riggermick

Gold would work too and it would look stylish as well!! Mick.

I'm jumping the Monkeyfist that came with the PC on the Vector from RWS, I have NO idea where they source their Monkey fists from. (as far as "origina" goes, monkey fists have been around for a VERY long time used for trowing lines in nautical applications). As far as I know Monkey Fist in regards to skydiving has only been around for a dozen years or so. At least that's when it was first pitched to my company in the mid 90's. We ulitmatly chose not to run with it. Go figure? Mick.

Sounds like a Handbury rig. RIP Jim. Mick.

It's been done! In the late 70's the same concept was available on Security Systems one and two. It never took off due to the "quick pack jobs" to make the next load, People were too sloppy in their line management to make it work consistantly. The wheel (prop) turns again. Mick.

Since you don't get a bottle anymore nowadays and I'm a lousy bookkeeper anyway I'm not sure - never kept track... I DO remember my most memorable one: couple of years ago at the beginning of the season I packed my own rig's reserve and then packed the main afterwards. As I was standing with the 'finished' main over my shoulder the phone rang, so I 'carefully' laid the canopy down, handled the phone call, had another chat with somebody and resumed the packjob where I left it... (Don't try this @ home - this is a trained professionals mistake!!!) Two days later, after the first jump of the season, I look up and see my left steering lines half way in front of my canopy, distorting the three cells on the left. Definetly Unlandable! Just as definetly caused by my own packing error... I'll always remember that the moment I cut away I was thinking: "Shit - I hope I was paying more attention, when I put that reserve in..." Apparently I did.

Quotedoes anyone know of a specific incident where a fatality occurred that was directly attributed to either bag lock or bag strip on a reserve equipped with a safety stow freebag? someone i know has alluded to this, others i know think it is a lie. i have just searched my memory, dz.com incidents forum, and a skydiving fatalities web page, but i can't find a single incident directly attributed to the safety stow design. can anybody help me find these incidents? here is what i was given to work with: Heard the rumors of a bag strip fatality back in the late 70's, funny thing is no one I have ever spoken to has actually seen one or has ever been able to produce a written report of one. My personal take on this is that it's skydiving urban ledgend. The rumor I first heard was that the "o' rings (pre safety stow days) had been replaced with rubber bands and by the time the jumper had to use his reserve they were rotton. Heard a few varients on the theme over the years but never a written conformation that it had actually happened. The one concrete fact that the safety stow system has proved over many years and hundereds of thousands of deployments is that it is RELIABLE. Mick.

Beats the crap outta me, that's more of a philosophical question than a technical one. If the rigger follows the rules the outcome will generally be the same, good! Mick.

Correct sir!! All of the above! Take one element out of the equation and you will in all likelyhood have an open container. The easiest one to isolate is the loop length, even on a really bad pack job. By moving the cutter above the pilot chute you are left with a finite loop length to deal with which is not very long. Problem solved with out a lot of re-design. Mick.

I was surprised to find out that it was rather easy to lock the reserve container up. We did have the loop a little long as you can see in the video that it isn't the best looking reserve pack-job ever done, but certainly a pack job that you may see in the field for sure. We did not lubricate the closing loop as mentioned in the AD for the Mirage but my rigger admitted that he hardly never does it on most rigs anyway. When single pin reserve containers were first introduced in the 1970's the problem of container lock reared it's ugly head, it had occured on multi pin rigs previously but for different reasons. It became evident very early on that the smaller (especially narrower) a reserve container became the more likley it was it would "lock up" under certain conditions. A wide top reserve pilot chute with a reinforced top (hard cap, plastic etc) could and did catch the edges of the reserve side flap stiffeners on the outer edge of the pilot chute top thus causing a "lock". The video looks similar to that type of scenario but has some differences. To counter this problem inverted cone springs were used (wide coils on the bottom small coils at the top) and seemed to solve the problem, they did hovever have some problems of their own, most notably they couldn't jump very far from the jumper (not enough stored kinetic energy). Longer springs (inverted cone type) were tried and had some success but were a bitch to pack!! Eventually manufacturers went to longer and ultamatly more powerfull "wide" springs, obstensibly to "blast" their way through the container and out in to the air stream. In order to use wide top pilot chutes in narrow rigs again the hard caps needed to be modified, so padding, smooth outer fabric in the cap and fully covered side flap stiffeners that are narrower than their predecessors seemed to do the trick. Getting back to your video, using what I have just outlined to you, factor in incorrect loop length, side flap stiffeners already perched on the edge of the pilot chute cap, a spring that has already lost some of it's stored energy (making it's push weaker) and un-lubericated loop. All of this combined is just what's needed to cause this type of problem. Because of the high performance gear we use today the rigging error factor is substantialy lower now than in the past. Make sure your rigger is up to speed! It's also one of the reasons manufacturers try to find ways to minimize rigging errors such as moving the cutter above the pilot chute. Pop tops already have the advantage of having their pilot chutes out side the container and so cutter placement can be done on the pack tray, the pilot chute /cutter ratio is not really a factor under this scenario. Mick.

People don't realize that the manufacturers of reserve canopies don't do their high speed heavy drops using the old style freebag w/bungee stow & pouch. The canopies wouldn't pass the test (they'd probably blow up or blow thier lines off). All the major manufacturers use "special" bags wherein every stow is a locking stow so that the canopies will take the vicious openings encountered when you static line a 97 sq ft reserve with a 300 pound load at 180 mph! If "those manufacturers" who use "special bags" for their reserve canopy testing were doing so under TSOc23-d, then they would all have void TSO's. Section 4.3.4 Strength tests states: No material(s) or device(s) that atteuates shock loads (read, special bag) and is not an intregral part of the parachute assy or COMPONENT being being certified may be used. Additionally there is no requirement to drop a 97' canopy @ 300 lbs @ 180 knts. 4.3.4.2 Heavy Drops, canopy to be used with a single or a dual harness reserve parachute assy (alt test for 4.3.4.1): Three drops with a suspended weight and speed in accordance with 4.3.4. 4.3.4 states: A. Test weight= maximum operating weight limit x 1.2. B. Test speed = Maximum operating speed limit x 1.2. 4.3.4 does give a minimum weight 264 lbs and a speed of not less than 180 KEAS as starting points. It does not however state that any particular size must be used or that each and every size of the product being tested must be heavy dropped. So your arguements don't hold H20. When we heavy dropped the Reflex under C23d we used an Amigo reserve using the standard bungee stow free bag assy. No damage no problems no "line dump". So what I'm reading here is every harness/ container manufacturer that uses the very well tested and documented over many many years (since the early 80's) bungee stow free bag is wrong? I for one find that a little hard to swallow. Considering how many deployments have been made on the bungee/ free bag system over the years, the extreemly small failure rate is is about as good as it gets in an activity that is inherently dangerous. I think most manufacturers would agree withthis assessment. Mick.

Feels good doesn't it? Well done!! Mick.

Not an urban legend, if I'm not mistaken it happend in The Netherlands at least once with a student cypres (1). Seen it happen!! quite a few times over the years. Trunks slammed that is. Back in the day (sounds quaint doesn't it?) If one wanted to test an FXC 12000 to ensure a proper pin pull, one would place a sealed plastic bag over the sensing unit and squeeze!! That's all it would take to activate the unit, and that's what most feild riggers used to test the accuracy of their installation of the "power plate"/ VS pin location. Albiet unsientific in its mechanations of the correct firing parameters, it was however a wonderful guide to the mechanical placement of the assoaited hardware, which after all was the point of the whole exercise. Funny how things become "twisted" over time. Mick.

Well done!! Stick to the basics. when you feel ready to move on, do so with caution, remember: Step by step! Mick.

Quick answer NO, But realisticly if you want the licence, you will build it as stated. However ......Over time "bastardizations" of the original will (sometimes unfortunataly) overcome the originial design, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the "not so better". Right now we're all on the fence to see how this latest "itteration of the art" will play out. It's a very expensive propisition to Re-drop an existing system to include the Sky Hook in a currently "approved design". There you have it. Mick.

anyone, why don't they have aads arm at 1500ft and disarm OR fire at 750ft. I would like to have my aad (when/if I get one) OFF below 750ft. rm How about switching off @150 feet. Below that altitude an AAD is practically worthless, but for swoopers coming in under high speed approaches it could mean the difference between life and death. Mick. That would exclude the AAD from saving your life in certain scenarios. Such as cutting away (with no reserve pull) from a low altitude, say around 1000 ft or slightly above. It will take several hundred feet to get up to the threshold speed for firing, and by then you would be below 750 ft, but still at an altitude where the reserve has a chance to work. Fair enough - I'd rather not have it that way. Keep it simple. I want it off below 750ft. rm

Bag lock remember? So the Main wouldn't be pulling anything to begin with. The hook would slip from the lanyard the reserve PC would deploy the reserve, the main would not be connected. Bag locks will provide enough drag to pull you upright, seen a bunch of them, so the Sky Hook will work as intended using the drag created by the main pilot chute and lines of the canopy. There is well over 100 lbs pulling the risers at the time of release. So I think the point is kind of moot. Mick.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two different companies are advertising two different rigs, both named "Viper." However, the last time I spoke with Ray Ferrel, he said that the FAA was delaying his efforts to re-open the (Trident/Reflex/Viper) production line in California. Ironically Rob, The Reflex's original name was going to be Viper. Remember PIA in Fl in 95 (I think), you were there. We went down there to see what we were up against and during the trip from the airport to the hotel we passed (or rather it passed us) a Dodge Viper, it was the newest coolest car of the day and that was all we needed. But around that time many "new" names were being given to all sorts of products, stealth, viper etc and it all seemed so passe', so I came up with Reflex. Based on the Catapult (reserve deployment system) concept (much like a reflex action) and the Panavision Reflex motion picture camera wich seemed really cool in terms of what it delivered. It just seemed to fit and that's what we went with. Weird huh? Mick.

BTW, where is mr Hewitt these days? I remember him back in the 80's @ Perris he was one of "the valley boys" (San Fernando that is). Mick.

Really? When the three ring release was covered under a US utility patent Bill charged $1.00 per ring, that's six bucks a copy. Multiply that by any manufacturers yearly output, do this calculation for all manufacturers and add the total together, it's a pretty significant number. Finally multiply the annual totals by 17 (the run time of a US utility patent), doesn't sound like he made any money does it? Mick.

Hey Mick, This is starting to get really interesting. And where would one look to find the "basic criteria" set about by the FAA? Sparky Sparks, It's been over ten years since we applied for TSO approval and I've miss-placed alot of the documentation. From memory, most of the documentation was internal (MIDO) and much of a "gentlemens agreement". It was/ is always with regard to observance with of the nature of intent. MIDO does have specfic rules which have to be observed, however some contadictory rules occasionally clash. Under the MIDO doctrine test vehicles are exempt from certain FAA regulation specifically because they meet the definition of test vechicles. There is no FAA Police Department (save for FSDO). When one rises to the level of test approvial canditate the FAA gives certain exemptions to the FAR's in order to facilliate the furtherence of commerce. This has always been a "grey" area and will probably will always will be, this is how it get's done. For most Skydivers the FAA is the "bad guy" for manufacturers the FAA is there to facillitate business not to quash it. Once one has become a manufacturer within this enviroment one sees the FAA very differently. For manufactures they really are "our freind". Thats all I got (for now). Mick.

Jerry, MIDO was there from the get go. When we decided to produce the Reflex we went by the book. Long Beach MIDO gave us the green light to start testing. All it took was a letter of intention. We could have just started doing it with out their consent and no one would have been the wiser, but we chose the "right" route. This is a very "cloudy" area with regard to parachute testing, but one would and should follow the basic criteria set about by the FAA about certificated testing. It's not too difficult. As I stated before it's an honor system, if one falsifies data he/ she will be investigated if caught. Think about how an AC is tested, What backup does an an untested air frame and power plant have? Answer.....None!! How would one practially strap their brand new concept AC to the belly of something "approved" in order to satify the regulation especially if the "concept" outweighed the approved model? It's mostly about the sprit of the law and not so much about the (easily negated) facts of the law. I hope this provides all of the people currently engaged in the RSL removal debate some pause for refelection. Mick.

OK Sparks, I've read all the resopnses so far and they all seem reasonable. When I sought TSO approval (C23d) for the Reflex back in 95' I had exactly the same question for MIDO. Now that was, believe it or not the key so unlocking the whole mystery. MIDO and not FSDO are responsable for AC and Parachute certification. Once you have sought TSO approval in writing and submitted your preliminary drawing plan You are basicly free to do testing on untested equipment/ AC. You are only permitted to to drop/ fly based upon your testing regime. This is basicly an honor system, if you fudge data and get caught don't expect to get certified anytime soon. If you get caught down the road expect sanctions and/ or fines plus re testing the affected areas. Based on this application submission, one is free to test a complete system. It's because it's a testing program that MIDO has control. FSDO is more the inforcment arm of the FAA while MIDO is the R / D branch. Make sense? Mick. Edited to state: Typo, should read: "MIDO is the R / D branch" Sorry. Mick.

Not all of us are familiar US MILL jargon. Please re_state your question(s). Mick.

OK Then, I'm missing something. What is your "gear and rigging" question? It sounded to me like a question about a unit of the armed forces and tyring to relocate yourself with them. No disrespect to the men and women in uniform, but what do you specfically want to know about sport skydiving equipment? BTW I've been told @ least once that I'm not a complete idiot, just on occasion. Mick. I wasn't aware that someone called you an idiot. If they did I don't have control over that. I certainly didn't call you one, but I apologize for any language that may have lead you to believe that I did. I wouldn't think that anyone posting here would be. I figured that since this was trade related, even if it was equipment specific, that it belonged here. If it isn't then a moderator will let me know. I don't think anyone's called me an idiot to my face in a while (I was just paraphrasing). Exactly just what is the nature of your equipment related question? I (among others) would be more than happy to answer any questions that you have in relation to your (or anyone else's equipment) gear question. Please elaborate. Mick.

OK Then, I'm missing something. What is your "gear and rigging" question? It sounded to me like a question about a unit of the armed forces and tyring to relocate yourself with them. No disrespect to the men and women in uniform, but what do you specfically want to know about sport skydiving equipment? BTW I've been told @ least once that I'm not a complete idiot, just on occasion. Mick.