Racer speedbag

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Theoretically under the right circumstances, the pilot chute can strip the free bag off of the canopy leaving the canopy lying in the pack tray. I have never seen it happen and have only heard about it second and third hand. With a main D-bag this can’t happen because were the pilot chute goes so goes the main canopy.

Sparky

Okay. I understand what you are saying. Thank you for clarifying.

For Great Deals on Gear

[CReWLL 0]

The point of the free bag is to minimize the chance of a horseshoe mal, not prevent out of sequence deployments.

[koppel 3]

Quote

Nykolas "To Ligado" had lines break on his stilleto at Skydive DeLand. At right around 1000' he pulled his reserve and then released the streamering main. He was under his reserve (deployed from a speedbag in a PowerRacer) by 850'

Quote

It was probably one of the slowest speed situations for a cutaway and he had a typical Racer reserve deployment, very fast, very smooth and on heading.

I too have seen SpeedBags work properly and quickly as is mentioned in the post above. The point that I have been trying to make is that although they will work (and well) nearly all the time there is a potential for a bag lock that needs to be addressed by Jump Shack instead of them doing what Performance Variables did which was waiting for a fatality. Other than the friends and family of the person this will happen to (its a numbers game unfortunately, in all likelihood it will happen) I hope the rigger that it happens to is able to show that he did in fact pack correctly and is able to explain to people how it was that one of his packs baglocked and someone died.

I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

I too have seen SpeedBags work properly and quickly as is mentioned in the post above. The point that I have been trying to make is that although they will work (and well) nearly all the time there is a potential for a bag lock that needs to be addressed by Jump Shack instead of them doing what Performance Variables did which was waiting for a fatality. Other than the friends and family of the person this will happen to (its a numbers game unfortunately, in all likelihood it will happen) I hope the rigger that it happens to is able to show that he did in fact pack correctly and is able to explain to people how it was that one of his packs baglocked and someone died.

The following is my personal opinion only:

I am sick and tired of everyone that is taking the prejudicial cheap shots and playing the “family of the victim” card. And I am not talking just about this thread or post either.

In this thread you accuse the factory of ignoring the problem until something happens. You have no objective basis for this accusation. The factory has said that they were not able to duplicate the issue that was brought to their attention. That is not ignoring what was brought to them. Do you know what testing the factory did to determine this? Just because they did not do what YOU think they should have done does not mean that they were irresponsible in addressing the issue. The fact appears to be that there have been no failed deployments in thousands of jumps, only the perceived potential. Now for that word “potential”. There is not a single rig out there that given the right set of circumstance can have the potential to fail. The same can be said for cars, planes, boats etc. all of which you can and people have died in. And there are billions of dollars spent to prevent it in those industries.

Any reputable manufacture out there takes issues like this very seriously. By some of the responses here it is clear that the statements made have to be prejudice because if the posters had the slightest clue as to what testing is done they would never make such statements.

In the future I think that your time would be more productive, informative and educational if you were to ask questions rather than make accusations.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[bob.dino 0]

Quote

I am sick and tired of everyone that is taking the prejudicial cheap shots and playing the “family of the victim” card. And I am not talking just about this thread or post either.

Fair enough. It's a tactic that rarely moves the discussion forward.

Quote

if the posters had the slightest clue as to what testing is done they would never make such statements.

Quote

In the future I think that your time would be more productive, informative and educational if you were to ask questions rather than make accusations.

How about the questions Mike Owens posed three days ago that no-one has answered?

I believe that the reason this thread has degenerated to "prejudicial cheap shots" is the absence of hard data provided by JumpShack in response to the questions raised in this thread.


/just my opinion as a dis-interested observer.

[riggingplace 0]

well said Mike.

Mike Gainey
Master Rigger
DPRE

[teason 0]

*Sigh*

My last one too.

Mojo seemed to want to play stump the wizard when he posted his reference to the Aerospace standard,

It was in response to a comment that manufacturers used modified bags when testing canopies.

Because everyone views JS as a container manufacturer, they ignored the fact that is was a reference to testing canopies
not containers.

If there is a regulation rule law or anything else that states that canopy manufacturers must use a perticular bag design when testing canopies then please print it in it's entirety here.

I know of no rule that states that the testing of canopies requires a specific bag design molar or otherwise.

This is probably why JS didn't comment. The question was flawed. That's probably why they ain't posting anymore. They talk about other manufacturers testing canopies and some of their detractors jump on them like a fat kid on a smartie and use it to question how they test containers.

Ernokaikonan the OP figurered out right away and even mentioned in his post a couple of pages ago. I thought we'd moved on.


I'm out. I'm frustrated.

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Mojo seemed to want to play stump the wizard when he posted his reference to the Aerospace standard,

My reference to AS8015-B was asking how canopy manufactures get around the requirements of the standard. The same standard is applied to both canopies and container manufactured under TSO-C23c and d. Anyone manufacturing under a TSO is familiar with the document.

Quote

If there is a regulation rule law or anything else that states that canopy manufacturers must use a perticular bag design when testing canopies then please print it in it's entirety here.

It is called a TSO. This is the first paragraph of TSO-C23d.

(1) Minimum Performance Standards. This technical standard order (TSO) prescribes the minimum performance standard that personnel parachute assemblies must meet in order to be identified with the applicable TSO marking. New models of personnel parachute assemblies that are to be so identified and that are manufactured on or after the date of this TSO must meet the standards set forth in Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE) Aerospace Standard (AS) Document No. AS 8015B, “Minimum Performance Standards for Parachute Assemblies and Components, Personnel,” dated July 7, 1992.

AS8015-B states:

2.1.2 SINGLE HARNESS RESERVE PARACHUTE ASSEMBLY: A certificated parachute assembly (including the reserve deployment initiation device, deployment control device, canopy, risers, stowage container, harness, and actuation device) that is worn in conjunction with a main parachute assembly used for premeditated jumps.

4.3.4 Strength Test: No material(s) or device(s) that attenuates shock loads and is not an integral part of the parachute assembly or component being certificated may be used. Tests may be conducted for either a complete parachute assembly or separate components. There shall be no evidence of material, stitch, or functional failure that will affect airworthiness. The same canopy, harness, component, and/or riser(s) shall be used for all 4.3.4 tests. Opening forces shall be measured on all 4.3.4 tests. The parachute must be functionally open within the number of seconds calculated for 4.3.6 tests. Parachute assemblies shall be tested in accordance with the following schedule:

4.3.4.2 Canopy to be Used With a Single or a Dual Harness Reserve Parachute Assembly (Alternate Test for 4.3.4.1): Three drops shall be made with a suspended weight and speed in accordance with 4.3.4. A test vehicle (e.g., a bomb) may be used. The canopy, deployment device (if used), a pilot chute (if used), and riser(s) (if used) shall be tested as a unit. The riser(s), or equivalent, shall be secured to the test vehicle in the same manner that it is intended to attach to the harness. Where easily detachable hardware (such as snap and ring) is intended to attach the canopy or riser(s) to the harness, one of the above drops shall be made with only one attachment engaged to test the cross connector and hardware.

I am not trying to play "stump the wizard", I am not a jerk and I am not mentally unarmed. I am simply trying to get answers to some questions. If there is a way to bypass the requirements of the TSO, I think it would be knowledge worth knowing.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Sparky,

Give me a call (503-481-4714) and I'll give you my thoughts.

This would make a good agenda item for Reno in Jan '07.

[Treejumps 0]

Quote

You have no objective basis for this accusation.

Seeing a 75# weight hanging from a rubber band locked bag is fairly objective.

The factory has said that they were not able to duplicate the issue that was brought to their attention.

Perhaps they should look at the picture posted above. FYI that pic was taken in the loft of a very highly regarded master rigger/DPRE.

Quote

The fact appears to be that there have been no failed deployments in thousands of jumps, only the perceived potential.

You seen to feel that there have been 1000's of field reserve deployments that have occurred on a speed bag. I suggest to you its no where near 1000, and probably only a few hundred. THe speedbag has only been on the market for roughly (correct me if I'm off) 3 years. Does JS even make 500 rigs per year? 1000? Even on the high side that is 3000 rigs with the speed bag, and I seriously doubt one in three have had reserve rides in a 3 year period. Even if I'm off a bit in my calculations, the speedbag has relatively few field deployements compared to a safetystow/pouch system.

Now for that word “potential”.

Potential is what this entire discussion is about. a bag with 10 locking stows has 10X the opportunity to lock than a safetystow bag. Thats the end of the discussion for a lot of people because in skydiving, anything that can, will eventually happen. Eliminating possibilities is one of the only effective ways to reduce risk, and that is why the industry quit using rubber band closed reserve bags 20+ years ago.

I really just don't see any benefit (unless there is a rash of bag stripped reserves blowing up I haven't heard about) and the added risks are obvious.

[MikeForsythe 0]

The following is my personal opinion only:

The 75lb. experiment was just that and not a representation of an actual deployment, not to mention that I would never even remotely use that as a responsible test less lone publicly post it. The only thing that experiment objectively showed is that if you hang a bag that it is possible to hold a piece of pipe and weight. I have never jumped with that configuration in my rig, have you? I have always put a functional reserve in myself. And where a picture was taken is irrelevant.

Now I would consider a reasonable test would be to video actual openings and analyze them, or for ground testing, hang the rig off of a tower and pull the free bag out to full extension at the same rate as an actual deployment, that would be a repeatable objective test. I would also do comparative load cell pull testing. Have you done any of this type testing to objectively dispute the factory? Because until you do any post that you make like the ones here would never be taken seriously by the experts in the industry that do this for a living.

If you had read the previous post you would know that the same speed bag is used for main deployments also, so to say that there have been thousands of actual deployments could be very realistic.

Just because you don’t see a benefit does not mean that there isn’t one. As previously stated JS is not the only manufacture using a version of a speed bag with rubber bands. Your statement “the added risks are obvious” is nothing more than unproven perceived speculation since there have been no failed deployments. You have also not posted any industry acceptable test data that you have done to support your subjective statements. Do you have any?

If you are interested in learning how factory testing is done, feel free to contact me anytime you are in DeLand and I would be happy to give you a tour and show you how some of the test are done and documented.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[hookitt 0]

Quote

As previously stated JS is not the only manufacture using a version of a speed bag with rubber bands.

After hearing this several times, I'm finally curious enough to ask. Which manufacturers and for what application?

Thanks

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[MikeForsythe 0]

PM sent.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[darnknit 0]

Quote

The following is my personal opinion only:

The 75lb. experiment was just that and not a representation of an actual deployment,

i'll agree with that. here is my personal opinion, that experiment shows a snagpoint that can easily be removed with a minor change in design. it is also my opinion that the particular snagpoint is potentially lethal. not likely, but definitely possible.

pulling is cool. keep it in the skin

[pilotdave 0]

Video: http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=3508

Dave

[Treejumps 0]

Mike,

Just because you will not acknowledge the added risk does not mean that it is not there. You do a good job avoinding the real issue, which isn't factory testing or whether I have done testing. The real issue is that a speedbag has 10X the lock potential of a safetystow bag. No testing needed to make that observation. Its simply numbers. If it can happen it will, sooner or later.

Neither you or I have posted industry acceptable test data, but since you have brought up the topic of test data, were is JS's to support the claims they (you) make about this design. Assuming I know nothing about gear, there is no shortage of jumpers who question the speedbag's design or the problem it supposedly solves. Where is all of the data that demonstrates JS's claim that without the speedbag we safety-stow jumpers are in jeopardy? Surely if they would demand a waiver just to purchase a replacement safetystow bag they must have some really convincing data to make such claims. Were is that data, Mike?

When I start re-inventing proven designs for gear I'll post that data, otherwise, I would be the one be making wild unsubstantiated claims.

[RMURRAY 1]

Quote

And if this were true about reserve bag dumps being such a problem, would RWS hav found evidence of this in their testing of the skyhook rsl system? I mean a fully inflated main canopy spinning at a high rate of speed is going to pull more force on a freebag than a p/c in the relative wind, right?

the evidence will be on video. manufacturers do not need to share this evidence. I don't know but I would think that the acceleration the bag experiences when dumping the reserve at 180 mph would be higher than a spinning mal cut away....

rm

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

Just because you will not acknowledge the added risk does not mean that it is not there. You do a good job avoinding the real issue, which isn't factory testing or whether I have done testing. The real issue is that a speedbag has 10X the lock potential of a safetystow bag. No testing needed to make that observation. Its simply numbers. If it can happen it will, sooner or later.

Again your statements are prejudice and invalid. You say that there is a 10X greater chance of bag lock, my question to you again is what test did you do to prove it? The information that you are failing to consider is that as a result of the breaking strength of a stow band where the bag lock can stay that way, rubber bands fail and allow the bag to open because the pilot chute has four times the pulling force of the failure point of the rubber bands. Have you ever taken a speed bag locked all of the stows and deployed it and seen what happens, they break, every last one on every test that was done. So again, what test did you do to dispute that? So your statement “No testing needed to make that observation” is incomplete and flawed.

Quote

Neither you or I have posted industry acceptable test data, but since you have brought up the topic of test data, were is JS's to support the claims they (you) make about this design. Assuming I know nothing about gear, there is no shortage of jumpers who question the speedbag's design or the problem it supposedly solves. Where is all of the data that demonstrates JS's claim that without the speedbag we safety-stow jumpers are in jeopardy? Surely if they would demand a waiver just to purchase a replacement safetystow bag they must have some really convincing data to make such claims. Were is that data, Mike?

You would have to ask JS that question. As far as posting data, none of the manufactures generally release data with the exception of to the military and FAA of course. Ever heard of the term proprietary information? And at least I post industry acceptable test that I would do, you on the other hand have offered none. So what test would you recommend?

Quote

When I start re-inventing proven designs for gear I'll post that data, otherwise, I would be the one be making wild unsubstantiated claims.

Wow, so much for things like the skyhook, HMA lines etc. being substantiated then. Guess all of the major manufactures need to hire you as a consultant since they are not doing that?

My offer stands, if you are interested in learning how factory testing is done, feel free to contact me anytime you are in DeLand and I would be happy to give you a tour and show you how some of the test are done and documented.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[Treejumps 0]

Quote

You say that there is a 10X greater chance of bag lock, my question to you again is what test did you do to prove it?

One locking stow vs 10 locking stows. 1 times 10 = 10. Simple enough math. If there is no locking stow, would you agree that there would be zero percent chance of a baglock? If no locking stow is zero percent chance, then for each additional locking stow there is an increased chance of bag lock. No testing will ever disprove that fact.

The information that you are failing to consider is that as a result of the breaking strength of a stow band where the bag lock can stay that way, rubber bands fail and allow the bag to open because the pilot chute has four times the pulling force of the failure point of the rubber bands.

If that always happens then why do people experience bag locks on main bags? Are you saying that nobody ever has baglocks? Yes, even with rubber bands people have baglocks.

If a rubberband knot is locking a bag shut, then the force pulling on the band is distributed on both sides of the knot, doubling the breaking force.

*** Wow, so much for things like the skyhook, HMA lines etc. being substantiated then. Guess all of the major manufactures need to hire you as a consultant since they are not doing that?

I'm not sure what you are saying here Mike. You suugested that I post data of whatever tests I had done. I suggested to you that it isn't I who needs to prove anything, as I am not trying to convince skydivers that I came up with a new reserve bag design that is safer than existing designs, claiming that same existing designs is unsafe, and that everyone should take my word for it because my tests, performed solely by me prove I'm right.

If JS had anything to really back this up there would be proof (data, videos, something). So far all there is are just unsubstantiated claims. Where are the side by side test videos of a high speed deployment where the safety stow results in a bag strip and the speedbag saves the day? Do they exist? Other than the 2 incidents listed which don't even mention a bag strip, there is nothing that suggests that the saftey stow is anything but reliable.

JS, and you, are basically asserting that safety stows are unsafe and that the speedbag solves the shortcoming. To date this assertion is completley gratuitous. When you can prove that, and I seriously doubt it can be, I look forward to hearing from you.

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

If that always happens then why do people experience bag locks on main bags? Are you saying that nobody ever has baglocks? Yes, even with rubber bands people have baglocks. If a rubberband knot is locking a bag shut, then the force pulling on the band is distributed on both sides of the knot, doubling the breaking force.

This has already been answered above.

Quote

I'm not sure what you are saying here Mike. You suugested that I post data of whatever tests I had done. I suggested to you that it isn't I who needs to prove anything, as I am not trying to convince skydivers that I came up with a new reserve bag design that is safer than existing designs, claiming that same existing designs is unsafe, and that everyone should take my word for it because my tests, performed solely by me prove I'm right.

I think that you are confused because you are the one who is trying is disprove something in the face of thousands of successful jumps not to mention other similar designs that have reams of data and military testing to support why even the military uses a similar system. And yes you are the one who has consistently fought the validity of the product with nothing more than a subjective prejudice unsupported opinion.

So that you understand where I am coming from the issue I have is not if the product is flawed or not rather people like you bashing something just because of what you think not what you can prove. If you came back and said hey I did this test that you suggested or I called a manufacture and they suggested this test and this was the result then you would be speaking from an informed, intelligent position. Instead you have taken the sophomoric position that “I don’t have to prove anything”.

Quote

If JS had anything to really back this up there would be proof (data, videos, something). So far all there is are just unsubstantiated claims.

Thousands of successful jumps is not unsubstantiated.

Quote

Where are the side by side test videos of a high speed deployment where the safety stow results in a bag strip and the speedbag saves the day? Do they exist? Other than the 2 incidents listed which don't even mention a bag strip, there is nothing that suggests that the saftey stow is anything but reliable.

Again, you would have to ask JS that and I think that they are valid questions.

Quote

JS, and you, are basically asserting that safety stows are unsafe and that the speedbag solves the shortcoming. To date this assertion is completley gratuitous. When you can prove that, and I seriously doubt it can be, I look forward to hearing from you.

I am not saying that, JS is. I have pointed out the benefits and flaws of both systems that I am aware of from personal use and industry testing that I have been involved in.

My offer stands, if you are interested in learning how factory testing is done, feel free to contact me anytime you are in DeLand and I would be happy to give you a tour and show you how some of the test are done and documented.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[darnknit 0]

Quote

My offer stands, if you are interested in learning how factory testing is done, feel free to contact me anytime you are in DeLand and I would be happy to give you a tour and show you how some of the test are done and documented.

i for one appreciate your gracious offer Mike and will definitely take you up on it next time i am in Deland. i will definitely have questions for you on how to identify potential snag points on any given design, and what is done before and during testing to identify any potential snag points. if you are ever near Skydive Crosskeys, please come visit us, i will be happy to show you what i believe is a potentially lethal problem in at least one design of reserve deployment devices, and how i discovered it.

blue stuff,
p.j.

pulling is cool. keep it in the skin

[teason 0]

Ok, let's say that I am a canopy manufacturer and I decide to do test jumps with this TSO thing that you have implied that I have no knowledge of.

As a canopy manufacturer I must meet the TSO to sell a reserve in the US.
I decide to do my drop tests.

Where is it written that I must use a specific deployment bag for my test
Do I use a Javelin freebag and PC? A Wings Freebag andPC? A Talon Freebag and PC? A RWS Freebag and PC?

All these bags and designs are different. Some Reserve PC use different springs, some don't even have mesh.
All these freebags are different, some are true molars, some aren't, the designs are different.

I shall repeat the question so there is no confusion.



Where is the bag required for testing outlined? Where is it written that a specific design must be used. Where does it say that a bungee freestoe must be used.

If the TSO does not give a specific requirement (and nothing in your previous post proves there is one) then the bag used in the test is up to the canopy manufacturer.

Once again I feel the need to remind you that this is based on Canopy manufacturers obtaining TSO That is what the origional comment was about. Container manufacturers were not being refered to in the origional post.
I say that because even though you quoted my question about
Canopy Manufacturers, you still posted reg that pertain to the testing of container deployment devices.

Did you miss my question about canopy testing
Did I miss something about Canopy testing in your post?

If so, once again, what is the specific design that must be used by a canopy manufacturer when testing their canopies to obtain a canopy TSO?

And don't ramble on or answer my question with anything relating to a container TSO. That' is not what I'm asking.

Clear?

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[teason 0]

Your position on a new freebag design could easily have been a position cutaway design.

"The three ring fixes a problem that doesn't exist!"
"Capewells have been proven over time on thousands of jumps"
"Three ring can jam, deform, side load, guillatene etc...."

Or perhaps the throw out.
"Spring loaded pilotcute have been proven over thousands of jumps"
"Handles can get stuffed in pockets, bridles can get snagged"

Or how about collapsable pilotchutes.
"Non collapsable have worked thousands of times"
"you can forget to cock your pilot chute and have a pilotchute in toe!"

Maybe we can move onto spectra
"nothing wrong with Dacron, hey Nylon type II has been used for years!"

What the hell, lets talk about rounds.
"I've done thousands of jumps on round and never broken an ankle"
"You can't hook a t-10 into the ground!"

I can use your arguements to oppose every single advancement in sport skydiving. That's the sniff test I do to see if your side hold weight.
It doesn't.

Just because you think the design is a problem doesn't mean it's a problem.

People love to put down what they don't understand. That's the cornerstone of prejudice.


I really tried to stop, Sid, I really did. Honest

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[mjosparky 3]

First of all you need to knock the chip off and quit talking to people like you are some kind of superior being that is doing them a favor responding. While you no doubt have a fair amount of knowledge about rigging, you are not the final word. None of us are. The written material we are discussing is vague and poorly written at best and leaves much to be desired.

Quote

Where is it written that I must use a specific deployment bag for my test

4.3.4.2 Canopy to be Used With a Single or a Dual Harness Reserve Parachute Assembly (Alternate Test for 4.3.4.1): Three drops shall be made with a suspended weight and speed in accordance with 4.3.4. A test vehicle (e.g., a bomb) may be used. The canopy, deployment device (if used), a pilot chute (if used), and riser(s) (if used) shall be tested as a unit. The riser(s), or equivalent, shall be secured to the test vehicle in the same manner that it is intended to attach to the harness. Where easily detachable hardware (such as snap and ring) is intended to attach the canopy or riser(s) to the harness, one of the above drops shall be made with only one attachment engaged to test the cross connector and hardware.

Now this can and has been interpreted in different ways. But I have never known the manufacture of a ram-air reserve canopy to certify a canopy with using a deployment device, d-bag, of some type. And I read this to mean that if a d-bag is used to test it will be included with the canopy and certified as a unit.

Quote

If so, once again, what is the specific design that must be used by a canopy manufacturer when testing their canopies to obtain a canopy TSO?

It is the up to the canopy manufacture to determine what type of pilot chute, deployment device, and containers and so on that will work with their canopy.

5. COMPONENT QUALIFICATIONS:

5.1 Parachutes may be qualified as complete assemblies or as separate components (such as a canopy, a stowage container [pack], and/or a riser). The airworthiness of a parachute assembly, including other separately approved nonoriginal components, is the responsibility of the manufacturer who performs the certificating tests for the parachute assembly. The manufacturer shall publish and make available a list of interchangeable components which have passed the following tests in 4.3 when tested in conjunction with the assembly or component(s) being certificated.

Quote

Did I miss something about Canopy testing in your post?

Yes, you did miss something about Canopy testing. But it was not in my post, it was it the written requirements to obtain a TSO.

Quote

I say that because even though you quoted my question about
Canopy Manufacturers, you still posted reg that pertain to the testing of container deployment devices.***

Those regulations pertain to the following:

1.1 Types:
1.1.1 Single harness reserve parachute assembly (and components thereof).
1.1.2 Emergency parachute assembly (and components thereof).
1.1.3 Dual harness reserve parachute assembly (and components thereof).
1.2 Maximum Operating Limits, General:

An “approved canopy” is a major component of a "parachute assembly". And when certifying any canopy the manufacture is subject to the same "MINIMUM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS" as is a container manufacture.

I do not believe my response was rambling or that difficult to understand.

The reason I raise these questions is because, in my opinion, some the standards that the manufactures are forced to work under need to be redone as to language and intent.

CLEAR?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[ernokaikkonen 0]

Quote

Where is the bag required for testing outlined? Where is it written that a specific design must be used. Where does it say that a bungee freestoe must be used.

If the TSO does not give a specific requirement (and nothing in your previous post proves there is one) then the bag used in the test is up to the canopy manufacturer.

It has been said that canopy manufacturers use a special bag to test their reserves, because a regular bag with a safety stow would cause the canopies to blow up during the high speed, high weight testing.

Regardless of what the standard says about testing canopies(which is what you're arguing about):

Since the same TSO and same test procedures apply to testing harness-containers, what special canopy are the h/c manufacturers using to keep canopies from blowing up during the testing of their safety stow freebags?

If the h/c manufacturers are able to test their systems with regular safety stow bags, why wouldn't the canopy manufacturers be able to do the same?

If you're just trying to figure out how the testing standard should be interpreted... well, that'll take a while.