MC1-1C

[ripcord4 0]

I have a MC1-1C canopy that has not had the MWO for Modification of the Steering Orifice done to it. Can any of our military/FAA people here tell me if this canopy is considered airworthy or not because the MWO hasn't been completed?

[adamadam 0]

Letter of the Law answer...

According to the MWO if the fix was not applied by January 21 93 the equipment is listed as Not Mission Capable. So this canopy would not be considered airworthy.

Realistic answer...

I don't have the experience with the canopy flow-through issue with the canopy, but I would assume by the wording that during deployment the potential exists for the canopy to invert through a steering orifice that could result in a total malfunction due to non inflation. Units were given 6 months to comply with the MWO and I didn't see anything saying they were grounded during that time (but don't quote me on it). While it looks like a low chance of it happening the result could be catastrophic.

I would recommend taking the MWO instructions http://www.metatag.de/webs/dfv/downloads/Army-Mod.MC1-1C_PARACHUTE.pdfto a local rigger (Master required?) and have it done. If they have the materials then it should only take about an hour of labor.

Good Luck,
Adam

[mark 102]

Quote

According to the MWO if the fix was not applied by January 21 93 the equipment is listed as Not Mission Capable. So this canopy would not be considered airworthy.

Almost, but not quite.

There are no airworthiness standards for sport main parachutes. Parachutes removed from military service for whatever reason may still be serviceable as sport mains. For example, T-10s modified by cutting holes in the canopy and removing the anti-inversion net would not be airworthy by military standards, but have been and still are used as civilian mains.

You might want to apply the MWO as an improvement to safety, but no FAR requires it.

Mark

[adamadam 0]

Quote

There are no airworthiness standards for sport main parachutes. Parachutes removed from military service for whatever reason may still be serviceable as sport mains.

Mark,

This is a good point. What I meant in the first part of my answer was that the Military would not consider this "airworthy" as that is how I read the intent of the question. My "letter of the law" was applicable to Military use only.

I agree that there is nothing stopping the OP from jumping this in any legal or even functional sense. As long as the risks are known, it's his main.

I think we both agree that it is fine to jump the canopy, but recommend the MWO be applied as an added safety.

Now that I look up ripcord4's profile and see what his usual rig is, I'm not too concerned.

-Adam

[ripcord4 0]

Thanks, all. I did not think there was any restriction, legal or otherwise, about jumping this canopy. I am aware of the potential problem of flow-through and I am prepared for it, although I don't believe it is a common mal. Does anyone have any data on occurences in the military s/l jumping of this happening? How often, etc? I have heard via the grape-vine one death resulted but have no idea of the total number of mals of this type with this canopy. And, by the way, I do intend to have the webbing installed when I find a rigger that will do it. Most want nothing to do with rounds!

[kenneth21441 0]

The modification is really easy to do. Our section did over 1500 in a month. Its just a simple upside down T basically zig zaged on the long modification. What was going on during deployment the long gore whould get sucked in and out so fast that it actually caused the radial seams stiching to break........ we tried sliders and packing differtly but the big boys at the labs came up with this mod.

Hope this helps...

thanks,


Ken...

Kenneth Potter
FAA Senior Parachute Rigger
Tactical Delivery Instructor (Jeddah, KSA)
FFL Gunsmith

[ripcord4 0]

Ken,

I have a copy of the relevent MWO and I would do it myself if I had a decent zig-zag machine. Fabricating the "net" is simple - it is the attaching to the canopy that is the pain.