Are you over your TSO (max suspended weight)

[everymansaved 0]

Like was said above, 135lb is the reccomended weight, not the TSO. I believe the MR is under TSO 23c which is 254lb.

*someone please correct me if I'm wrong*

God made firefighters so paramedics would have heroes...and someone can put out the trailer fires.

[skygod7777 0]

Quote

Professional and personal experience.

Assuming the same design of canopy, the smaller canopy has a smaller surface area, and thus imparts less of an initial "snatch" load.

i've had a few conversations with my buddy who works at aerodyne, dominic, and he said the same thing that a smaller reserve actually has a better chance of surviving a high speed opening due to the less material comparied to the same reserve that is larger....not to say a smaller reserve is better but....it is something that makes you think


later

[BlindBrick 0]

Quote

So far 15 people have admitted they are outside of the TSO on their gear. Of course none of them posted a comment, and identified themselves.

I'd like to ask those 15, how many of you are freeflyers? Or even freefly occasionally?

Part of the TSO is based on speed, and big guys freeflying will easily top those speeds, so not only are they overloading the gear, they are overspeeding it as well.

Even though I know it's not an apples to apples comaprison, it's surprising how many people think nothing about overloading their gear, however they will be up in arms if an aircraft is overlaoded or pushed beyond VNE.

Like Dave said, sometimes it isn't blatant disregard but rather a lack of options for big jumpers. A tthe time of my purchase, I went with the sport reserve that had the highest TSO weight at that time, still I overload my R-Max 288 by about 14% and while I don't freefly, I frequently see terminal belly speeds of 180+.

I'm under no illusion that I'm not living in the red zone, but I've chosen to assume that risk until something better comes along.

Anvilbrother, I wish you luck in persuading manufactuers to consider the bigger jumper. Economics is always the reason sighted, but in my experience a lot of manufactuers simply can't conceptualize heavy jumpers. In '06 I recieved a wingsuit that was too small just because the manufactuer could not believe a jumper that big would wingsuit. At last year's PIA symposium I had a talk with John Leblanc after his "Two paths" presentation. When I mentioned that PD didn't have hp canopies in sizes to support heavier jumpers on the high performance path he outlined, he pointed out the Silhouette and Spectre. When I pointed out that both of those canopies were components of PD's non-high performance path and that even those lines didn't have enough sizes to fully accomodate large jumpers, he simply reiterarted his point. He was earnest throughout our conversation, and it did not appear to me that he was simply trying to avoid the issue. Rather, it appeared to me that he simply couldn't comprehend truely large jumpers engaging in high performance activities

That's what needs changed. If you can change that mindset among manufactuers, then the unavoidable fact of the expanding waistlineof the "average" american will eventually force the economics issue.

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[billvon 2,921]

> What sport reserve do you know of that is tested and certified to 180mph,
>in a tumbling, non symmetrical loaded configuration?

Well, as you know, sport reserves ARE tested in a tumbling, non symmetrically loaded configuration - but generally at closer to 160mph.

[sd-slider 0]

I am ~295 @ the door and I jump a Triathlon 260 w/ a Super Raven 249-M (C-23d).

"Each canopy in the Raven Dash-M Series has its own Maximum Operating Weight Limit, and because it is certified under C-23d it is not limited to the 254 lb maximum imposed by the older standard."

According to the specs, the max weight on the reserve is #277....now what?

Anvil Brother #69

Sidelined with a 5mm C5-C6 herniated disk...
Back2Back slammers and 40yr old fat guys don't mix!

[Anvilbrother 0]

Yes I stated that in my first post that under 23d the mfg can set higher limits. What is your harness rated for? In any rigging system it is only strong as the weakest link. Your canopy could hold a certified 1000 lbs but if the harness can only hold 254 that is the limit. Your still over at 295 anyways.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[atsaubrey 0]

I for the first time am 100% comfortable in my gear. Harness/container has the b TSO and it states "limited only to the reserves maximum load" and my reserves has a 444lbs max limit on it. The main is 525lbs. My container is actually built heavier than a tandem. chad you know know what I am using and let me tell you a rig under 40lbs is so much nicer than the XX stuff.

"GOT LEAD?"

[Anvilbrother 0]

I understand yours was built custom for you. Was that a one time deal, or does the rig mfg offer that to anyone on an as needed basis?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[377 22]

Quote

>so not only are they overloading the gear, they are overspeeding it as well.

I would also add that a great many people use their gear far past its usual retirement age. MLW's with one or more broken yarns, risers with 2000 jumps on them, trim tape with broken stitching, legstrap hardware so worn that the webbing slips easily - combine those with an overspeed, overweight opening and things could get ugly.

Wouldn't most riggers refuse to put their seal on gear that has obvious safety issues (e.g. compromised MLW) ?

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[riggerrob 632]

Quote

Quote

>so not only are they overloading the gear, they are overspeeding it as well.

I would also add that a great many people use their gear far past its usual retirement age. MLW's with one or more broken yarns, risers with 2000 jumps on them, trim tape with broken stitching, legstrap hardware so worn that the webbing slips easily - combine those with an overspeed, overweight opening and things could get ugly.

Wouldn't most riggers refuse to put their seal on gear that has obvious safety issues (e.g. compromised MLW) ?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There is a pecking order among riggers.

In BC, I have reputation for being slow, expensive, arrogant and a narrow-minded, obsessive-compulsive control-freak. I am not the quickest nor cheapest and I refuse to compete for the bottom rung. People know better that to bring gutter gear into my loft.
But there is always another rigger - farther down the ladder - who is willing to repack equipment that I refuse to work on.
For example, last year I refused to repack a Javelin with a frayed MLW. Then I gave the owner some advice about sources for new gear and angles on how to get discounts. The next time I saw him, he was still jumping that ratty rig, because some other rigger is always willing to repack it.

[atsaubrey 0]

Chad, UPT will build that rig for anyone (as far as I know). Basically it is a SOV (special operations Vector) which is a V3 but the secondary riser covers and trulock toggles are not options on it. You would be hard pressed to tell the difference from looking at it. My recomendation is to ask them to retro fit the magnet covers though. My rigger used the magnets for the Sigma and it has worked wonderfully. If I remember correctly they only charged me $200 more than a V3. The Harness AND risers are heavier than a tandem, and it fits wonderfully. The only beef if you want to call it that is, the reserve container is for a 300ish (335 in mine so a tad snug) and the main container is designed for the Silloutte 360 (330 in mine tad loose). Other than that I LOVE it.

"GOT LEAD?"

[billvon 2,921]

>Wouldn't most riggers refuse to put their seal on gear that has obvious safety issues . . .

That depends on the the meaning of "obvious." Recently a rig went back to the manufacturer for inspection because a rigger here saw something they thought _might_ make the rig unairworthy. The manufacturer found several issues, any of which (they said) would have grounded the rig.

Did that mean that the previous riggers were negligent? I don't think so. Manufacturers are much more picky, and often believe they have to certify that the rig is basically as safe as a new one, and can be jumped thousands more times. So what is obvious to them may not be obvious to a rigger, or the local rigger may be taking the jumper's habits into account (i.e. "it's marginal but it's his second rig and I will see it again in 120 days.")

Also, sometimes not everything on a rig is inspected. Do most riggers disconnect the reserve, unfold the reserve riser ends and inspect the edges of the webbing there? Or inspect the internal edges by some other means? Not in my experience, although a broken yarn there could result in a rig being grounded. Indeed, you could make an argument that that is more likely to result in a problem (i.e. could cause problems in the area you are inspecting and/or increase the likelihood of a reserve continuity problem) than to avoid a problem, especially since it's not a high wear area.

But the manufacturer will probably look there.

As a final note, not all of those components are inspected as part of an I/R. The main risers, for example, are often removed before the rig is dropped off - but a broken/worn riser can cause serious problems during a premature main deployment.

All of which are good reasons for knowing how to inspect your own gear, and talking to your rigger about life limits and wear items that are nearing their end-of-life.