fcajump

My recollection from when the Cypres first came out, Helmut intended it to be as low a possible but still save... he was fighting experienced jumpers who were (with good reason) scared to even be on a load with one, let alone have one on their own rig... he wanted it to SAVE you, when you WOULD have died, and he needed to minimize (in reality and in his sales pitch) the chance of a two-out. We did have to possibility of pilot chute hesitation, but I don't think (wasn't a rigger then) that we had quite so many layers/complexity/tight corners/curves to the reserve container with such tight packjobs. (Councilman / Jerry?) Of course, this was also when his advertisements pointed out that the only visible part was the control unit, and it was so small and tucked away that only your rigger would know you had one. Shhhhhh..... VERY different world now, and mostly due to his efforts to make a new generation of AAD, not simple another AAD. (yes, I'm a fan. bought my first one in 1991, bought my 6th (7th?) one last week.) JW

True... but don't suggest it too loud... Wing-walking was outlawed for this reason... it took 40+ years for our airshow (and a couple others) to convince the FAA that it could be done safely. Its still a very dangerous activity; I know of 3 that have died since it came back, though ironically not due to their own failure as a walker. And there are already too many people/communities that would like to see skydivers go away altogether... And this is the key item why the old "I can do what I want, and if I die then its only my problem" needs to go away. Remember - you're dealing with an industry trying to find balance - we took an emergency egress safety device and use it to intentionally play chicken with Mother Earth. We know swoops kill, but we have swoop competitions. We argue that driving a car is more dangerous, then we show pictures of us skydiving in a car. As a group, we are unable to send a consistent message (nor do I think we ever will...) Cheers my friends.

(partially in response to BMAC615, but then expanding from there...) But, for the sake of this discussion, the USPA is not concerned with BASE and (as it is based in the US, therefore subject to FARs) a BASE rig (generally) is not part of the USPA consideration. No, not everyone is going to be happy. But this rule was implemented in face of facts being observed at the time that supersede emotion, TSOs, and theory. There were several incidents that were hard to pin down the cause. - AAD says it fired on time, jumper died under a partially open reserve. - Jumper reported he deployed on time, AAD says it fired due to meeting parameters, 2 out. - Industry sees many newer mains taking longer to open - Industry sees some newer/smaller mains loosing altitude MUCH faster than before when not deploying correctly... leading to low/no reserve pulls. Senior industry leaders (USPA and PIA), provided with these situations, using their best judgement concluded: - the best way to give more of a buffer at the bottom end to get reserves open suggest higher hard decks - in concert with that, many suggest raising the firing altitude for AADs by a few hundred feet* - with a higher firing altitude, higher hard deck, more time needed to deal with radical openings, longer main openings: raising the minimum altitudes is the logical next step. (Not that I'm in position to do so...) If I were asked to waive the 2,500' minimum, I would want to know: 1. Why? (low cloud cover, OK) 2. What main are you using (and maybe the loading)? (Good condition canopy/PC with a model reputation for reliable on-heading openings that don't take 800', OK) 3. Hard Deck for this jump and AAD firing altitude (w/ adjustment)? (i.e. does the math work, especially in light of the answers to #2, if so... OK) 4. Is this an old-school jumper, or one used to working in the basement. (and if they ARE old-school, are they still sharp?) Many objected at the time this change was made, as they were used to working low, but the trend of things needed to be recognized so it pushed through (likely also influenced by liability concerns by Mfgs in light of the above). For myself: 2500'min, 800ft normal opening loss on the Spectre, 1050'-A3 Cypres fire alt setting*, and when you consider that AirTek recommends having a 1000' "in the saddle"-to-firing-altitude buffer... I'm already pinching those numbers. *A3 adjustment chosen both to increase reserve opening buffer/reserve working time, and in consideration of the 300' hill nearby that we occasionally exit over. Obviously your numbers will vary... but have you LOOKED at your numbers or is your opinion more emotional based? Just my $.03, JW PS - I remember when entire loads would plan to open at 2'k. And you could almost feel the shockwaves from the ground as that old F111 opened... but these were jumpers who were thinking it was much nicer than the days of openings under C9's and 26' LoPos...

I got a "talkin'-to" in ~93... with a 'C' license, I was still deploying above 3k most the time... (with notifying others and ensuring separation)... the instructors were wondering what was wrong that I didn't simply plan to deploy at 2'k like everyone else. Got used to 2k step-out hop-n-pops and did demos at that routinely until I switched from an F111 9-cell to a Spectre. I REALLY like the Spectre, but with a 2k exit, 800' opening and a 1500' decision altitude... the math was broken. (we also had an airshow pilot whose stated opinion, forged in the days of round mains, was that "anything over 2'k was a waste of gas") The USPA change, which filtered into the airshow FAA waiver made my personal minimum of 2500' for the Spectre much easier to enforce on low cloud show days. The difference between then and now really hit me about 10 years ago... I was trying out a new canopy and wanted to set above the load. Remembering the 90's, I figured just ahead/behind the tandems would be fine (everyone else is opening down below 3'k, right??) In asking in the loading area I found out how wrong I was... the planned openings on that load were staggered from 2,500 to 8k and there wasn't even any CReW on it. Times have changed, and I think for the better. $.03 JW

what size tube are you using? (to get the same stuff)

I'd want to test the relative elasticity and breaking strength before using them... but would be interesting to see how they stack up.

Black (rubber) bands, or Black tube stows? WRT tube stows - where are people finding is a good place to get them now? Has anyone experience with SILIRINGS?? http://www.paragear.com/skydiving/10000168/S9012/SILIRINGS-STOWING-BAND JW

Bought new (many years ago), my Altitrack has always been reliable from startup through the last jump. This weekend, prior to turn-on, I noted (as normal) it was off and pointing to 6'k. But when I turned it on, it went through its normal startup process... and "zero'ed" itself at 4'k. Huh... never saw that before. Turned it off and instead of returning to the off condition of pointing to 6'k, its now pointing to 15'k. Turned it back on, back to 4'k (noted that the digital readout on the back says we're at 0') Adjusted it to a LZ relative elevation of -3'k (its limit) and the front says 1'k, with the back at -3'k. Gave up and let another rigger play with it, he turned it off/on, and now its fine. Worked fine the rest of the weekend. Anyone seen this type of behavior? JW

There are only a few (old) canopies I recall that call for a flat pack . (Strong Master Reserve uses a variant call the flop pack and at least to forbid using a pro pack) My reserve packs start the same way as a standing Propack, but then transition to a series of floor-based steps to formalize the clearing of the lines and grouping of the folds. I would describe it as intending to accomplish the same basic thing, but with lots of extra AR steps (on the floor) to ensure you got everything exactly where it should be as this is the last chance. A true flat pack starts with laying the canopy on one side (nose on one side, tail on the other), then stacking it by line groups. (easier to show than tell). Often it leads to a 1/4 turn toward the direction the nose was laid down on the floor. Pro packing was for "proper ram-air (canopy) orientation" to indicate that at all times during the pack job the canopy was oriented properly (with respect to the risers/harness) as opposed to the 1/4 turn needed in a flat pack. (will have to drag out on of my old canopy and see if I still can do it smoothly) JW

I have always doubled wrapped* with both tube stows and rubber bands (note - I refer large bands and use primarily dacron lines). For the non-closing stows, this make a tremendous difference in the proper holding of the line. *mostly - I don't usually double wrap my closing stows. I know PD recommends it and I don't dispute their results... but with dacron lines and healthy (but not long) bite, I haven't had any issues and tend to have better openings with the single wrap on the closing stows. (knock wood) JW

As I jump larger than average canopies (210-260s), I got shamed into dropping the side pack. It was around the time I decided to take a rigging course, so learning to Pro-pack was a needed skill anyway. 1/4 turn was normal here too. I still split-stow and follow the minimum unstowed line philosophy. (the later works better with split-stow as there is very little chance of having a line group caught around the reserve container) JW

I used tube stows for 15+ years and found them expensive but reliable. I used Keener bands for 15+ more years and have found them cheaper and reliable. If the new supplier is not producing quality, I will likely go back to tube stows. If you're not familiar with them, get with someone who is... I've heard folks that are scared of them, but not seen any reason to be. DO NOT experiment with solid bands like 'o' rings or castration bands. Every 5-10 years someone "discovers" them again... the will NOT break when you need them to do so. FWIW, when I used tube stows I found that the natural and black lasted well, but the bright colored ones did not (for me)... they looked cool, but wore out quickly. JW

I don't know if I would have taken that first step if there had not been SL option... The idea of freefall was a bit too much. At least with SL, one could learn all the other parts first. I would absolutely agree with you on Tandem in principle, BUT having gotten my TI under Strong Ent, and not surrounded by UTP, my _perception_ is that the reason many places do Tandem first and primary is money. It helps fund the DZ (at some DZ to the exclusion of all else), but I see very little "training" going on. SE pressed that this was a training jump with a student. Sigma pilots seem to be all about taking the passenger for a ride. Yea, I get it... 90% will only make one bucket list driven jump. BUT as my TI-E said (in effect)... if you treat them like a student, your rate of return will go up, and those that do return already have the mind-set of learning a skill rather than taking a ride. Just my $.03 JW

(heard 2nd hand) My assumption was that prior to calling my friend in, he had either did the bromo test, and/or tensile test. IIRC the rigger was trained ~1999 by DeWolf and would have included full training on the SAC issue (while they predated 1999, they were still common enough to walk in with older/closet gear). DeWolf kept a hot one around to give his class the briefing and chance to test a known bad one. JW

One of the coolest items on my Parachute Rigger CV THANKS Jerry!! JW Master Rigger Co-Developer Lap Parachute System

Call Butler Parachutes... I believe that Manley worked on ejection seats a bit.

Friend came out of retirement a few years back and took his closet-queen to an older rigger who tested the SAC reserve. Told my friend he needed a new reserve. Friend said "why?? its been well cared for..." Rigger picked up the skirt and easily ripped it to the apex. Friend (very fit Marine BTW) looked him dead in the eye and said... "so, what reserve would you recommend?" (I said he was a Marine... not stupid... he knew a life-saving demonstration when he saw it...) JW

I have seen at least one canopy where the info was stamped on the center cell/ center rib. JW

For me - absolutely. For you - depends on what you want out of it. I am convinced that in this sport there are many ways to make more money per hour. A part-time rigger can be the worst paid person on the DZ (per hour invested). But the knowledge and hands-on experience are worth the investment to me... I know more about my rig (and others) than I would have just being a jumper. I know how it was inspected, assembled, packed. Though not part of my original plan (to pack only my own reserves), I did end up packing hundreds of mostly pilot rigs, learned to repair, and was a speaker/presenter at multiple PIA symposiums. If you are not doing it full time, it will take more effort on your part to stay up with changes, even with regard to your own gear. JW

110% pure speculation - the mfg sees less liability in tunnels than in the sky?? (added: watching this thread myself as I would like to see an educated answer to the OP)

Ok, I know what I do, but wanted to hear other thoughts on how the harder to reach/see areas of the harness are inspected, such as: Leg strap - under the pads Confluence Wrap under the mud-flap back straps within the harness Now, I know that every rigger here inspects every inch of every rig, every time. But how well do you expect other rigger's check there areas? How confident are you that they can be completely inspected? What design changes might you suggest to make them easier to check? My biggest personal desire is to not have the leg padding bar-tacked to the leg straps. Some rigs are easier to see/feel the back straps than others... For components that are structurally critical and yet inaccessible (difficult access) for inspection, how confident are you that they are always done correctly at the factory and that they are not having any issues through use? What do you do to ensure they are still in good shape? JW

"AAAAANNNNDDDD, He's BAAAACK!!!!" Long time, no see Nipple Boy. Hope you've healed up well. Blue and Black ones, JW

I do agree you have a point. I started in the middle years (students had ramair mains, but round reserves, Cypres was just being tested and our big plane was a twin-bo, and everyone over B license opened at 2k unless they did CReW). Seatbelts in the plane, sure... the pilot has one... But as to the activities being done... I think its both. There were always the extremes ('chuteless jumps, low pulls), but the run-of-the-mill jumper was doing RW, some CReW and a 'high performance' canopy was not very much over 1:1.2 that I knew of... ZP canopies were not built much different than the other 99% of the canopies made out of F111. The activities (canopy loading, swooping for distance, playing tag with airplanes, mixing of wingsuits/canopies/belly/freefly to make new hybrids, proximity) are all working to push their respective limits. We get new toys or ideas, we try to see how far we can push the new ideas, technology, techniques, and activities. Unfortunately, the limits are usually found in blood/bones/bodies. JW

I prefer Dacron lines, but they do cause the canopy to fit as one size larger. Also, I use the standard rubber bands (NOT the shorter ones for microline), and double stow. Usually loose around one per jump on average (I also take them off if they are showing that they will break in the next few jumps). Remember, you need them to: - Hold when they should (good condition, right size band, right size bite, and tight enough - double wrap helps this) - Release when they should (right size band, neat bits and stows) - Break when needed (rubber bands or tube stows*. NOT castration bands, O-rings, or other solutions to "save you money and time") Its the difference between changing a rubber band and having a high-speed malfunction/reserve repack/finding that lost main that's still in the bag... yea... good luck with _that_ needle in a hay-field. *I like tube stows, but I know many folks don't... not trying to start _that_ flame war here... Having said that, TALK TO YOUR RIGGER. (s)he should be able to show, instruct, teach, demonstrate, and double check your work on this... if they won't or can't, TALK TO A DIFFERENT RIGGER... Blue skies!! JW

As the OP indicated they were talking of a "UT-15 complete system", I would amend that to read, "only reserves, harness, and containers" require a TSO. IIRC - if it is a complete system, legal in its home country, and jumped here by someone _from_ that country, then it is legal. But to be jumped here by anyone else, it must be US-TSO'ed. JW PS - here's where Counselman steps up and corrects me... for which my failing mind is, in fact, grateful.