Forums: Skydiving: Gear and Rigging:
Techno Reserve Canopy

 


DocPop  (C License)

Feb 16, 2010, 2:03 PM
Post #1 of 39 (6608 views)
Shortcut
Techno Reserve Canopy Can't Post

Anyone here have any experience with the Techno reserve?

I have one (a 155 sq ft) and my rigger had not come across one before. I am thinking about changing it for a PD Optimum because of the good name of PD and no other reason.

Can anyone with experience of the Techno comment on whether I should do this. I do not want to get into pack volume issues etc. Just want to know from a purely safety aspect about openings and flight/landing characteristics etc.

If it flies like a PD Reserve or a Smart, I probably won't bother, but if it turns out to have a reputation like a Raven then I don't want my first reserve ride to be under such a canopy.


dragon2  (D 101989)

Feb 16, 2010, 2:19 PM
Post #2 of 39 (6556 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

I have had a few rides under them, they fly and flare better than a PD-R IMO (haven't jumped an Optimum yet), although I liked the Smart best out of the 3. These 3 reserves are the only ones I want to jump, especially at smaller sizes/higher wingloadings. The Techno is a quite good reserve, however I'm not sure it's a good idea for an American jumper to be flying one, as I thought they were not TSO'd for the US market or something, but if your rigger says it's ok in that regard there's absolutely no reason to replace it IMO, even though it's French Tongue


piisfish

Feb 16, 2010, 2:21 PM
Post #3 of 39 (6555 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

the techno is a great reserve canopy. Flies great, opens as good as any other, and it does support some higher wingloadings. My only ride was with a 115 loaded around 1.6. It was my 1st reserve ride. Landed where I wanted, and more or less how I wanted (hadn't taken into account the "longer" toggle stroke you have on reserves)

I am unaware of TSO's etc so it is possible that you could not have it in a US container. Riggers could help you best


DocPop  (C License)

Feb 16, 2010, 2:34 PM
Post #4 of 39 (6538 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks guys - nice to read your positive comments.

It is French, but it has a tag saying "Made in Mauritius" which caused a lot of laughter around the DZ!

I photographed the warning label when it was open and it did say "TSO C23c". Is this not a US approved TSO standard?


IanHarrop  (C 1152)

Feb 16, 2010, 2:55 PM
Post #5 of 39 (6519 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

the manual says it has a TSO
http://www.parachutemanuals.com/...startdown&id=285


piisfish

Feb 16, 2010, 2:55 PM
Post #6 of 39 (6517 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It is French, but it has a tag saying "Made in Mauritius" which caused a lot of laughter around the DZ!
as most of the french gear... Now PdF manufactures mostly in South Africa.

Remember the PD reserves come from Venezuela or costa Rica or something exotic like that ? Tongue


JohanW  (D 86318)

Feb 16, 2010, 6:37 PM
Post #7 of 39 (6456 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Didn't PD manufacture in Honduras?

I have three rides on a Techno 155. Absolutely no complaints. No experience with terminal openings, and it's the only reserve I have ever jumped, so can't compare.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Feb 16, 2010, 10:39 PM
Post #8 of 39 (6422 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

" ... I photographed the warning label when it was open and it did say "TSO C23c". Is this not a US approved TSO standard?"

.......................................................................

European Joint Technical Standard Order C23c is pretty much a photo-copy of the American TSO.


Pantanal  (D 31713)

Feb 17, 2010, 3:02 AM
Post #9 of 39 (6377 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

I have two rides with a techno 128 with a WL of 1.6
and one ride on a brand new PDR 143 with WL of 1.4 . Both are good reserves, but I liked better the techno landing/flying performance. Not to mention they pack one size smaller than PDR.
Most of French parachutes are manufactured at the Mauritios Islands with high standards material and personal, first quality products. PD is on Honduras as well.
safe jumps


jerolim  (F License)

Feb 17, 2010, 3:39 AM
Post #10 of 39 (6362 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

I didn't jump techno but I saw 2 landings of techno 155. They were very docile and with lot of flare stand up landings. And it packs small.


DocPop  (C License)

Feb 17, 2010, 7:09 AM
Post #11 of 39 (6295 views)
Shortcut
Re: Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank you to everyone who has commented on this thread - it has been extremely informative and it is nice to see a thread which;

a) stays on topic
b) does not descend into a flame-fest

I got exactly what I needed from this. Think I'll stay with the Techno for the time being and spend the money on jumps.

Cheers!


dragon2  (D 101989)

Feb 17, 2010, 7:23 AM
Post #12 of 39 (6288 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Indeed, you forgot

c) saves you money Sly


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Feb 17, 2010, 11:26 AM
Post #13 of 39 (6229 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Doc,

Quote:
I photographed the warning label when it was open and it did say "TSO C23c". Is this not a US approved TSO standard?

When someone makes an application for a TSO-authorization, the letter that they will get back from the FAA says, in effect along with some other wordage, that you can now mark the product in accordance with the TSO standard.

Given that, if this canopy is marked 'TSO C23(c)' then it is approved under the TSO or it is illegally marked.

Just my two cents from over 30 yrs of dealing with the FAA on this issue.

JerryBaumchen


DocPop  (C License)

Feb 17, 2010, 11:45 AM
Post #14 of 39 (6219 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Jerry -

I just relooked at the photo I took (and it is a little grainy), but I now think it says TSO C23d, which I believe is a higher rating. This also agrees with what the manual says on the front cover.

I now believe that the Techno is actually rated higher than the PD-126R and larger which are shown as TSO C23c(b) (except the PD-281R for some reason which is C23d). Smaller sizes are of the PD-R are shown as C23d, as are all sizes of Optimum (albeit that the 160 and up are not yet approved I believe).

Getting slightly off-topic now, but this is something I don't fully understand and it is pretty interesting to know exactly what your last resort is approved to do.


Rover  (D 241)

Feb 17, 2010, 12:01 PM
Post #15 of 39 (6209 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Slight deviation from the OP question but is worth noting that the Techno 240b reserve has been grounded as a reserve because of opening height / time issues.


skymik

Feb 17, 2010, 12:17 PM
Post #16 of 39 (6200 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

I suggest you read the final part of its manual, although there are boxes to write to the warning label that also has the obligation of reserve canopy check permeability in following cases: after 40 repack, 25 jump or dive into the water.
And also you can not replace Maillon Rapide with soft links, Parachutes de France does not approve
SkymiK


pchapman  (D 1014)

Feb 17, 2010, 12:57 PM
Post #17 of 39 (6183 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Technically the Techno has a far lower rating than the PD reserve, even if they are likely similar in strength.

The reason for the middle of the range PD's being C23c, with the biggest and smallest being C23d is because C23c was what was available when PD designed those canopies. They designed them for a certified 254 lbs and 150 kts, and that was the maximum possible under the rules.

When they later built the 281 and the 113 and smaller, by then C23d existed and allowed going bigger or smaller on weights. So the 281 is certified to 300 lbs, and the PD113 to only 220 lbs.

Meanwhile the Techno was certified under the European Joint (or JAA) TSO program, under the JTSO C23d. I don't know the details of how a JTSO is accepted as a TSO, although the underlying test requirements are the same. (Would be interesting to learn.)

The Techno's manual actually shows that the Techno 98 is not JTSO C23d certified, but only to the French 530 EQ-03 standard (which may be higher or lower in requirements). Nor is the 140 size, for some reason. (Did they simply not have time to get it by the time that my manual was printed?)

Both the PD and Techno are certified to 150 kts, and speed is more important in the force equation than is weight.


The big thing is that the Techno's manual restricts the weight to their own chosen loading less than they could have asked for, given the speed & weight tests they did.

You can jump a PD 126 in the USA to 254 lbs even if PD RECOMMENDS a lot lower.

But the Techno 128 (as a comparison) is only certified to 163 lbs. (Or the 140 is only good for 198lbs).

These correspond to limits of 1.27 or 1.41 wing loadings.

For the TSO's, speed and weight tests have to be at levels 20% higher than the maximum levels that you choose to certify at. Based on PdF's documentation, they tested as if they were planning to certify to 250 lbs, 150 kts. That's very close to what PD did for most of its range. But PdF chose to put much lower limits in the manual.

So the Techno is technically certified to much lower limits than the PD -- even if the strength tests withstood will have been very similar.


DocPop  (C License)

Feb 17, 2010, 1:47 PM
Post #18 of 39 (6165 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks Peter - lots of info in that post.


JohanW  (D 86318)

Feb 18, 2010, 3:16 AM
Post #19 of 39 (6073 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rover] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Slight deviation from the OP question but is worth noting that the Techno 240b reserve has been grounded as a reserve because of opening height / time issues.
It has been grounded, but is not currently grounded. The service bulletin has been out for about four years.


lilchief  (D 78149)

Feb 18, 2010, 4:51 AM
Post #20 of 39 (6056 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

We have 10 techno 240 for our studentgear with several reserverides...no one ever had issues.

Stay with it to save money for jumping Smile Hopefully you don't have to use it... ;)


BKR

Feb 18, 2010, 5:55 AM
Post #21 of 39 (6051 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Meanwhile the Techno was certified under the European Joint (or JAA) TSO program, under the JTSO C23d. I don't know the details of how a JTSO is accepted as a TSO, although the underlying test requirements are the same. (Would be interesting to learn.)

The process is simple, because technical specs are the same (AS8015/B). As soon as you get your J or E-Tso-C23d you send all paperwork application to your local NAA. Then they get in touch with the FAA to obtain the TSO-C23d approval. Then you wait several months to get it.


piisfish

Feb 18, 2010, 6:25 AM
Post #22 of 39 (6045 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BKR] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
JTSO C23d JTSO TSO (AS8015/B) J or E-Tso-C23d NAA FAA TSO-C23d
are you typing with an ENIGMA encryption machine ?


pchapman  (D 1014)

Feb 18, 2010, 7:04 AM
Post #23 of 39 (6035 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BKR] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks BKR,

It is useful to note that one has to apply for the US TSO on the basis of one's Joint or European TSO.

So technically a parachute with a JTSO isn't "TSO'd" and legal for Americans in the US unless the company has submitted the paperwork -- even though the testing was identical.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 18, 2010, 7:36 AM
Post #24 of 39 (6030 views)
Shortcut
Re: Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Interestingly, according to the manual I have, only the 3 largest sizes specifically mention FAA approval.

Or am I reading that chart incorrectly? Techno manual, 5th edition, dated November 2000, page 7


pchapman  (D 1014)

Feb 18, 2010, 7:57 AM
Post #25 of 39 (6024 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Riggerpaul:

Interesting indeed.
I did gloss over / miss that! (I believe edition 5 is still current.) Only the 155 and up are shown to have the actual US TSO, while some others have the JTSO. Seems they got the US TSO on some without doing the JTSO.

Everyone can see for themself -- I attached a copy of part of the table.

So it is a little deceptive that they mentioned the FAA TSO on the cover of their manual when it applies only to a few of the range.

So going back to the original post: The 155 Techno does have an actual US TSO.
Attachments: techno stats table.jpg (251 KB)


BKR

Feb 18, 2010, 9:42 AM
Post #26 of 39 (1541 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

I have one question for you Riggers. How can you recognized if the canopy has a TSO under Emergency (non intentional jump) or Sport (intentional jump) classification? It seems to me there is no special marking to differentiate them??


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Feb 18, 2010, 11:41 AM
Post #27 of 39 (1523 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BKR] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Jerome,

I am not completely sure of what you are asking; but I'll make an effort to answer.

Please remember that I do not speak for the US FAA or any canopy mfr.

One of the first modern canopies that was TSO'd and could be used, when purchased new, as either a main or reserve ( or both ) was the Raven series of canopies.

I 'seem to remember' that the mfr said that an owner could make one jump on it and still pack it into a reserve ( of course, it still had to be airworthy, i.e., no damage, etc ).

If a person buys a canopy that is marked as FAA TSO C23(x) and uses it as a main then it becomes a main canopy and is no longer a reserve. Let me clarify that: This would depend upon the limitations that the mfr stipulates. They could say that you can make no more than 100 jumps and still pack it up as a reserve if they wanted to. Or they could say that if it were jumped even one time it could no longer be packed up as a reserve.

At all times ( IMO ) a rigger must make a decision as to the airworthiness of all of the TSO'd products that he is going to assemble and/or pack.

Remember, all of this is just my opinion and the opinion(s) of other people may vary.

So what do you say about your products; can they be jumped as a main & then be packed up as a reserve?

JerryBaumchen

PS) The original concept of a TSO standard was for an emergency parachute only; the FAA never considered that some 'different' thinking people might want to make an intentional jump. Tongue

PPS) A few years after it came onto the sport maket, Pioneer obtained a TSO for their ParaCommander canopy. Cool


pchapman  (D 1014)

Feb 18, 2010, 1:24 PM
Post #28 of 39 (1506 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
PS) The original concept of a TSO standard was for an emergency parachute only; the FAA never considered that some 'different' thinking people might want to make an intentional jump.

I think that sport vs. emergency distinction is what Jerome is getting at.

For example, I've seen an EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) report online about parachute certifications. It lists the certifications of all sorts of emergency rigs that fall under its responsibility. But otherwise:
Quote:
Personnel parachutes within the scope of EASA are parachutes designed for wearing or installation on
board of an aircraft within the scope of EASA for use in case of an emergency. All other parachutes are
under the responsibility of the relevant Member States.

Between that and what Jerome wrote, suggests that there's some tendency to split sport and emergency chutes in Europe.

PS - Jerry B. must be right about the Paracommander, because on the EASA list next to various emergency rigs and canopies, 3 different sizes of Paracommander are listed. Not that I'd want one as a reserve!


(This post was edited by pchapman on Feb 18, 2010, 1:28 PM)


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 18, 2010, 2:34 PM
Post #29 of 39 (1493 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BKR] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I have one question for you Riggers. How can you recognized if the canopy has a TSO under Emergency (non intentional jump) or Sport (intentional jump) classification? It seems to me there is no special marking to differentiate them??

I am not quite sure what you are asking, but here's what I think you might be talking about.

In the USA, there is no certification of sport main parachutes. There are just a few regulations that address the main parachute at all, such as what sort of rigging certifications are required to do the different sorts of maintenance and repair work on them. But, as far as the manufacture and distribution of sport main parachutes, there are not required to be certified in any way.

Pilot emergency parachutes and sport reserve parachutes are one and the same in the eyes of the FAA. Each is intended for emergency or non-intentional use. Each must meet the certification requirements that were in effect at the time of their certification.

The question of what is meant by "intentional use" is not really clearly defined. Clearly, a sport parachutist intends to use his reserve parachute in the event that he cannot use his main parachute. But, in the eyes of the FAA, it was not the intention of the sport parachutist to use the reserve when he was, for instance, leaving the aircraft, any more than it was the intention of the pilot to use the emergency parachute at the time he boarded the aircraft.

Simply, the FAA does not consider that a sport reserve is for intentional use. In the eyes of the FAA, you intend to use your main parachute, if you have one, and you do not intend to use your emergency or reserve parachute. If you leave the aircraft in flight voluntarily, then you must have at least two parachutes, at least one of which is certified for emergency or non-intentional use.

Does that answer your question?


sundevil777  (D License)

Feb 18, 2010, 4:23 PM
Post #30 of 39 (1482 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BKR] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't remember seeing any US gear dealers selling Techno reserves, are there any?


BKR

Feb 18, 2010, 9:56 PM
Post #31 of 39 (1466 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi all,

thank you for your answers, you all answered different ways. Do not considering the main canopy in my question. Up to the AS8015/B there are 3 approval types, tandem, emergency and sport. Emergency and sport have different testing stage (emergency type has less testing to be done than sport). So, Paul gave a good answer concerning the cutaway because when we leave the airplane we do not want to use the reserve, this means the reserve canopy could be classified as emergency too. So, why do we have 2 classifications and how can you check on the label in which category the canopy has been certified for?
I haven't seen any informations to be sure which one is classified in emergency or in sport. The EASA list is a mess, you even have tandem system classified as emergency, funny..You have canopies like Olympics, Papillon, etc too.
anyway, thank you for your infos.


pchapman  (D 1014)

Feb 19, 2010, 5:25 AM
Post #32 of 39 (1439 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BKR] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks Jerome for the little bit of insight on how things work in Europe.

It's bad enough trying to figure out the FAA in the big US market -- you've got to deal with all the different European rules.


BKR

Feb 19, 2010, 7:30 AM
Post #33 of 39 (1423 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Thanks Jerome for the little bit of insight on how things work in Europe.

It's bad enough trying to figure out the FAA in the big US market -- you've got to deal with all the different European rules.

Hi Peter,

EEC is a big mess with EASA but we are not concerned any more (as sport equipement manufacturer) by them. We went back under control of our NAA. If you need more infos concerning EEC rules, feel free.


ernokaikkonen  (D 12)

Feb 21, 2010, 9:16 PM
Post #34 of 39 (1359 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The Techno's manual actually shows that the Techno 98 is not JTSO C23d certified, but only to the French 530 EQ-03 standard (which may be higher or lower in requirements). Nor is the 140 size, for some reason. (Did they simply not have time to get it by the time that my manual was printed?).

I believe this is due to a similar situation as with the smallest and largest PDR; The Techno 98 and 140 came much out later than the other models.


NovaTTT  (D 17887)

Oct 17, 2012, 9:46 AM
Post #35 of 39 (1082 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BKR] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

Bumping an old post. . . .

In reply to:
The process is simple, because technical specs are the same (AS8015/B). As soon as you get your J or E-Tso-C23d you send all paperwork application to your local NAA. Then they get in touch with the FAA to obtain the TSO-C23d approval. Then you wait several months to get it.

. . . to discuss this:

Anyone know if a TSO label is how JTSO approval is shown? Meaning - does a foreign JTSO'd rig that has been approved bear a TSO label or is it perhaps just a document issued by the FAA and held by the mfgr?

Anyone have experience with this?


leski

Nov 30, 2012, 1:25 AM
Post #36 of 39 (950 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NovaTTT] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

 

did you get the answer to your question because we have the same problem with our federation in new zealand.


JohnSherman  (D 2105)

Nov 30, 2012, 10:59 AM
Post #37 of 39 (882 views)
Shortcut
Re: [leski] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

This is all handled by Treaty. Any country with which we have an treaty covering aviation includes a resoprosity agreement where Equipment Certified by the government of each country is honored by the other country. Most other countries don't have certification mechanism for parachutes.

Citizens of Countries who are not signatories or who do not have any governmental certification and have National Aero Clubs who approve equipment for local use may use that equipment while visiting other countries but it may not be used by anyone else.

The reason for the Euro TSO -- So they can sell equipment to other countries, like the U.S.


eladberger

Dec 3, 2012, 12:10 AM
Post #38 of 39 (777 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnSherman] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

I understand that JTSO C23d and TSO C23d been trough the same testing, how can I prove it?
My federation doesn't allow me to jump a JTSO reserve in a TSO rig.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Dec 3, 2012, 8:48 AM
Post #39 of 39 (723 views)
Shortcut
Re: [eladberger] Techno Reserve Canopy [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I understand that JTSO C23d and TSO C23d been trough the same testing, how can I prove it?
My federation doesn't allow me to jump a JTSO reserve in a TSO rig.

.......................................................................

That's just silly/protectionism/bureaucratic cranial-rectal inversion!

Tell them to read both documents. Then they will find that JTSO is almost a photo-copy of the FAA TSO.



Forums : Skydiving : Gear and Rigging

 


Search for (options)