pchapman

I wonder if the differences between Diablos have to do with line trim, with poorer openings on older lines? That theory only works well if they are Spectra lined.

Deployment bag? You might even have to modify a student canopy or accuracy canopy d-bag to make it bigger... The crown lines have to stow somewhere. I don't know what it "right", but I've heard of stows being put outside the bag, on top, when there's a big #8 grommet for them to slide through. But when I put a PC in a bag, I just added some stows inside the bag to keep the crown lines neat and tensioned during deployment. There have been other threads on dz.com about packing PC's, but there's sometimes a bunch of stuff to wade through without any definitive answers. There are many different opinions on PC packing When putting a PC on modern 3 ring risers, yes you do want the L-bars to not flip sideways in the risers. Also, the steering toggles for a PC are normally on the back of the front risers. So one could add toggles there. The guide ring attachment probably wouldn't have to be really beefy, as I don't think they should take nearly as much force as on a square. PC steering lines should have some slack in them according to the manual. Alternatively, for a few jumps a year, I've also just attached the PC steering lines to the normal modern place at the back of the back risers. That does have the steering lines rubbing on the risers where they go around the riser and up into the middle of the canopy. A crummy way to do it but workable.

I haven't stalled enough different canopies at different wing loadings to be sure of this answer. But I think there is a tendency for the higher aspect ratio canopies, typically 9 cell ones, to have the tips pull back into a horseshoe, as one physically drags the outer trailing edges downwards and inwards, and the outer sections stall first. The lower aspect ratio 7 cells, at least the older F-111 ones, tend to stall more across the whole span at once, staying more rectangular in the stall. Not sure how, say, a big Triathlon or Spectre or similar newer canopy would react. While there are variations in just how the canopy looks, the overall effect still stays similar -- canopy dropping back relative to the jumper, partially collapsing to varying degree and shape. Differences in canopy behaviour don't fundamentally change how to recover from the stall, which makes dealing with it easier. (Yes of course canopies will differ in how quickly and squirrely they react, so one wants to build up skills and familiarity at lower wing loading before stalling at higher wingloading, but the concepts are the same.) Better answers welcome.

Without getting into a full determination of who is at fault for what, there are some interesting issues here: -- To what extent does a dealer/distributor/representative represent the manufacturer? One can get into the argument, "Your rigging shop represents the manufacturer. You represent the company, so their screw up is your screw up. So you fix it!" versus "No, we just supplied the line set, we didn't build it, we didn't even sell it to you, and aren't responsible if it was built wrong. We do sell new products from that company though." -- What does a skydiver expect in an inspection of a main? It would be easy for a rigger to miss a difference of an inch here or there in a rib profile or something like that. Normally in main inspection we as riggers are be looking for tears and that sort of thing. Only if we knew it wasn't flying right would we start checking dimensions. So there could easily be a misunderstanding between a rigger and skydiver as to what an "inspection" means. --There can be all sorts of arguments about warranties and expectations, but this isn't as if the car is burning oil after 10 years of wear and tear. It came out of the factory with a cracked crankcase. Then you can argue whether the first or second owner has to notice within X months before the manufacturer is off the hook. -- It sounds like the line set was correct and was installed correctly. You still have a perfect lineset, just not on a very good canopy. -- Even the dealer (or whatever Kirk technically is) said Icarus doesn't support the product very well... -- It sounds like there was some miscommunication or issue about whether Para-Concepts could rework the canopy itself, with the customer paying. -- It sounds like it was the previous owner who screwed the current owner over, if a problem was not disclosed. Still, the current owner didn't test jump it before accepting it. (Which can be a problem with winter and all.) -- UPS is notorious among Canadians shipping to the USA, because of high brokerage fees often not included in the price. I don't recall details, and don't know why you got dinged once but not the other time. P.S. - Mgoldade -- this sounds like the Safire 119 that J.W. told me about...

Thanks for the HMA link Cloudi. "Generally" the lines are fuzzy, but not terribly so, and actually seem to fit into the "some wear" category rather than the "should replace" category of that HMA article. But more specifically, yes, there are issues: those lines are critical brake lines, they are HMA, they were pretty low strength to begin with (for brake lines), and one particular area (where the break was) looks more fuzzy -- and it is the worst part that needs to be looked at.

Anyone got photos of lines that broke in some way due to wear, with background info? I think there needs to be a thread on this! We always hear about replacing lines before they get too worn, but it is rare to learn much about what the limits are. One hears about line breaks, but at least for me, it is rare to actually see them, so there's no way to learn what is too worn. (Maybe it is different on a big turbine DZ full of competitive swoopers.) I'll start off with this case: Photos 1 & 2: Broken brake line. Supposed to be 500 HMA, same as the rest of the lines. (That's what I was told.) Broke at 396 jumps. (The jumper was fine because he had planed out on rears and just tried to finish the end of the flare with toggles, while skimming feet right on the ground. So when he sharply applied brakes and the line broke, he just skidded in on his feet and ass and one hand, without even tipping over.) First pic shows the line, second shows the line vs. the unbroken brake line. The break was somewhat below the brake-set cat eye, actually a bit below (and not _at_) where the fingertrap ends for the brake set loop. The brake lines in general don't look so bad, but are "somewhat fuzzy" in that area. They look better from a distance than when close up!

About 10 years ago an aerobatic pilot in the US was starting some some inverted maneuver with a passenger in his Yak-52 (or similar). There was a crashing noise and the plane got windy. Pilot turns around to see a hole in the canopy and no passenger. The passenger did get his parachute open and was OK. Might have been a rated pilot. I don't know the exact story, but it was something like a seatbelt release system that the passenger snagged with his sleeve.

Sundials can be confusing the uninitiated. Note the warning on the sidewalk sundial in the photo attached -- "ONLY WORKS WHEN THE SUN IS SHINING". (I took the shot a few years back at the U. of Arizona in Tucson.) Crazy warning labels... [Edit: finished the upload]

Does Riggerrob still have his manual? He mentioned sewing up a couple Lone Stars. (And then there were the audio tapes too!)

I'm curious about the time factor -- although the design of those two canopies will be an important factor which I can't comment on. I've got another crossbraced canopy (an FX), where I've fiddled a bit with slider pocket size and packing. When the opening took longer, the canopy had time to hunt back and forth, the outside cells getting air before the center cells, but the slider still staying right up. When things were adjusted to speed up the opening a bit, but still soft, there seemed to be less time for the partially air filled canopy to hunt back and forth (The attached video grab is just an example of probably just the end of that stage of inflation where the hunting happens.) (Edit: brake settings can also be a significant factor, as not all settings are necessarily the same as factory specs)

But there wasn't much info available to work at convincing people. Whatever the actual truth, you at least actually posted some information (I think from Jason in an older thread) about WHY to believe the new Garrett's may be good, something that is specific about why the Garrett on the Caravan may do better than what people have observed for Skyvans. (e.g., better automation / limiting)

I've seen some articles about that: Get rid of humans' activity and a lot of animals do better. Despite the image of an animal utopia as flora overgrow concrete, I have heard of more in-depth studies that found a lot of mutations and deformities in animals, even questioning whether some mutations would spread to wider populations. (Presumably since some mutations are not so adverse in reducing reproductive success.) I'm not sure about the balance among the different viewpoints. I just wanted to help clarify that the situation isn't as ideal for wildlife as sometimes presented.

That hits the nail on the head -- to a large extent, line twists during S/L operations have nothing to do with the canopy. For static line, it is the tumbling, rolling bag that results in line twists so often, which usually mean nothing except flying straight for 15 seconds until the twists are out. But another source of line twists is uneven deployments, where the canopy spins itself up as it comes out of the bag, one side starting to fly before the other. So the original poster might be curious whether that characteristic of small, high performance ZP canopies is in any way carried over to large student ZP canopies designed to be docile. Probably not really, but that's a guess, and it would be due to the light wing loading and the generally docile design. But if a student ZP canopy is any more sensitive and fast reacting to input, particularly in brakes, than a non ZP student canopy, then theoretically it could be more likely to spin up. I personally haven't jumped a ZP student canopy so don't know to what degree they are any faster reacting than old style student canopies.

Just trying to be clear about the meaning of those statements: Line twists were more common under traditional Mantas, than under ZP student canopies?? Or more common with direct bag than with IAD? We know the latter is true; it is the former issue that is being discussed. (As well as the seriousness of line twists, with those ZP student canopies.)

I'll side more with this answer than Bigway's. I'd rather have a student who questions things. Having someone question things is not the same as them going off and doing whatever they want! Nor does it mean someone is disruptive and holds up the training process by asking a million questions. One can "listen to" an instructor, do what they say, but still ask questions to learn more. In the original post, the novice's answer isn't very good, but the instructor's (if reported accurately) isn't the best either.

Parachute School of Toronto does S/L with their students. I'm not sure if all their student canopies are zero P, but they have Navigators and Solos. Students get tossed either from their 206 or Caravan. You can contact them, but I've never heard it discussed as "an issue" when I'm there from time to time. One issue is that the guy on the radio needs more patience, as the descent rates are lower, so the students are floating around up there longer.

One can grab the top end of the reserve pin and slowly push it back and forth, to see how easily it slides in the loop. But that risks breaking the seal thread if one isn't careful, and one would have to get used to what forces are normal. A rigger might have a feel for it but someone else might not. I don't know how you pulled the handle when testing it, but the pull force feels worse if one applies it slowly, with the slack already taken out. A sharp pull, starting with slack, makes it a lot easier to apply force. Also think about arm position to get good leverage. It may only be when you don't expect much pull force, that the actual pull force seems high. Next time before a repack you might have no problem if punching hard instead of pushing slowly. At least where I am I don't see riggers adjusting the pull force to match the jumper. But sometimes the pull force may be a little above 22 lbs, particularly if someone likes a small container super tight. You shouldn't have a problem pulling the reserve, but you can always check with your rigger to see that the reserve isn't ending up at the upper limit of allowable pull force -- or at least be aware of it if it is. As a rigger I have for example reminded smaller women with Reflex rigs that their rigs tend to have a pull force at the upper end of the range, so they should not be too casual with their pull.

Nice post! I like the homemade leather OSI. But what was the LPD? Hadn't heard of that before.

Pads are just pads... but they are usually sewn to leg straps pretty much at both ends of the pad. That's where you don't want to make mistakes when removing stitches. Hence the suggestion to find a rigger.

While the reserve pack job expires in 180 days or whatever is appropriate in your country, the reserve itself never expires ... at least in the US, Canada, and some other countries. Don't know what applies in Germany. The manufacturer, like for most reserves, sets no age limits. Riggers start getting a little skeptical after 20 to 30 years, but there is a lot of individual variation. (Manufacturers have tended to add age limits in recent years for pilot emergency rigs, however.)

To give you another guessed opinion from someone who hasn't jumped a Storm, I bet it is going to be a nicer flying and landing canopy given its 15-odd year newer design. PD's own chart actually shows it as acceptable for novices at 1:1 wing loading and 0.75:1 for students (although other canopies are recommended for students). Sure it'll be hot if you load it 2:1 for competition CRW, but it should be nice at lower wing loadings.

This is the first time I ever saw Frenchy's actual name! I never really knew anything about him, but he'd just be there, hanging around at skydiving events. In his own words: Mer-de! Mer-de! It's hard to find out more about Frenchy because in a search there are too many Bonfire threads that are unrelated or only peripherally related to him. One that mentions him a bit is http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1373182, although even then, there is discussion of different people known as Frenchy. Anyone find more history on him?

Okay, here's a better pic of a good bit of fluff on a closing loop from where it passes by the bungee washer. It is after a summer of use since the last repack where the staging loop system was installed. Pretty much a whole set of strands (a carrier) are torn. I almost want to start charging extra to repack Vectors with Skyhooks & staging bungees ...

So, just out of curiosity, what was the lawsuit about last year, that had been going on for at least 4 years, dealing with a claimed patent infringement? What design was involved? Maybe someone else knows or likes digging into legal databases? Found this on the web by chance -- it takes a little thinking to parse the language of suit and countersuit: So Paragear lost that battle, but where did things go from there?

Are they actually allowed to, as in it being approved by the APF? Or do they just do it? I don't jump there and haven't reviewed the Aussie rules in detail, but a CASA (Aussie civil aviation authority) document is out on the web. It specifies a bunch of responsibilities for the pilots, DZO, jumpers, manifest, local airspace authorities, and so on. A risk analysis has to be conducted. A DZ must specifically request to to do cloud jumping at a particular location, the parachuting federation must approve their application, and then the CASA has to consider and approve it too, with any modifications they deem necessary for reasonable safety. Approval must be renewed every few years. So it is much more than just "you can do it in such and such airspace class".