BlueSBDeath 2 #26 October 25, 2005 Bill, Your ability to innovate is incredible!! Thanks for all you have brought to the sport and the education we all gain when you share your experience!! QuoteBesides, nowadays, reserves require AAD's, and AAD's and hand deploy pilot chutes are incompatible On this subject, are you talking about hand deployed reserves? Arvel (I am a non-AAD/POP Racer owner)BSBD...........Its all about Respect, USPA#-7062, FB-2197, Outlaw 499 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billbooth 10 #27 October 25, 2005 The original Vector (1979) was designed as a hand deployed reserve rig. I figured, you practice hand deploying your main pilot chute on every jump...why not use the same skills to deploy your reserve. However, I only made a few prototypes, then dropped the idea for the sake of keeping one standard for all reserve deployments...even though it was different from the standard main deployment. I'm now glad I made that decision. As I mentioned above, it is awful hard to put an AAD on a hand deployed reserve...and now everyone uses AAD's. This was not true in the '70's. Back then, almost no experienced jumper would jump with an AAD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #28 October 25, 2005 Quoteand now everyone uses AAD's. Not true.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billbooth 10 #29 October 25, 2005 QuoteQuoteand now everyone uses AAD's. Not true.reply: Excuse me..."almost" everyone uses AAD's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ojibwe 0 #30 October 25, 2005 go with pullout pudMB 3864 Urantia Book and RUSH fan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CReWLL 0 #31 October 27, 2005 Well, modern rigs with pop-tops or similar designs do not open the flaps before the pc goes. I consider Racers and Javelins modern. Strong emergency rigs use an externally mounted pilotchute. People make a lot of compromises when deciding on gear. Very rarely do you need your reserve bag hesitated, but you need pretty gear on every jump. :-) Some of the things I say are opinion, some are facts, and some are wrong. Just because I'm wrong, doesn't mean I don't believe it. FYI, the proper deployment sequence of a parachute system starts with: pilotchute launch, pilotchute inflation (pc bridle loaded), container opening, deployment bag extraction… Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rigging65 0 #32 October 28, 2005 QuoteFYI, the proper deployment sequence of a parachute system starts with: pilotchute launch, pilotchute inflation (pc bridle loaded), container opening, deployment bag extraction… Says who????? "Proper" is a pretty strong word, considering there are other systems out there that work "properly" each time and don't follow that sequence. (ie - pulls outs, static line deployment with pilot chute assist....) "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JerryBaumchen 1,047 #33 October 28, 2005 IMO, opinion only the parachute designer can determine the proper opening sequence. Everyone else are just spectators to the design. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rigging65 0 #34 October 28, 2005 Seems to me it has nothing to do with the Parachute maker...it would have more to do with the Harness and Container maker (as they're the ones who create the deployment system that is actually in question). With that said, Harness and Container makers in the past 15 (maybe 20?) years haven't come up with anything new. Everyone is using one of the standard deployment systems. Having been a Harness and Container manufacturer, and having gone through the TSO process, I can tell you that there really isn't much new out there right now. Some small things maybe, but it's still basically a container with flaps that holds a parachute in place, with some sort of a system designed to get that parachute into the air without it tangeling up. Stating that only a manufacturer can define something doesn't really make sense. The system, by nature, defines itself. If it's designed to do a job, in a specific order, and it does that job, in that order, then, by definition, it's "in sequence". It's doesn't make sense to state that a pull out system is an out of sequence deployment, unless you're comparing it to a throw out sequence...which is like comparing apples to oranges. They're both fruit, but that's about where it ends. Look at the engineering people! If it's designed to work a specific way, and it works that way, than it's "in" sequence! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JerryBaumchen 1,047 #35 October 29, 2005 Hi Rigging65, I meant the mfr of the parachute equipment; the term 'parachute' being used generically. And I've got 34 years in as an Engineer. I think we actually agree on this issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
ojibwe 0 #30 October 25, 2005 go with pullout pudMB 3864 Urantia Book and RUSH fan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CReWLL 0 #31 October 27, 2005 Well, modern rigs with pop-tops or similar designs do not open the flaps before the pc goes. I consider Racers and Javelins modern. Strong emergency rigs use an externally mounted pilotchute. People make a lot of compromises when deciding on gear. Very rarely do you need your reserve bag hesitated, but you need pretty gear on every jump. :-) Some of the things I say are opinion, some are facts, and some are wrong. Just because I'm wrong, doesn't mean I don't believe it. FYI, the proper deployment sequence of a parachute system starts with: pilotchute launch, pilotchute inflation (pc bridle loaded), container opening, deployment bag extraction… Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rigging65 0 #32 October 28, 2005 QuoteFYI, the proper deployment sequence of a parachute system starts with: pilotchute launch, pilotchute inflation (pc bridle loaded), container opening, deployment bag extraction… Says who????? "Proper" is a pretty strong word, considering there are other systems out there that work "properly" each time and don't follow that sequence. (ie - pulls outs, static line deployment with pilot chute assist....) "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,047 #33 October 28, 2005 IMO, opinion only the parachute designer can determine the proper opening sequence. Everyone else are just spectators to the design. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rigging65 0 #34 October 28, 2005 Seems to me it has nothing to do with the Parachute maker...it would have more to do with the Harness and Container maker (as they're the ones who create the deployment system that is actually in question). With that said, Harness and Container makers in the past 15 (maybe 20?) years haven't come up with anything new. Everyone is using one of the standard deployment systems. Having been a Harness and Container manufacturer, and having gone through the TSO process, I can tell you that there really isn't much new out there right now. Some small things maybe, but it's still basically a container with flaps that holds a parachute in place, with some sort of a system designed to get that parachute into the air without it tangeling up. Stating that only a manufacturer can define something doesn't really make sense. The system, by nature, defines itself. If it's designed to do a job, in a specific order, and it does that job, in that order, then, by definition, it's "in sequence". It's doesn't make sense to state that a pull out system is an out of sequence deployment, unless you're comparing it to a throw out sequence...which is like comparing apples to oranges. They're both fruit, but that's about where it ends. Look at the engineering people! If it's designed to work a specific way, and it works that way, than it's "in" sequence! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,047 #35 October 29, 2005 Hi Rigging65, I meant the mfr of the parachute equipment; the term 'parachute' being used generically. And I've got 34 years in as an Engineer. I think we actually agree on this issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
