pchapman

For reference the 19 Commandments are at: http://parachutistonline.com/safety_training/the_rating_corner/tandem-commandments

I recall the APS / FTS reserves having no rib reinforcement tapes up from the attachments, just heavy chordwise tapes along the line attachment seams. Don't know if it was all models though. Very odd when one saw it but I guess it passed testing. Interesting to hear what Chuck says. Once when I was a newbie I jumped a Lazer 250 main, and thought it really sluggish -- and my frame of reference at the time was that a Manta was a sweet flying canopy. (There are a couple other threads about the company's canopies. Search "FTS APS" or "Bogey" or "Bogy" for example. Riggerrob weighed in on them in a 2006 thread... If you're reading this Rob, the Lazer I jumped was at Lahr, Germany, so it must have been one of the ones you helped purchase for the Canadian Forces club.) Edit: The conclusion from some other threads seems to be that the canopies weren't the best...

It can get confusing as to what the correct instructions should be. A lot of rigs do well without too much in the ears, except that it can't be a minimal amount if trying to build a bit of a wall around the sides of a semi exposed pilot chute. Yet what riggers figure out in the field doesn't always match what the factory says. For example, for the rigs recently mentioned in this thread: I just checked an Icon manual that was current this year and could only find something about minimizing bulk around the grommet area. Did I miss something about a wedge shape? Oh yeah, there is hand drawn diagram that accompanies some text that says "prepare the freebag shape as shown", which does show a wedge shape but never explains it. Without text it is hard to know what part of the diagram is supposed to be salient. Of course it is wedge shaped like most freebags, but to what degree is correct? And the photo is AFTER the lines are stowed, so at this point, one can't change packing technique, only pound the bag. So I don't see Aerodyne putting much emphasis on wedges at all. Icon bags are generously large at the top, while some Icon tuck tabs don't stay in well if one stuffs the bag without particular attention to the ears either way. So less in the ears might help. As for Wings and soft ears: a) An old Wings manual that was used for years says nothing about how the ears of the canopy or freebag should be packed. b) A more recent Wings packing sequence document says nothing either. c) A newer manual, found on Sunrise's site in 2012 but maddenly with no date or revision number says, "Make sure the ears are full and firm." d) A Wings packing tips web page says "most of the canopy is folded into the ears", although the context is more about molaring the center of the canopy down to very low bulk, than how much to stuff into the top of the freebag. e) A personal email to me from a Sunrise Rigging employee about 6 years back said, "Don't stuff too much in the bottom of the container. Try to make it even and fill up the ears. Although you don't want too much up in the ears either." So the manufacturer isn't saying what others may say from the field...

That's the way everyone used to learn. Usually the student has a radio for help on where to fly and when to flare, in addition to having had abunch of practice on the ground. (But it could also be done without radio and some ground signals.) But, you couldn't be a pussy. People actually chickened out and wouldn't jump. Nobody attached to you, nobody hanging onto you. You had to jump from a plane yourself. It was more of a sink or swim situation. You learned, then you had to perform. Injury rates were slightly higher, as exit stability wasn't always the best (which could lead to some nasty mals), and there would be the occasional student who didn't have a clue and flew off into the distance and had to land by themselves off in a field. It was all more like some big hazing ritual that everyone had to go through to become a skydiver. Yes it is like the military thing, you jump and (keeping it simple) a strap attached to the plane pulls the canopy out for deployment during the first seconds out the door. But static line is still used and useful, and can be useful for focusing on canopy control. And in all forms of skydiving training, you do need to perform to some degree to progress and be safe.

Sweet deal you've got. Over the years I've taken up various people up to 300 lbs for just the regular pay...

Hell, if you could rig up a sail, imagine how far you'd go. Oh well, everyone is wrong about something. What's more disappointing is that somehow the myths didn't get dispelled even through a couple canopy classes...

That sure would be fun... but I want to see them (especially the passenger in shorts and no shoes) demonstrate some slower landings, and landings on bumpier LZs, plus off-landings in scrub, a ploughed field etc.

Was it Joe? No comment.

There was another ad once, possibly from the Ranch in NY, I think showing someone sitting on a porcelain toilet outside. A local DZO of mine wrote a letter to the editor, that was published, objecting to the vulgar and disgusting nature of the ad. While anyone is free to think the ad stupid, nothing says "old fogey" better than to write an indignant letter to the editor about how crude things are these days!

I remember seeing that video after clicking through from a dz.com thread... but who knows where it is. A search on part of the youtube URL didn't find it. It does indeed look like the injury was due to a combination of factors. One is the famous Tempo turn. The last link in the chain was that she didn't have the experience to realize her landing might be harder, so she was totally unprepared for it and just let her legs hit and fold under her. Somewhere deep in the youtube comments the jumper noted:

I suppose it could be packed up as a seat cushion, as long as you added a big label to clearly mark it as such -- because of the FAA rule that anything purporting to be an emergency parachute must follow the rules. Then it would be legal to fly with where no parachute is required, such as regular gliding operations. If a parachute is required for some reason (e.g., aerobatics), then he couldn't wear it, as it isn't a parachute! It is a nice little mystery about what little company might have built the rig.

Interesting. All the FAA stuff that we usually look at deals with "foreign parachutists". FAR 105. 49 is about "foreign parachutists and equipment" -- but it is all about intentional parachuting operations, using single harness, dual parachute systems. For reference, USPA's discussion and interpretation of the foreign parachutist rules: http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Membership/Travel/TotheUS/TSOMemo/tabid/470/Default.aspx All this has little to do with emergency parachutes, PEP rigs, for individuals not planning to jump. Unless I've missed something, there are no exemptions for foreigners and PEP's, right? 91.307 requires that you can't have a parachute available for emergency use, unless it is an "approved type", and requires such a parachute for most aerobatic style flight. It also mentions that an "approved parachute" is one that is military certified or is "A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical standard order (C-23 series)". 'Type certificate' I read elsewhere is supposed to be an early form of approval prior to the TSO series, sort of how each aircraft type is certified for normal use. Or can one interpret the wording very literally and liberally, thus including any sort of foreign type of certification of a type of parachute as a type certificate? (e.g., JTSO, EASA, French 530 EQ-03 or whatever the heck is out there) So based on my limited knowledge, it looks like: a) most likely, a foreign glider or aerobatic pilot would need to show up with a PEP with a US TSO ... or, if one is very liberal with interpretations, b) any certified foreign parachute would do -- whether for a foreign visitor or an American.

I'm not sure what you are saying either John. But perhaps you are saying that old National Phantoms are likely to have been pH and pull tested every which way, year after year, while old National Magnum pilot chutes are forgotten about and hardly ever tested ... even though they fall under the same acid mesh bulletin. At least that's what I've noticed in my limited experience.

Tandem rigs sometimes get jumped solo, such as when someone is becoming a tandem instructor or is getting current again after a long time. While sizes do vary, some common ones are 365 or 370 ft sq. You just wouldn't fly something at a super low loading in turbulent or high winds. (High uppers aren't that bad ... as long as you can spot.)

That was a fun little rant. At least we have websites now. Yet if you do go to the manufacturer's website, you still usually get crappy information. The photos & descriptive text they have don't show all the details you want before buying a rig. Companies do show off SOME aspects of the rig that they are proud of, but not enough to make a decision whether you will like each part of the rig or not. A lot of manufacturers have made it hard to even tell what the TSO certification limits are. How are the cut in laterals built? How about differences in hip ring & lateral junctions depending on rig and harness length? Riser tuck tabs? Toggle stowage on risers? Lining of main container tray? Riser dive loop design? Reserve pilot chute design? Just seeing a particular brand of rig is not enough, because there's often innovation and changes over the years. Details of a design can vary from year to year.

Are the much heralded 19 commandments dead? For example, a new recurrency chart was to apply to multiple companies, and an online Continuing Education Module was going to be set up. The announcements came out early in 2011. Did anyone adopt the ideas in any form, whether manufacturers, PIA, or USPA? The last reference to them I can find is in some July 2011 USPA minutes, where the issue was still being looked at, USPA talking to manufacturers. While there were some good general ideas in there, there were some changes to some existing procedures. Are they at all alive, dead, or on a back burner? (to mix metaphors)

Yes indeed I shouldn't have forgotten the PIA: http://www.pia.com/PIAPUBS.htm#Service_Bulletins/AD Their list is by date - good for checking for the latest news. The Australian APF list is by manufacturer, much better for reference over the long term. The APF also have a list of newest bulletins: http://www.apf.asn.au/Rigging-and-Equipment/RAC-s-and-SB-s/New-SB-s/default.aspx But this is only for the most recent, not a complete chronological list. Comparing the last year or so for the APF vs PIA lists, the APF one captures more of the European gear that one rarely sees in the USA. Otherwise both seem to do about the same job. The APF list includes the organization's own bulletins as well. (The APF list did include a couple minor Strong bulletins that the PIA did not, but those were for additional equipment approvals, rather than any warning.)

One answer is of course be a rigger for a long time and watch for things to be announced here on dz ... and then organize all one's downloads for easy access and make summary notes for easy reference. The latter task can be a bit messy. (For some Vigils for example, one has to check the cutter type, cutter date, LCD software date, and Vigil serial to be able to know the status of the device...) But otherwise if there's one site to go to, the best I know of is the Australian Parachute Federation's bulletin list at: http://hq.apf.asn.au/index.php/Service_Bulletins Anyone got better? If one is looking for older more obscure things, one might be on Parachutemanuals.com or http://hq.apf.asn.au/index.php/Service_Bulletins looking for manuals, and there will be some bulletins in there too.

No argument here Jerry. When the industry was small and starting out, reserve PC's were something a company got from elsewhere (eg, MA-1's), and were much more interchangeable between rigs. These things have generally changed.

Very good, thank you! I dug into the manual (for the Northern Lite III Infinity 1-pin) and now do see it there. It is unusual for different pilot chutes to ship with a rig. I have just now also confirmed with Kelly at VSE that they still consider it legal.

Anyone recall what kind of pilot chutes were used in Northern Lite Infinities? I'm asking because I opened a 1998 Northern Lite Infinity and the reserve PC is a Strong Lil Grabber. Not all companies have made their own PCs, but I don't recall seeing a PC like this when I had rigged a few Northern Lites years ago. It seems odd. That Lil Grabber is a rather short PC with a lot of extra mesh -- something like an MA-1 except a better spring and using mesh, so there are no exposed vanes. The date on that particular one is unclear.

That's a pretty good example showing why demos need to be given respect, and things practiced ahead of time. (Like fiddling with flags.) When one is a demo newbie, simple little ones with wide open landing areas are indeed helpful. Hey I'm OK with some places having more casual demo rules than others, and am not going to rant here. But still, having the most experienced jumper not have any spotting experience is pushing it, big open area or not. That kind of takes the sport back to about 1962 or so as far as collective knowledge goes. Guess you learned at a turbine DZ? An actual wind drift indicator drop can be very handy for demos to figure out the winds in an unknown location where you are the first load of the day...

This is a thread from nearly a year back, but I'm wondering Andrew, what kind of gear the canopies were in. Looks like modern piggyback rigs with 3 rings? Big student gear? But even with a bag not a sleeve, a ParaCommander is a lot bigger than a Manta or even a typical ParaFoil. So what did you guys find that would fit?

Well if the brake set loop (cat eye) is in the same place it won't change the openings, where ever the toggles are... With Stilettos generally lined with Spectra, there will be general trim changes so it is hard to know what to do if the brake line length down to the cat eye has changed. Everything will have changed. I'm no expert in trim changes, but usually I leave things fairly much alone unless the jumper says that the openings are getting squirrely in some way. A bad thing to do when replacing brake lines on an older Spectra lined canopy is to lengthen them right to factory spec, because now they're out of whack with the way the rest of the lines have shrunk. If putting on new brake lines, I've tended to lengthen them a bit from the shrunk state of the existing lines (both counteracting the shrinkage, and given them a little extra because they'll shrink in time), but not go nearly as long as the factory spec. While I won't comment on all the possible aerodynamics arguments about different riser lengths, clearly different length risers will place the toggles a different distance from your body. That'll influence how far you have to reach up, and how far down you pull for the flare or stall point, relative to your body.

Lots & lots of people have brake lines that are adjustable at the toggle end, and/or have had replacement brake lines installed locally, so I'm not sure why variation would be unexpected? It's not uncommon for someone to ask for a few more inches on their brake lines. (Now another lesser factor is that the line trim chart is revision D, so there have been minor changes over the years, although I have no idea if that particular dimension ever changed.)