20 year old reserve

[irishrigger 31]

i like to thank you all for your opinions on this.everyone has expresses some very valid points on both sides.both sides have argued there viewpoints very clearly.both if this was a jury the decision would have been a hung verdict,no clear winner for either side.
here in ireland,we have nothing in our ops manual regarding this.and thats why i made the post here.there is some excellent advice on this site.
i have fully inspected the canopy in question,the material appears in very good condition,as do the lines and the trim of them,stiching etc etc.
i always ask myself this question,would i be happy to jump this reserve myself?
the answer is yes,i am 100% satisfied that the canopy is safe and airworthy.
saying that,i would like the manufacture to inspect and recertify a canopy after 20 years.just to make sure ones backside is covered legally 100%.
on official from our governing body,could not believe that we would use a 16 yearold reserve!!! i explained to him that the canopy was never out and gets inspected every 6 months regardless.he thought it would have been outdated,so i asked him how he then could give an C+A to an aircrafts that is 16 years old? and if he grounded planes older than 16yrs old,most of our planes in the country would be grounded. he was a bit taken aback by that comment! but said thats a good point!!!
so i have decided to repack the reserve,one more time to get the jumper over the summer,and i have informed the owner of this,and i also talked to him about getting a new reserve which he will do.
so thanks all again,it has been real interesting to read your view points.
just goes to show what a good forum this is,and how very helpful people are in our sport,!(well most of the time anyway
cherrio
rodger

[riggerrob 558]

The biggest limitation - on reserves more than 20 years old - is that they should not be loaded more than one pound per square foot.
Remember that no one was loading mains more than 1:1 back in the 1980s.

For example, a medium-sized (160 pounds) friend recently stalled a Micro Raven 120 while flaring for landing. He broke multiple bones in his arms, legs and spine.

[faulknerwn 36]

I'm surprised how so many people still don't know that about MicroRavens.. I informed someone of that recently who was about 160 and had a 120 reserve that he really didn't want to jump it.

I weigh 135 and just have gotten accustomed to coming in with speed in order to land it. But it still surprises me - last time I used one I tried hanging out in deep brakes to circle around and watch where my main and freebag were going to land - I must have accidently stalled the thing 5-6 times while circling. It definitely was a good reminder to be careful on landing!

[riggerrob 558]

Wow!
This is so old, it is not mentioned by Poynter in his second volume!
I vaguely remember main the test program based on "Lissaman Flyers." The Canadian - and World Champion 4-way team got a bunch of those tiny (about 150 square foot) 5-cells, to jump as mains.
"Lissaman" referred to the airfoil section.
IIRC Para-Flite's first square reserve was the 5-cell Safety-Flyer, introduced in the late 1970s.
Their second square reserve was the Safety Star, a reserve version of their 180 square foot, 5-cell, Strato-Star main canopy. I made hundreds of jumps on my Strato-Star main, but never saw the reserve version. I guess they never sold very many Safety-Stars???
Para-Flite's third reserve was a big success! The 180 square foot, 5-cell Swift reserve was introduced in 1981.
In 1982, they introduced the 231 square foot, 5,cell Cirrus reserve.
That was replaced by the 215 square foot, 7-cell Orion reserve in 1989.
The Swift Plus series of reserves were introduced in 1991. Swift Pluses were sold in 145, 177 and 215 (?) square foot versions. They were the first Para-Flite reserves with "normal" steering lines and Spectra suspension lines.
Para-Flite quit building skydiving gear in the late 1990s.

[RIGGER 0]

You said the owner is 240 lb., how come you packed that reserve for a 240 lb. skydiver ?

If he is 240 lb. without rig - he is over the TSO legal limit wearing all skydiving gear.

Let him pass the summer with a safe reserve for him - this one is NOT SAFE for him.

Cheers

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

If he is 240 lb. without rig - he is over the TSO legal limit wearing all skydiving gear.

TSO may not apply in Ireland.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggerrob 558]

Funny, I thought the European Economic Community adopted FAA TSOs a few years back. I have seen skydiving gear labelled JTSO or JAA TSO.

[hackish 8]

Quote

> My main has had more packjobs in the last year than a 20 year
>old reserve would yet it is perfectly airworthy.

Except that:

It wasn't designed over 20 years ago, before advances in fabrics/coatings/finishing processes.

It isn't your last chance.

It's probably made of ZP, which is a very different fabric.

It hasn't been exposed to a skydiving environment (dirt, pressure changes, condensation, oxygen and ozone) for 20 years.

It doesn't have to be packed by someone who is certifying its safety both to you and to the FAA.

The argument "well, if I am willing to jump a main with 1000 jumps on it, and 500 jumps on the lineset, I should be able to jump a 20 year old reserve!" isn't really a good one. They are two very different scenarios.

When you remove the next sentences of what I wrote you take it completely out of context. The point was that the number of reserve packjobs accumulated through 20 years of repacks is not likely to cause a canopy to become unairworthy.

-Michael

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

When you remove the next sentences of what I wrote you take it completely out of context. The point was that the number of reserve packjobs accumulated through 20 years of repacks is not likely to cause a canopy to become unairworthy.

-Michael

If we define airworthiness as meeting the TSO standards with respect to maximum suspended weight + deployment speed (you may have a head-down Cypres fire or premature opening exiting a fast plane flying at 18,000+ feet MSL), time to deploy (you might cutaway at 600'), and maximum descent rate (you might land while incapacitated and unable to flare). I would not be too surprised if the 60 repacks which go with 20 years use are enough to render a reserve unairworthy.

I'd definitely want testing if the rig in question had been used as opposed to just sitting in the closet (in which case I'd jump it once for grins after 40 years).

The materials are also less tolerant of wear than mains (People have reported Excaliburs loaded closer to contemporary standards being done at the 300 jump mark), and a _LOT_ more fabric manipulation occurs when packing reserves than mains. I take 45 minutes with a reserve pack job versus 6 for a main and like eight clamps on the fabric versus zero.

While no one commented on whether the canopies would meet the original TSO standards, it's been studied a few times.

The Belgian army found that after 30 repacks 0-5 CFM fabric porosity increased to as much as 18 CFM in the center cell, a third of their canopies had reached 9 CFM, and none were under 5.

Precision found 4-12X increases in porosity handling parachute fabric as in a repack just 16 times.

PD found "noticeable" increases in time+distance to open and difficulty in getting landing on reserves repacked just 10 and 14 times with one deployment each.

This also disregards the relatively recent addition of span-wise reinforcing tapes. I would not buy a reserve for general skydiving use without them.

I watched one guy spin-in under an older design split into 2 & 5 cell pieces connected only at the trailing edge. I'm aware of another which failed fatally.

[hackish 8]

All very good points. I'm waiting to build a little more experience but I'm hoping to jump a PC mk2 this year. That main and reserve are both well over the 20 year mark. I think Jim Wilson regularly jumps vintage gear without ill effects.

Are the "The materials are also less tolerant of wear than mains"? I don't really know. Do they use different reinforcing tape? Different nylon? Maybe different thread or stitching? From a production standpoint I see this as being highly unlikely as the cost savings is likely to be overshadowed by the stocking problems and losses. What of the main/reserves that are interchangeable? Certainly the lifetime UV exposure is much much lower. Yes I know the reserves are usually F-111 but how about ye olde student canopies? They too are F-111.

I am aware that a reserve pack puts a lot of wear on the canopy but so too does an opening. If PD says that it takes noticeably longer to open after 10-14 packs does that mean we should all replace our reserves every 5 years?

"I watched one guy spin-in under an older design split into 2 & 5 cell pieces connected only at the trailing edge. I'm aware of another which failed fatally. A 20 year old reserve is not the best idea. "

In your two examples was it the age of the canopy that led to the fatality or were there other factors? I need a scientific not an emotional argument. I've heard of slammers that split brand new mains in two but that doesn't mean brand new mains are unsafe.

As I said in earlier posts make sure the design was shown to be historically reliable and that the structure of it is intact.

-Michael

[airtwardo 6]

I'm waiting to build a little more experience but I'm hoping to jump a PC mk2 this year.

Quote

Thus marking the exact point in time, that this sport has gone full circle!






(ain't there a rule about having 200 jumps on a square before you can jump a round?!?)

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I'm waiting to build a little more experience but I'm hoping to jump a PC mk2 this year

I made a PC jump. It was made in 1967. Hopped and popped right out of the Cessna for a low opening speed.

Quote

Are the "Thematerials are also less tolerant of wear than mains"? I don't really know.

It's a ZP vs. F111 issue. Porosity affects opening time (covered by the TSO) and descent rate (also covered by the TSO). People used to use coffee cans as templates to cut holes in their sliders with hot knifes to get quicker openings when the slow downs scared them. If you chop after some muppet flies through your canopy at 800' (this is a _great_ convention video somewhere between 1998 and 2000) you aren't going to have a coffee can sized hole (unless you're jumping a PD) and will be wanting a fresh parachute ASAP.

There are 1200 jumps on my Stiletto 120; 600 from me and 600 from its original owner. You can't blow air through it and it flares like new when in trim. PD's cross-braced F111 Excalibur was allegedly too porous to land in 300 jumps even with lower than modern wing loadings.

Quote

What of the main/reserves that are interchangeable? Certainly the lifetime UV exposure is much much lower. Yes I know the reserves are usually F-111 but how about ye olde student canopies? They too are F-111.

Reserves and mains operate to different performance standards. An F111 main needs to open reliably within 1200 feet (3000 foot pack opening to 1800 foot USPA cutaway decision altitude). Reserves have 3 seconds following a cutaway. Mains must survive 100 knot openings. Older reserves are certified to 135 knots (1.8X the energy) and newer ones 150 knots (2.25X). Mains shouldn't break anything if you land perfectly (after one girl sprained her ankle under ragged out Raven-2 on a hot summer day at 5000 feet MSL I insisted she borrow a spare parachute). The reserve TSO specifies maximum decent rates and forward speeds with the brakes stowed so uncontrolled landings with an incapacitated user are survivable. It's a separate issue but F111 mains are generally accepted up to 1 pound per square foot wing loadings (I think about .7 is ideal); while silly people try 2 pounds per square foot under F111 reserves (even as a member of the small main, big reserve crowd I think 1.4 works pretty well with sufficient experience). This also ignores that the main failing 1 in 500 times is fine with a backup while the reserve is your last chance.

It's entirely reasonable that a canopy can be airworthy as a main but not as a reserve.

Quote

I am aware that a reserve pack puts a lot of wear on the canopy but so too does an opening. If PD says that it takes noticeably longer to open after 10-14 packs does that mean we should all replace our reserves every 5 years?

They don't quantify enough but do want them back for inspection every 13 years. Remember, it's both strength AND opening/landing speeds with some wiggle room in the TSO (is it when new... or after repacked 40 times?)

Quote

"I watched one guy spin-in under an older design split into 2 & 5 cell pieces connected only at the trailing edge. I'm aware of another which failed fatally. A 20 year old reserve is not the best idea. "

In your two examples was it the age of the canopy that led to the fatality or were there other factors? I need a scientific not an emotional argument. I've heard of slammers that split brand new mains in two but that doesn't mean brand new mains are unsafe.

It's the design which was common at the time. The reserves which failed did not have span-wise reinforcing tapes across the A, B, C, and D line attachment points. The one which spun in in two pieces had a single tape at the tail. I think they would have survived (or perhaps had a blown up cell which is much more landable) with the modern construction techniques.

Precision didn't add span-wise tapes until they got to the R-max series (-M had span-wise bottom skins where the seams may be better than nothing). PISA didn't add span-wise tapes to its Tempo until 2001. Square reserves started as mains with formal certification as "reserves" and mains didn't get span-wise tapes until we found they made for less wing distortion on high performance ellipticals (even my 1994 Stiletto lacks them).

Quote

As I said in earlier posts make sure the design was shown to be historically reliable and that the structure of it is intact.

Historically, we used to limit freefall speeds to about 120 MPH so high speed premature deployments weren't an issue. If you got knocked out in freefall and didn't wake up you died while now you might have an unconscious head-down Cypres fire (that's what broke the 2&5 cell reserve).

If you're doing hop-and-pops or wing suit jumps an old reserve is more likely to be fine. I have an old Raven 3 in my big rig which never sees over 120 MPH air speed, has no Cypres to save me if I get knocked out or do something stupid, and rarely gets used over 5000 feet AGL so a hard premature deployment from high altitude is real unlikely.

If you're freeflying where some muppet might snag your reserve handle like most new jumpers or have a Cypres that might save you while you're falling fast (people think they'll be knocked out when this happens, but you might just be having too much fun. Check out the Frankie video from the ranch.) you want to look at newer designs. That means a PD or something made this millenium.