PRO packed reserves Vs flat packed reserves

[dgw 8]

I've just been reading the manual for the Swift reserve, and it gives detailed instructions on how to pack it. I was surprised to see that instructions outline a flat packing technique, rather than a PRO packing technique.

The Swift is an old design. I was under the impression that currently (modern?) reserves are packed in the 'Proper Ram-Air Orientation'.

Anybody got a historic point of view on how square reserves have been packed?

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Anybody got a historic point of view on how square reserves have been packed?

The exact way how it is written in their manual.

Packing a reserve is a bit different than packing a sport main.

[regulator 0]

I watched for the first time recently when I got my first new rig. It was definately more to it to pack a reserve than a main. Lots of clamping! So I was reading about some other jumpers that were using reserve canopies as mains. Is there anything wrong with that or can that work?

[dgw 8]

Of course.

What I am curious about is the transition between the flat pack vs the PRO pack methodology for reserves.

When did it happen, why did it happen. That sort of information.

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Of course.

What I am curious about is the transition between the flat pack vs the PRO pack methodology for reserves.

When did it happen, why did it happen. That sort of information.

Are you sure it was a true flat pack? There is a flat pro-pack as well. It starts out looking like a flat pack but it is a true pro-pack. If you learned from Sandy Reid (or from someone that learned from Sandy) this is what you learn.

Jump

Scars remind us that the past is real

[likestojump 3]

I bet you are referring to a flat pro-stack. You start with the reserve laying on it's side and then stack it up in a PRO position. Afterward you just dress it like any over-the-shoulder packjob.

The only difference between what you refer to as PRO vs what you refer to as FLAT - is that one is started on the shoulder, other on the ground. Once the canopy touches the ground, the work and look is the same.

[hookitt 0]

Good question. He does mean a true flat or stack pack.

A PRO pack regardless of how you get to that configuration is a PRO pack.

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

[dgw 8]

Yeah. That looks about right, even though I don't appreciate the subtlties. Thanks Dude.

The manual, with the diagrams, is here:

http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=244&Itemid=240

Lots of other manuals as well...

[hookitt 0]

I don't recall when PRO was actually introduced into the reserve packing manuals.

Look on this page Manuals

This PD reserve manual specifically ==> Reserve Owners Manual.

Look on page 38.

That method was originally the only method.

Why: Symmetry. Bulk management,
When: Riggers were PRO packing reserves before the manuals printed the method or added supplemental instructions. I do not recall when it was a method specifically outlined by the manufacturers but I do not recall seeing any PRO instructions in the early 90s.

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

[dgw 8]

Thanks mate. Very informative.

[councilman24 36]

Well, I had a long history written and lost it when I tried to spell check!

This is a later version of a manual I received with my 1982 Northern Lite that shows the propack on the floor. http://www.parachutemanuals.com//index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=0&func=startdown&id=171 This is equivalent to an over the shoulder pro pack but was put out by a contianer manufacturer.

As hook said many riggers were doing it, either this way on the floor or over the shoulder. For a long time reserve manufacturers didn't issue instructions. At least one thought they couldn't do it without a video manual. Finally one of the put out written instructions because riggers were doing it anyway. I can't remember right now who was first. If I went back through all my manuals I'd probably be able to figure it out.

Originally rigs had round reserves and it was easy to thread the closing loops from the back pad through the canopy folds to the flaps. When some of the original square reserve were packed in a bag it didn't have through the bag loops. When that became popular the propack on the floor in the manual above made it easier to spit the reserve around the loops. At the time I got that in a manual no body was propacking a main. A few were trash packing. Basicly throwing the main down on the ground (OUTSIDE IN THE GRASS!) nose down, 'raking' their fingers through the lines to get them somewhat straight, and wrapping the tail.

A 'Pro Pack' is no more "Proper orientation" than a flat packed. On has half the cells s folded to each side (pro) and one has them all S folded together. All are nose down, collapse side to side, and S folded into the floor.

too lazy to rewrite the rest. But a pro pack makes it easier to spit around the through the bag loops. (some disagree but I've never had much luck spliting a flat pack neatly.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[councilman24 36]

At least one manufacturer BANS the use of ANY clamps in PACKING OR TESTING their reserves. You will find some riggers never use any clamps and some use a whole lot (seems to have come from base packing) and some use a couple.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[riggerrob 558]

On the subject of clamps, I suspect that Flight Concepts banned clamps primarily to discourage tensile testing of fabric.
Tensile testing might have been relevant on round canopies suffering from acid mesh, but it is more of a risk than a "non-destructive testing" method on most square canopies. Only one manufacturer of square reserves tells us to tensile test their canopies ad I suspect that is more a legal tactic - to spread the guilt if anyone gets hurt.

[riggerrob 558]

Yes, 1992 sounds about right for the shift to PRO packing reserves.

Back when the Swift reserve was introduced in 1981 PRO-packing had not been invented yet and only a handful of long-haired, dope-smoking commie, pinkos in Florida were trash packing mains, ergo the Swift manual demonstrated a stack/side/factory packing method only slightly different than most people were using to pack mains.

During the late 1980s, PRO packing improved until it became the norm for packing mains.
In 1992 or 1993, I first saw a reserve PRO packed on the floor. Manley Butler was showing me how to pack a large square into a pilot emergency parachute and the primary reason we PRO packed was for comfort and bulk distribution.
Bulk distribution became the dominate motivation in the shift to PRO packing during the 1990s when Cypres came into fashion. Cypres required a large "crater," "well," "divot" bottom dead center in the reserve container. Combine that with closing loops up the middle and PRO became the most graceful way to spread bulk away from the center lien and out towards the edges.

[councilman24 36]

No Rob, 1982. The manual that came from Paraphernailia with my 1982 Northern lite had the propack on the ground method. Long before I or anybody else called it a propack. 5 cell swifts that way that we had in those rigs. (unless I'm completely crazy. It had the same drawings in the northern lite 3 manual I referenced above.)

BTW I KNOW the FCI clamp thing is about tensile testing. Red claimed it was illegal to tensile test his reserves because it didn't saw you could in the manual. I maintained that if he didn't say we couldn't, and it was a common technique including by that time in Sandy's FAA manual, that he had to expect people to do it. If he didn't want it he should specifically state that he didn't. I didn't expect that he would prohibit packing with clamps.

I have found, and still have in my possesion, a ram air reserve that had fabric that failed at 3lbs on the tensile test. Limited area, no history of abuse. It isn't usless on a ram air.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[riggerrob 558]

I am on Red's side of the pull-testing debate.
Unless a manufacturer specifically tells me to pull test a reserve - or I suspect that it has been damaged - I don't bother pulling out my tensile testing tools.

While I may have pulled holes in a dozen faded, frayed and filthy military-surplus round canopies, I have only pulled holes in a couple of square reserves. One was a Para-Flite 5-cell made before F-111 fabric became popular.

I suspect that pull-testing was not mentioned in early FCI manuals because it was not fashionable/mentioned in any other square reserve packing manual when FCI wrote the manual. Later Performance Designs started telling riggers to pull-test PD reserves, so the world changed around FCI and FCI was late in re-writing their manual to confirm the old practice.
Ergo, I only pull-test FCI reserves when there is other evidence of weakened fabric.

Performance Designs is the only manufacturer of square reserves that insists on regular pull-testing.

The thing that baffles me is all the Tempos I see with two pull tests, superimposed at 90 degree angles. I was taught that it was dumb to pull-test the same spot repeatedly.
That practice is the only explanation I could come up for the one PD reserve I had to patch after a new rigger pull-tested a hole in it. I re-tested the canopy in a dozen other places and never found any other weak fabric.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Terry,

Quote

that shows the propack on the floor.

Para-Phernalia/Northern Lite 'liberated' that drawing from a Glide Path manual on how to pack a reserve.

Just like ParaPhernalia 'liberated' my drawings on how to pack a square reserve into a 2-pin reserve container using the 'folded bulk' method.

Nothing is sacred in this industry.

I developed the 'folded bulk' procedure, drop-tested a Para-Flite square canopy a number of times, and submitted a request for an alteration, to the Para-Flite reserve d-bag, to Para-Flite for approval. I got a very nice letter back from Elek Puskas with my approved alteration. That was many years ago & I might still have it in my documentation somewhere.

JerryBaumchen

[councilman24 36]

Jerry,

I don't remember that drawing in a Glide Path manual. Did glid path have reserves in 1982?.

Not sure I know what the folded bulk procedure is. At least I don't know it by that name. Enlighten me?

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[dgw 8]

I too have been 'cked over by the spell checker.

Thanks very much for the information. I've learned some really interesting stuff in this thread. (And I thought I knew it all.. (joke))

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Terry,

Quote

I don't remember that drawing in a Glide Path manual. Did glid path have reserves in 1982?.

Disclaimer: I'm going by my memory; but I do know that Glide Path/FCI had that drawing prior to Para-Phernalia 'liberating' it.

Quote

Not sure I know what the folded bulk procedure is. At least I don't know it by that name. Enlighten me?

It is a procedure whereby you pack a standard flat-pack canopy into a 2-pin reserve container and still use the thru-loops. Remember that the first useage of square reserve into 2-pin containers did not use thru-loops; think of the first squares going into Wonderhog Sprint containers.

Envision a standard flat-pack square as it lays on the floor; it is now a very elongated looking rectangle ( rather like an envelope turned 90 degrees ). You make a series of folds to the upper 1/2 of the canopy and then put that into the bag between the two loops/grommets. Then you fold the remainder on top of itself just below the two loops/grommets. At one time PD had this procedure in their square reserve manual.

If you don't understand the above; sorry, some days I'm not so good with describing things.

I'll try to see if I can find my old procedure and send a copy to you.

JerryBaumchen

[councilman24 36]

Jerry,

I remember that method. It looked like an hour glass. Bunch above the loops, sqeezed between the loops and bunch below the loops. I'd forgot that method.

I was thinking maybe you ment the Vector method that went around the single loop. At least I think it was in the Vector I manual.

Man, too much history.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[tombuch 0]

My two older PD reserves came with instruction manuals showing the flat method.

The first was a PD 143R manufactured in December 1992.

The second was a PD 126R manufactured in September 1996.

The manual from 1992 does not mention Pro Packing at all. The manual from 1996 includes this disclaimer:

"If the rig manufacturer specifies a packing method other than the one shown, and the rig manufacturer specifically authorizes its use for this parachute you may decide which instructions to follow. Otherwise you must follow these instructions. These reserves have been tested and found to work well using both this method and a specific, neatly organized, Pro Pack method for reserves. However, Performance Designs, Inc. does not recommend the use of the Pro Pack method, because if done incorrectly there is a greater risk of malfunction."

The manuals for my Saber's manufactured and delivered in 1992 and 1996 both show and describe the Pro Pack method (obviously these are main parachutes). I also have an undated manual from my Excalibur 150 that shows the Pro Pack method (also a main). That XCal began service (according to my log books) in September 1989.

I have an old manual from a Javelin that shows a revision date of 1988. That manual deals heavily with round reserves, and then covers squares. It mentions both flat and Pro Packing without stating a preference. The flat pack was described as "conventional."

I also have a Javelin manual with a revision date of 1993 that includes the following statement:

[I]"If the manufacturer of the ram air reserve canopy uses a "conventional" packing method, the canopy should look similar to [U]FIG 1[/U] after it has been flaked and folded. If the manufacturer of the ram air reserve canopy recommends the "PRO-PACK", the canopy will resemble [U]FIG.2[/U]. [B]SUN PATH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS THE "PRO-PACK" FOR ALL RAM-AIR RESERVES PACKED INTO THE JAVELIN HARNESS/CONTAINER SYSTEM.[/B]"[/I] (Emphasis in original)

As I recall, the Pro Pack method came into the public domain sometime in the late 1980's, and was quickly embraced around the major DZ's. However, it was shunned by local riggers at the smaller DZ's, and I'm guessing that's why PD was so reluctant to embrace the method early on.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Terry,

Quote

It looked like an hour glass. Bunch above the loops, sqeezed between the loops and bunch below the loops.

You got it! It took me about a month or so of just looking at my container vs looking at the reserve d-bag and then one day VOILA. I tried it and it worked perfectly. I have the photos here of one of the drop tests; I'll try to get a couple scanned and uploaded.

Quote

I was thinking maybe you ment the Vector method that went around the single loop.

Wrong; that method where you triangulate the very top of the canopy and go around the single loop was developed by the late Troy Loney for his Centaurus rig when he was still in Colorado. RWS just used his procedure.

Gotta keep the record straight on this stuff.

JerryBaumchen

[councilman24 36]

At least on manufacturer was adament the you couldn't write instructions for a propack reserve. You had to at least do a video if not training. But I don't remember if it was PD, Precision or Glide Path. Then someone came up with a set of written instructions that seemed pretty good and everyone else seemed to copy them.

If I went back through all my manuals like you I might figure it out.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[pchapman 261]

Great history here!

Last time I packed a Swift into a Centaurus, just a couple years back, I certainly propacked it and didn't use the now-odd folding technique (that followed flat packing) shown in the ParaFlite manual. I'm guessing most riggers would do the same.

A couple more minor data points in the progression to propack:

The propack video I saw when learning to rig in early '91 showed a Raven going into a Racer. My notes say that a '95 Precision manual only mentioned flat packing reserves. Yet the fine details of the video (as I wrote them down) don't match precisely with the propack in a '90 Racer manual I have either. So I'm not sure who produced the video. Perhaps it was considered 'supplemental' in some way.

An '88 Glide Path manual showed propacking the reserve, so they had it fairly early. BUT, my notes suggest it was the very simple system that has continued to be used by Flight Concepts -- basically propack on the shoulder, wrap the tail, lay it down, narrow it and fold it. There's none of that standard stuff about re-flaking each section on the ground.

(All this also gets into the old issue of FAA mandating riggers to follow manufacturers' instructions, and what happens when those instructions are outdated compared with industry practice. Also, there's the uncertainty over how or whether newer instructions supersede the instructions that came with TSO'd equipment.)