RiggerLee 61 #51 March 29, 2014 Compatibility should not be that big an issue. As I also pointed out. This business of only having to test the smallest and largest only applies if function is not impaired. They have used that paragraph in the standard as an excuse to only test the most extreme variations. I think there is a legitimate argument that function IS impaired. In which case the TSO is invalid. If they have to test every other size in order to insure function then that is what is required by the TSO. There are a number of standards for performance in the TSO. Not just strength. That's actually the easiest one. And a good argument for the harness to be separate. But the container is also TSO'd It must also meet the standards that apply to it. LeeLee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #52 March 29, 2014 masterrigger1Quote I'd agree with you if manufacturers made entire integrated systems... Well actually there are a couple that do. Strong Enterprises is one example. I'd fully expect them to meet the standard. QuoteThe FAA has already stated that the performance standard has to be maintained post production in order to be considered airworthy. In the case of the Wings container, towing a pilot chute for several seconds after the ripcord is pulled is not maintaining the 3 second rule that is part of the 23b performance standard. But the only way to know if any rig meets the performance standard is to drop test it. That's my point. The combinations and sizes aren't. I agree that towing a PC with the bridle straight from the PC to the bag is unacceptable. But the blame goes farther than just the container design. I don't like many of the container designs either but a smaller canopy may change that 'test' result. My point is that a skydiver shouldn't wait until 310' to open their reserve. In a perfect world I agree that a design meeting a TSO test standard should meet it in the market. Parachutes are too variable and what we've done with them hasn't helped a bit. Just curious with no implied criticism, how many rigs do you have to refuse to pack? I don't do a lot of sport rigs but I haven't had to refuse one in a long time. Quote*** And we still need to get the FAA to issue AD's on parachutes again. According to the FAA, it probably will happen pretty soon. JFYI, the last AD (parachute related) that I know of was issued in 2001 IIRC. MEL Actually 1999 Relative Workshop amp fittings on cutaway housings. I keep hearing specific FAA types say why not issues parachute AD's but I'll believe it when I see it.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #53 March 29, 2014 Quote But the only way to know if any rig meets the performance standard is to drop test it. Exactly! But the onus is on the harnes/container manufacturer not the individual jumper or rigger. Every manufacturer out there will tell you what "fits" in their container. By doing so, they are saying that it is compatible. Maybe they need a new list......... MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #54 March 29, 2014 Quote Just curious with no implied criticism, how many rigs do you have to refuse to pack? I don't do a lot of sport rigs but I haven't had to refuse one in a long time. We refuse to pack Racers equipped with Speed Bags, Wings Containers, and anything with a Optimum reserve canopy in it. MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,079 #55 March 29, 2014 Hi Mark, Quote In the case of the Wings container, towing a pilot chute for several seconds after the ripcord is pulled is not maintaining the 3 second rule that is part of the 23b performance standard. This was a live jump. In the live jump req'ment of NAS 804 there is no 3 second req'ment. And if I remember, this particular rig had a reserve canopy larger than the container mfr listed for that size of container. IMO that cannot in anyway be the responsibility/fault of the mfr. Riggers need to refuse to pack these over-stuffed containers. And maybe next year RiggerLee can do a seminar on How to Stuff a 5 lb canopy into a 5 lb Container. JerryBaumchen PS) It would be interesting to see if this Wings rig with the oversize canopy would meet the 3 second req'ment if drop tested per NAS 804 Functional Tests. Some how I think it would. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rifleman 61 #56 March 29, 2014 masterrigger1Quote Just curious with no implied criticism, how many rigs do you have to refuse to pack? I don't do a lot of sport rigs but I haven't had to refuse one in a long time. We refuse to pack Racers equipped with Speed Bags, Wings Containers, and anything with a Optimum reserve canopy in it. MEL Silly question - but why no Optimums? I thought they were supposed to pack smaller than the equivalent standard reserve.Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
highspeeddirt 0 #57 March 29, 2014 i used to work in quality control at para flite. one of the things we did during final inspection on reserves was to install the buna "n" o rings on the bag. one day i was doing just that and with little force(maybe 5-10 lbs max) the o rings BROKE.after R&D looked at it it was decided that the skinny o rings that we were using at the time were to be junked and we would use the thicker ones.if i recall this was right around the time of the GK accident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #58 March 30, 2014 Quote This was a live jump. In the live jump req'ment of NAS 804 there is no 3 second req'ment. Common sense tells me that if the requirement for the Dummy drop, (which is required to be dropped at 70 mph and the maximum required is three seconds), that a live person traveling at a speed of about 120 mph, should at least meet the three second time frame. Quote And if I remember, this particular rig had a reserve canopy larger than the container mfr listed for that size of container. Jerry, You are speaking in terms of one incident. There have been several documented instances where the reserve P/C was out at did not function correctly. Also, where did you get the canopy and H/C info from? Quote IMO that cannot in anyway be the responsibility/fault of the mfr I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one! The manufacturer needs to address the issue at hand. They have not in any way shape or form. Not a word has come from that camp, ...nor PIA, ...nor USPA. I would like to know exactly what canopies that they used when they tested the system. By putting these canopies on the compatibility list (and these canopies only) we can be done with the guesswork. The lone rigger is not required to test the system to assure component compatibility. The manufacturer is. If you look across the board with regard to aircraft components, you will see that the task is with the component manufacturer, not the mechanic installing it. Maybe this needs to be clarified in 23G?! MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #59 March 30, 2014 Quote Silly question - but why no Optimums? I thought they were supposed to pack smaller than the equivalent standard reserve. They do pack smaller. But the main reason is that it takes longer to open than a "standard" reserve. (They snivel or simply have a slower opening) This not what you want if you have a standard Cypress set at the original deployment altitude. You also probably would not want it if you only have a few seconds left to get something out because you had: Pick one (1) hard cutaway that ate up altitude (2) was knocked unconscious for a few and came to 8-10 seconds before impact (3) cutaway and could not find your ripcord until the last few seconds The list goes on.... MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
