being bulkier, and had no disadvantages, it would be better than rapide links. I have repaired reserve slider grommets and replaced reserve sliders because of damage from Rapide links. I install slider bumpers on reserve rapide links whenever I pack one that doesn't have them to prevent this. Derek

Mullins? Derek

Looks like the wing ripped away from the fuselage where it attaches to the fuselage which explains why the pilot was unable to shut down the engine (broken control cables). TO's have belly tanks, not wing tanks. Any fuel spillage from the wings would be from fuel lines to the engine, not if it was broken, how did the engine continue to run? Derek

Do you use that loop for a closing loop? Derek

What's wrong with Scott Miller's or Jim Slaton's? Derek

They could, but they don't want to. I made a link clicky above, good reading. Derek

Read Bill's post above yours, it isn't an easy fix, if it can be done at all. Derek

They don't. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1612832;search_string=uspa%20canopy%20control;#1612832 Witht hat being said, VR canopy flight simulators exist http://www.systemstech.com/index.php?pid=215 USPA isn't going to buy them, nor will DZO's unless they will make a profit off of them. They won't. They also currently aren't set up for HP canopy flight. Derek

Didn’t you say: In response to: "In our tests, the Performance Design's Slinks survived at loadings beyond the suspension lines and/or riser! In our testing, the failure point of the system was repeatedly the suspension lines or the webbing attaching the three rings to the riser. In comparison tests, the PD reserve soft link survived tests that caused failures and/or severe damage to #4 and #5 stainless steel links! The PD Soft links not only survived these tests, but showed no signs of damage.” Now you say: What changed your mind? Now that you believe Slinks are stronger than Rapide links, do you think that stronger isn’t better? Ever seen a broken Slink? Ever seen an incorrectly installed Slink fail? I do know of more than one Slink not failing even though it was incorrectly assembled. Ever seen grommet damage from a Slink? And “L” bars have been around a lot longer than Rapide links, doing their job. Why do you use Rapide links and not “L” bars? What would be a better link than a Rapide link? Stronger without increasing bulk? No need for slider bumpers to prevent damage to slider grommets? No tools or lock-tite REQUIRED to install the link? (You still haven’t answered if you have ever assembled a PD reserve since you said you have never used lock-tite like the manual says to do) What would a better link be in your opinion? Derek

So you don't think an S & TA should tell a jumper with 50 jumps that wants to jump a Velocity 79 loaded at 2:1 and will obviously hurt/kill themselves that they cannot jump that canopy? You would be OK with the jumper going ahead and jumping it with the advice that he didn't? You don't think an Instructor should tell a student what is and what isn't safe? I don't see a "C" that stands for "controller" in AFFI. Derek

That is exactly what Instructors and S & TA's are supposed to do............ Derek

Maybe my question got lost above, but have you seen a set of Slinks, main and reserve? Do you see the cost of the links as an issue? Derek

Several exist. Derek

Which is exactly the point of the BSR. Either they get the education and training, or they are limited to a conservative downsizing chart. How do you suggest they either get the education and training or downsize conservatively with out a BSR? The current system isn’t doing it. Derek

Doesn't work. The problem jumpers fall into 1 of 2 categories. 1) They are aware of the risks, realize they are pushing the limits too far, but feel the return (being cool) is worth the risk. 2) They don't think it will happen to them. I had a student I trained hook it in. He didn’t have very many jumps and was flying a canopy too small for him. They pulled the plug several days later. Fortunately this was after I had left the DZ. He wouldn’t listen to advice. Didn’t matter how you put it to him, his mind was made up and nothing you could say would change it. Derek

And I've seen lousy gear pushed because they were getting great margins on it.. Definitely ask "Why". If not thoroughly convinced, ask another rigger and compare the “why”’s. Derek