Feb 22, 2011, 11:31 AM
Post #26 of 78
(854 views)
Shortcut
Re: [frontloop33] Is this really safe?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Hey, the guy is used to thumping in all over the place under rounds, so as long as he isn't a total screwup in the way he flies squares, and is at a DZ with forgiving terrain, he should be able to land the reserve without breaking anything.
Are you looking for a definition? Maximum suspended weight is defined as the weight of the jumper (s)including parachute system and all auxiliary equipment attached whenexiting the aircraft.
Feb 22, 2011, 12:21 PM
Post #29 of 78
(828 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DiverMike] Is this really safe?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Are you looking for a definition? Maximum suspended weight is defined as the weight of the jumper (s)including parachute system and all auxiliary equipment attached whenexiting the aircraft.
nono sorry i know what it is i was wondering what the tso'd weight of the pd reservces were
I didn't make the rules, I am only reporting on what the manual says. If PD are wrong, then this discussion is good and they need to correct the manual.
I have not got a coach rating but my goal is to teach canopy courses when I have the experience and knowledge to do so. Not before.
If you want to be a coach, you need to learn to research things with more than one source of input, and also learn to temper your statements based upon differing recommendations, instead of just taking one of them as absolute gospel and then preaching it from the mountaintop.
At just 200 jumps, it's nice that you are looking ahead and want to coach, and that you are paying attention to the things that you've read, but please also recognize that you've still got a lot to learn.
Of course, my ASSumption is that if the TSO 23d was already granted, the manufacturer will most likely find it not financially viable to do the drop tests to re-certify.
If you want to be a coach, you need to learn to research things with more than one source of input, and also learn to temper your statements based upon differing recommendations, instead of just taking one of them as absolute gospel and then preaching it from the mountaintop.
At just 200 jumps, it's nice that you are looking ahead and want to coach, and that you are paying attention to the things that you've read, but please also recognize that you've still got a lot to learn.
I have to admit to be a little confused by your response.
Are you suggesting that the PD Reserve manual is not to be trusted as a source of information? I did research the 1.4 WL recommendation elsewhere and could not find any reference to it. However, that lack of data does not disprove the information from what I would consider to be a very reliable source.
I recognize that I have a huge amount to learn, but I am not sure why you are chastising me for posting a relevant response to a question, and backing it up by providing a reference to a reputable source.
Now, if you are maintaining that I am wrong, then PD are wrong and I would like to see some more proof of this as this seems like it could potentially be a very important issue.
I assure you that it is not my intention to come across as thinking I know it all.
Of course, my ASSumption is that if the TSO 23d was already granted, the manufacturer will most likely find it not financially viable to do the drop tests to re-certify.
The TSO has nothing to do with how many jumps a person has. Most of what you've been quoting from the PD manual is legal-speak for "we told him to get a bigger reserve, so don't sue us". I guess you could ask PD what FAA requirement they are referring to. By the way, you should update your profile, unless you really do have 200 jumps in 4 years and a reserve loaded at 1.4.
If you want to be a coach, you need to learn to research things with more than one source of input, and also learn to temper your statements based upon differing recommendations, instead of just taking one of them as absolute gospel and then preaching it from the mountaintop.
At just 200 jumps, it's nice that you are looking ahead and want to coach, and that you are paying attention to the things that you've read, but please also recognize that you've still got a lot to learn.
I have to admit to be a little confused by your response.
Are you suggesting that the PD Reserve manual is not to be trusted as a source of information? I did research the 1.4 WL recommendation elsewhere and could not find any reference to it. However, that lack of data does not disprove the information from what I would consider to be a very reliable source.
I recognize that I have a huge amount to learn, but I am not sure why you are chastising me for posting a relevant response to a question, and backing it up by providing a reference to a reputable source.
Now, if you are maintaining that I am wrong, then PD are wrong and I would like to see some more proof of this as this seems like it could potentially be a very important issue.
I assure you that it is not my intention to come across as thinking I know it all.
I would consider an owners manual from a parachute manufacurer a "reliable source", but not an infallible one. It is a single source that goes against what I know of the FARs. And it is coming from someone (the manufacturer) who has reason to protect themselves from idiots who choose to ignore recommendations.
I know FAR part 105 and AC-105-2 fairly well, and do not recall any reference to wingloading. I took a quick look at both of them and was unable to find anything.
If you can find a FAR anywhere that mentions loading a parachute of any sort (other than the max weights in the various TSO-23s), or one that requires following manufacturer's recommendations (for anything other than AADs) I'd love to see it and be proven wrong.
Are you suggesting that the PD Reserve manual is not to be trusted as a source of information?
Yes.
Just because PD says something is illegal does not make it so. They can publish anything they want in their manual but that doesn't make it law. That is why others are referencing regulations in order to answer you as to what is legal.
Feb 22, 2011, 3:44 PM
Post #38 of 78
(750 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wolfriverjoe] Is this really safe?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
FAR part 65 refers to packing according to manufacturer's instructions, but this has nothing to do with the present discussion. Fact is, FAA does not certify the parachutist (except for requiring 500 jumps and expert rating for tandem masters), so I'm having a hard time imagining what FAR you would violate at any wing loading and any jump number as long as you have a single-harness dual-parachute system whose TSO'd reserve has been packed withing the previous 180 days by an appropriately rated parachute rigger and which is not used outside the limits of the TSO.
I have to admit to be a little confused by your response.
Are you suggesting that the PD Reserve manual is not to be trusted as a source of information? I did research the 1.4 WL recommendation elsewhere and could not find any reference to it. However, that lack of data does not disprove the information from what I would consider to be a very reliable source.
Also, you only quoted the PD manual, the OP never said anything about PD. I could probably quote something to support my stance given enough manuals.
There's no law that states you have to be good enough to jump a tiny reserve. Once you have a license, you're legally allowed to jump whatever certified reserve you want, doesn't make it smart, but you can do it.
With all due respect, that is your words vs. Performance Designs.
I know who I will believe.
This is all the FAA has to say about what equipment a skydiver must use to make a skydive. 105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems. No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows: No where does the FAA address what size the canopy must be or what experience the jumper must have. Attached is a reply I got from PD when I asked them to identify what FAR would be violated by overloading a reserve. As you can see the only thing they could come up with is a vague reference to “careless operation” and “reckless operation” which in context refers to operation an aircraft in such a manner as to endanger people or property on the ground. So you can believe what you want but fact is fact.
Feb 22, 2011, 7:26 PM
Post #42 of 78
(679 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Is this really safe?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
That's about what I figured. The last PD reserve I packed was manufactured in 2006. The placard had a maximum exit weight and a maximum airspeed. It didn't require me to put the owner on a scale or check his logbook. Does anybody here have a newer PD reserve they could look at to see if that's changed? I'm not saying you should disregard their recommendation to keep the wing loading low on a reserve, but I think their lawyers have gone a bit overboard on this one.
Are you looking for a definition? Maximum suspended weight is defined as the weight of the jumper (s)including parachute system and all auxiliary equipment attached whenexiting the aircraft.
nono sorry i know what it is i was wondering what the tso'd weight of the pd reservces were
TSO is mainly concerned with “test weight” and “test speed”. All reserves certified under TSO-23d are tested to a minimum weight of 264 pounds and a minimum speed of 180 KEAS. That would give them a Maximum operating weight of 220 pounds and a Maximum operating speed of 150 KEAS. PD lists one of their canopies certified at 290 pounds which means it was tested at 348 pounds. These tests are part of AS8015b which is a standard put out by the SAE and is not even an FAA document. Sparky
I'm not saying you should disregard their recommendation to keep the wing loading low on a reserve, but I think their lawyers have gone a bit overboard on this one.
I agree with you, it is stupid to jump a 7 cell reserve made out of F-111 type material with a wing loading of more than about 1.2 at the most. Very few jumpers have even jumped a 7 cell F-111 canopy other than as a reserve. They handle differently and when loaded just a little heavy they can drive you in the ground like a lawn dart. I have around 2,000 jumps on 7 cell mains and fell comfortable with them but my reserve is only loaded at 1.1+.
I though I should have gotten a 139 instead of the 149 when I first used my Icarus reserve.
Why?
Because I had chosen between them and opted for the 149 because I didn't know how it flew. I would have been more happy with the 139 since it would have been slightly easier to fit in the container. And of course, so people can stop with the saying about nobody wished they had a smaller reserve...
Okay, a noob here. I've been following this thread, and I'm not sure I get it. It seems to me that, all things being equal, you'd want more canopy area in a reserve. I think (am I wrong?) that the additional area would decellerate you faster, meaning that in a low altitude pull, it might make the difference between hitting the ground hard vs very hard, or (slightly higher opening) time to unstow the brakes, and to flare, and to select a landing area, etc.
So what is the advantage, if any, for having a smaller one? I mean, its not like you will be upset that you couldn't do your planned swoop of the pond.
Can anyone help me here figure out why one would even ponder the option of having a highly loaded reserve?
Can anyone help me here figure out why one would even ponder the option of having a highly loaded reserve?
Some are of the opinion that having a dramatic difference between the size of the main and the reserve can cause issues during a two-out situation. The Golden Knigts did some research on this that seems to indicate that it isn't true.
But the main reason is appearance. The "cool kids" want the smallest sexiest rig possible. Many containers that hold smaller mans can't be set up to hold a larger reserve. Some can, but having a rig that holds a small main and a larger reserve doesn't look as good. Having a rig that holds a large main and a large reserve looks even worse. So the "cool kids" feel it is necessary to downsize as rapidly as they can, and have a reserve that is sized way too small for their skills.
Feb 23, 2011, 7:24 AM
Post #48 of 78
(561 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wolfriverjoe] Is this really safe?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
If you can find a FAR anywhere that mentions loading a parachute of any sort (other than the max weights in the various TSO-23s), or one that requires following manufacturer's recommendations (for anything other than AADs) I'd love to see it and be proven wrong.
Slightly off topic, but the insecure little boy in me likes to prove people wrong. You forgot about TI certification:
"One of the parachutists using the tandem parachute system . . . Has been certified by the appropriate parachute manufacturer or tandem course provider as being properly trained on the use of the specific tandem parachute system to be used." [PART 105 SEC 105.45 (a) 1 (v)]
Feb 23, 2011, 8:00 AM
Post #49 of 78
(546 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wolfriverjoe] Is this really safe?
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
But the main reason is appearance.
Not true. Most rig manufacturers don't offer the option.
In reply to:
The "cool kids" want the smallest sexiest rig possible.
Again not true. Many taller people may even want a longer rig so they don't need to reach halfway up their back to pull.
In reply to:
Many containers that hold smaller mans can't be set up to hold a larger reserve.
True.
In reply to:
Some can, but having a rig that holds a small main and a larger reserve doesn't look as good.
Have you ever seen one? Infinity and Mirage both make them so you can't even tell by looking, and Reflex used to when they were still around.
In reply to:
Having a rig that holds a large main and a large reserve looks even worse.
What are you talking about. Some of us fly a small main because we like how they fly. The size of the rig is a side effect of the small canopy.
In reply to:
So the "cool kids" feel it is necessary to downsize as rapidly as they can,
Some do. The smart ones don't.
In reply to:
and have a reserve that is sized way too small for their skills.
Not quite. There are no amount of "skills" to protect you when landing a damaged reserve (where bigger can help keep you alive) or if you are landing unconscious.
Overloading reserves.doc
