pchapman

Who knows. It's just a trend some people thought they saw. 'Erdnarob' and I are reporting (posts #19 and 5) what the PD reps said from their experience. It wasn't that big canopies don't work, but on the occasions where semi stowless bags have had problems, there seemed to be a trend for larger canopies or higher elevations to be involved more than they expected. Presumable PD canopies are usually involved, as PD owners would be the ones asking PD about any opening issues. The reps didn't try to provide any statement as to the cause.

I've been using the FlashGot extension on Firefox, but I don't know if it is better or worse than any alternatives. Now, how about anything that can recombine or deal with the higher quality DASH videos, where audio and video are separated into different streams or files?

Was there another thread recently where some said a semi-stowless bag had caused problems?? Or maybe I'm thinking of a PD rep at the recent CSPA Symposium. Usually semi-stowless bags are praised as they are generally good at letting the stows out with moderate and consistent friction, compared to too-loose or too tight elastics on a regular bag. And I love the semi-stowless bag I made years ago. But the details matter and sometimes the semi-stowless might not work out. The PD rep, she was talking about how on the occasions where they've seen issues with semi-stowless bags, it seems more common with large canopies, or at high altitude. Although one can come up with differing and opposing theories from that, that may be suggesting that there are times where the lines aren't metered out nicely, where there is perhaps too little tension on the lines and they dump out unevenly. Who knows, that might contribute to a tension knot.

I think I've seen this sort of thing debated before -- I guess it is US AFF practice for the main side to let go earlier. The photo didn't seem an issue to me, as I'm used to my local system, Canadian PFF, where both instructors hold on until the student is lifted away from their grip. (The main side still tries to give the student room for a good pilot chute toss; backing off should help with reducing the large burble too.) Therefore I don't see anything wrong safety-wise at all.... But if one wants to argue it on the basis of instructional standards by the organization involved, that's fine.

By performing Atmonauti he is using metaphysical experience to transgress the boundaries of our universe's laws of physics, which may cause a singularity gravitational event to compress the universe into a cosmic-level black hole? Or possibly not. It could go either way. --------------------------------------------------------- (For the science nerds out there, thanks to Dr Alan Sokal for inspiration.)

Indeed. I'm not sure what other "weird yet memorable" skydiving ads there have been, but a decade or more ago there was I think one with a girl in a bathtub filled with hotdogs, and one with a toilet bowl sitting outside. Not sure who did the former, but the latter may have been The Ranch in NY. My DZO is a bit old school and so even wrote in to Skydiving Magazine about how terrible the toilet ad was...

No sign of that being a requirement in C23d (And where the real info is contained, in the document it references, SAE AS 8015B). Precision probably are just being realistically conservative about what they want to see, since true airspeeds are higher at higher altitudes, with landings faster and openings harder. PD has similar recommendations in their manual, reducing max recommended weights by 2% per 1000 ft for landing, and 1% per 5 deg F above certain standard day conditions. They also then discuss how jump runs or freefall at high altitudes may approach or exceed the TSO'd speeds of one's reserve.

That's what one might expect, but where exactly in the FAA regs does one find it? Or does the USPA say something about it for USPA jumps? (I didn't find it. The term "manufacturer's instructions" shows up a lot but mainly just about rigging and AAD maintenance, or to understand how equipment is used -- but not statements about mandatory following of instructions as far as I could see.) I don't remember ever seeing this whole question actually resolved for certain. I want to see proof in actual FAA regulation. This is somewhat like the arguments where someone says "Company X says in their manual that their gear can't be used after 20 years", and the response is, "But that's not stated in the actual TSO so doesn't apply!?" Also, the requirements for a jumper tend to be less strict than for a rigger. An FAA rated rigger does indeed have to follow manufacturers' instructions. (For example, FAR 65 includes:)

Ok, I'm not doing well here. I misread what Jerry meant. I was right originally when thinking that class PD's are "one level back" from C23d. Yeah, they are C23c which is what I thought. Duh. I just accidentally typed C23b not C23c for the classic PD's... and then rushed and thought Jerry was saying they were indeed C23b, which sent me off in the wrong direction because C23b is so much cruder than C23c. I was likely correct about C23b, but it's not applicable to PD reserves. (Now about Vector III's and Wonderhogs...there C23b still applies if I recall correctly.) So I've deleted the post where I went on about what C23b implies. So yeah, of course the classic PD's have a 254lb FAA weight limit as I thought (which is a result of the commonly used C23c Cat B). Interesting about what was or was not certified in C23c Cat A or C. Back to the alphabet...

That's still true, but yes, dammit, I keep forgetting that C23b is the one based on NAS-804 of 1949. Yes everyone, your PD reserve is based on a 1949 standard. You're keeping me honest here whenever I don't fully reload my memory banks on all this TSO business. So that means that, IF what's in a manual isn't mandatory, then there is no upper certified weight or speed limit whatsoever for the classic PD reserves. PD does helpfully state in their manual: At least PD does say that If one then removes the 1.2 factor used to absorb variation and allow for a little margin in later TSO's, that suggests that the 254 lbs and 150 kt limit that PD sets for its classic PD-R's is what the legal maximum would be with a later TSO. Even though I messed up, this is a good example of how a given limit may mean different things. So even though a PD 126 is certified to the weird old NAS-804 standard (all the FAA had at the time), PD is still more confident about people using it at high loadings, than some of the other companies are about their C23d reserves...

Yes, sorry, I wasn't being clear about mentioning which reserves were under which TSO version, although I used C23d as an example for discussion. Rules can indeed vary widely between TSO versions! I double checked the PD's: The 126 to 253 sizes are the "classics" under C23b , while larger and smaller sizes are C23d. EDIT: As pointed out in later posts by Jerry and Mark, I typed the wrong thing, it is C23c Category B. The '80s regs, that were in place by the time the PD reserves were designed.

This gets into the issue of recommended vs approved weights -- and the original poster probably has looked at all of the numbers I quote here. Someone refresh my memory: If a canopy is certified to TSO C23d, is the certified weight the only limitation that applies? Or can the manufacturer impose any other weight? Manufacturers always make their statements seem mandatory, but it isn't clear to me whether they really are. So for example, PD's PD 143R has various weight recommendations for different experience levels, but the maximum allowed is the actual FAA certification limit: 254 lbs. Still, at the Expert level they want no more than 1.4 wing loading, or a max of 200 lbs for the 143. Above that, PD requires at least 500 ram air jumps and 100 with a canopy no more than 15% larger, OR a certain type of instructor signoff. They then say "These are both FAA (USA) and Performance Designs requirements that must be met for you to be legal. Other countries throughout the world may also enforce these limitations." Is this really true that what the manufacturer says about wing loading is also an FAA maximum? Icarus is different. They quote 255 lb max by the FAA (effectively they round differently), and then prohibit more than a 1.325 loading. Numbers based on that form their "Maximum Exit Weight". That gives their 149 reserve a load of 200 lbs max. Aerodyne's Smart shows levels including Advanced jumpers, the top level, at max 1.3 loading. (E.g., for the 150 canopy, 195 lbs max recommended). But the true Maximum they show is the FAA limit, which for the 150 size is 264 lbs. If one goes to a European canopy that some like,the Paratec Speed 2000, they're also conservative about wing loading. They warn never to exceed 194lbs for the 150 canopy, although are certified to 254lbs under C23d. I'm not saying all this to want to load reserves really heavily. But heck, even in the mid 1990s, a cool jumper might have a PD 126R, and that wasn't just for skinny little guys. So if someone 180 lbs had one, plus 25 lbs of gear minimum, that's over a 1.6 wing loading. (Using PD's own wing area calculation style, not the larger PIA style area that isn't thought about much nowadays.) So this doesn't solve the original question, and PD and Aerodyne do indeed show up as companies grudgingly allowing jumpers to use reserves up to the certified limits, unlike some other companies. Whether companies 'mandatory' lower requirements are law, I don't know. If one company is more restrictive than another, despite similar certifications, does that mean they are just more conservative, or do they not trust their own stuff? That's being a little provocative, but it is a line of thinking that could occur based on comparing manuals. A jumper will also look at what's been happening out in the field for the last 20 years with highly loaded reserves, and try to reconcile that with what the manufacturers are saying. EDIT: Since it got mentioned, let me add the Precision R-Max: For their 148, they have 254 lbs max by C23d, with a recommended Expert level of 184 lbs (1.24 load). Which funnily enough isn't much above what was recommended for their canopies of the old days that didn't land well at high loadings, one issue the R-Max was supposed to solve.

The simpler alternative is to take heed of another UN recommendation. 2016 has been declared by the UN as the International Year of Pulses. So if you don't want to go as far as the bug thing, you can just have a helping of lentils for now....

The British also used to have a large motorcycle industry. I once read an interesting book on its decline, and had assembled some quotes from it. Since there may be some industrial issues in common between British cars and motorcycles, I thought it would be fun to post those quotes: The book noted that plenty of other factors were involved too, such as the large domestic scooter & motorcycle market in Japan that helped their rise. Source: Shooting Star- The Rise & Fall of the British Motorcycle Industry

Good job on thinking through and dealing with the problem. The main risers were packed on top of the lower set of riser covers? Just checking. A hangup on a stiff new rig is of course more likely if one misses that. I'm not familiar with the Vision but I see on Sunrise's web site they say it has redesigned riser covers. Although it isn't clear whether the shape is any different or it is just a change in the parts to have different panels and trim options. Doing a 3-ring system check after opening might not be common (I guess) but is a habit I've sometimes done from having tandem instructor experience, where it was emphasized. (As with many things, it is unneeded 99.9% of the time but can be useful if one screws up a rig assembly - like in a recent fatality - or something else goes badly wrong. It can be part of a general check of one's deployed main.)

Sarcastic answer: Sure let's go back to the 70s and keep lightening things until they break in use... (BASE has had some of that with lightweight rigs & canopies) But more seriously, sure they are free to look at innovation in gear where ever they find it.

That's good of course. But how the heck do they do it? It's hard for companies to suddenly increase production rate. If it is correct that all rigs in the past 4 years of production (at a minimum) are grounded, and they plan to fix things by the end of 2016 for example, then they have 5 years worth of rigs to build or rebuild this year. Minus some percentage for rigs that are out of service or owners totally off the grid. Increasing production rates by hundreds of percent isn't easy. One can hire new people with industry & sewing experience, skip non-essential projects, and work weekends. Or is there some extra capacity related to setting up US based production (while keeping the SA production open?). Are the remade rigs truly on a separate production line, in a physical sense, and not just in the sense of a virtual queue for what has priority? I obviously don't know what goes on at Parachute Systems, and they don't have to tell me, but it would be quite the business case study to see how they satisfy the recall without impacting current production in any way.

You found decent prices? I only have one data point from an offer I had once. The deals were maybe OK but not great.

FWIW, an online calculator suggested 8.0 and 10.6 psi at those two altitudes. So a square foot hole is still 374 lbs differential based on static pressures alone.

No problem. As you later implied, it would be handy for you to get a round reserve complete with a container that is set up for a round reserve. Someone has to have a really old rig kicking around...

Can anyone think of a round reserve with a deployment bag? A quarter bag or POD style thing maybe, from the military? Would have to search my Poynters. (EDIT: Looked it up. An example is the USAF B-5 bailout rig, which has a quarter bag for the C-9 canopy.) Even if thinking of a sleeve, a round reserve with that is super rare. (eg, Strong Aerosport) Although I'm picking up on the "with a deployment bag" thing, perhaps you are just looking for any round reserve to do practice packs on. 99% of which have no bag or sleeve or anything like that. Carry on.

I had totally forgotten about those rings, thanks. Price check useful too even if not necessarily current. (And I'll also credit Andrew Hilton who posted about them a few years ago.) The Cirrus rings can be found on this page: http://www.cirrushardware.co.uk/vrings_orings_drings.htm

Kinda looks like the gear was down? A flash of what looks like a wheel can be seen at 18 seconds. And seen during the recovery I think. I hear they sometimes put the gear down on, what was it, Lodestars, but hadn't heard about that for DC-3's. Not sure how much of a beneficial forward effect it would have on the C of G, especially on the larger DC-3.

Huh! Sounds almost like the 1960's "hand turns"? Is it just rotating hands at wrists from some sort of box position? @ the thread in general: With a maneuver like turns, it seems like one area of debate is how many variations to teach. Teach just one way? An 'advanced' way or a 'simple' way? Or teach a simple way first, and later progress to a more advanced way? Or is the simple way really just an outdated way? Just as an observation, I've seen a DZ where they had chosen to keep using the traditional 'stay arched and twist the upper body', or possibly allow just lowering one arm. In any case, keeping the box position and not doing any mantis. Their rationale was that it was all fine and good to do mantis style positions in the tunnel, where there's plenty of quick feedback, but when doing AFF with no tunnel component, the more important thing is to maintain a good arch and thus keep the arms up. Some instructors were more liberal with the box position, allowing arms to be up at whatever level was comfortable (eg, chin level), while other were all about the arch (closer to a traditional 'imagine a broomstick behind your neck and under your wrists'). It's not easy to get everyone on the same page as to what method should be taught...

LOL. I'm no medicine guy, so I may be confused, but that does sound better than placing it distal to the amputation. Lose the patient but save his arm...