TSO question about Tempo 175

[half-a-greek 0]

My Tempo 175 reserve, (manufactured in 2000), is certified under TSO C23c according to the FAA website database of TSO's.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgtso.nsf/0/ADA30BAEF3A7B0F085256E5900556A49?OpenDocument

I've done some reading from this source.
http://www.butlerparachutes.com/everythi.htm

and I quote, "TSO C23c (issued 1984) refers to SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) 8015A for the minimum performance standards and has Categories A (130 KIAS at 225 lb.), B (150 KIAS at 254 lb.) and C (175 KIAS at 254 lb.)."

It's an old source, but the sources in the appendix at the very bottom of the page seem pretty well rounded. Even though the majority are no longer in existence... I think.

So my question is; if there are three different sub categories to TSO C23c, with each sub category more rugged than the prior, what sub category of TSO C23c does the Tempo 175 reserve fall in? I guess I could check on the mfg label of my reserve, but my next repack isn't for quite some time. Even so, I don't know if it would list the sub section of the TSO.

It wasn't to long ago where I didn't even know what the hell a TSO was, so the more info the better.

[pchapman 261]

There's a spot in the manual where it does say C23c, Category B.

[RIGGER 0]

PISA's TEMPO 170 & all other Tempo R are approved under FAA TSO C23C Cat. B.

PISA reduced the limits & the TEMPO 170 limit are:
Max. Gross Weight: 200 Lb. (90 Kg.)
Max. Deployment Speed: 130 knots.

The mfg. has the right to reduce the limits for being on the "Safe Side"

I hope that helps.

Be Safe !!!

[councilman24 36]

You got your answer, and I'm glad to see someone at your level becoming interested in these things.

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

[half-a-greek 0]

Thanks for the info. Another question though, my exit weight exceeds the TSO by around 20-30lbs... what would that mean if I were to deploy it in a high speed mal?

[dragon2 0]

I think loading a Tempo at more than 1.1 isn't a good idea regardless of deployment speed, and especially not at your jumpnumbers. BTW your main is also (way) too small for you IMO. A WL of 1.3 is recommenden from 300 jumps on, since you're heavier you can probably jump that WL a bit sooner but 93 jumps is not "a bit" ... You should be flying a 210-200 sqft canopy IMO, and at least that size for a reserve (230+ is better). TSO or no TSO. The fact that you're worried about that seems to indicate you do have an inkling that this may not be the best rig for you

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[mjosparky 3]

In TSO testing you have Test Weight and Test Speed. Then you have Maximum Operating Weight and Maximum Operating Speed.
Test Weight = Maximum Operating Weight x 1.2
Test Speed = Maximum Operating Speed x 1.2
For TSO-C23c Category B the Test Weight is 300 lb. and the Test Speed is 175 KEAS. It is then certified at Maximum Operating Weight of 254 lb. and Maximum Operating Speed of 150 KEAS.
In the case of the Tempo 170 the Manufacture has recommended a MOS of 130 KEAS and MOW of 200 lb. The usual reason for this type of action is while the canopy has proven it ability to survive the higher weight and speed there is some doubt by the manufacture that the jumper would be as lucky. In particular the landing. This canopy is an old design, early 1993, a seven cell and made with F-111 type material. When new it had a CFM of 0-3. Depending on it DOM it could have 40 or more repacks and a CFM as high as 12-15.
So what you have is an older design 7 cell canopy with degraded performance and over loaded by 20 to 30 pounds. And this is your reserve, the one you go to when all else fails. Who ever sold you that was not doing you any favors. Jmo

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[PhreeZone 14]

Also the older Tempos did not have span wise tape on the lower skin of them and the latest version did to better support the canopy.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[councilman24 36]

If you are over the TSO limit, first your violated Federal regulations, and causing the pilot and the DZO to violate federal regulations.

That's not to say it isn't done on every load, but just so you know.

If you weigh 230 with gear your loading it over 1.3. On an old design you've probably never jumped or landed.

This reserve is too small for you to land. It probably would hold together in a belly to earth high speed deployment. Head down all bets are off, for most reserves.

Find something else.

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

[mark 102]

Quote

If you are over the TSO limit, first your violated Federal regulations, and causing the pilot and the DZO to violate federal regulations.

I agree that jumping at weights above TSO placard limits is dumb. What, though, is the FAR that is violated?

Mark

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

If you are over the TSO limit, first your violated Federal regulations, and causing the pilot and the DZO to violate federal regulations.

I agree that jumping at weights above TSO placard limits is dumb. What, though, is the FAR that is violated?

Mark

Isn't an approved parachute only approved for operation within the approved limits?

I'll use the analogy that operating an aircraft above its max gross weight limit is illegal, because you are not operating within the limits of the type certificate.

If that is correct, then the jumper is not complying with FAR 105.43, which calls for an approved reserve parachute, because at that weight, the parachute is not approved.

[mark 102]

Ah! Good one! Thanks!

Mark

[councilman24 36]

What he said.

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

[half-a-greek 0]

I need to start shopping then, that, or drop the twenty pounds.... I could do with losing some weight. In what little defense there is, I weighed significantly less when I bought the gear. dumb question, what does CFM stand for? porosity? I'm guessing...

So what some are saying, the difference between me violating the TSO with my old ass Tempo, (leaving experience out of question for a second), and a guy of the same weight or more violating the TSO by flying a much newer reserve smaller than my comforter is the currency of the design, which goes with out saying, the improvement of the structural integrity?

[Cueb 0]

Quote

dumb question, what does CFM stand for?

http://tinyurl.com/33rum74 Here you go

edit: in other words, yes :)

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

I need to start shopping then, that, or drop the twenty pounds.... I could do with losing some weight. In what little defense there is, I weighed significantly less when I bought the gear. dumb question, what does CFM stand for? porosity? I'm guessing...

So what some are saying, the difference between me violating the TSO with my old ass Tempo, (leaving experience out of question for a second), and a guy of the same weight or more violating the TSO by flying a much newer reserve smaller than my comforter is the currency of the design, which goes with out saying, the improvement of the structural integrity?

The simple age is a factor as well.

Inspecting and packing reserves can have a dramatic effect on the performance of the parachute.

Regarding the CFM question. It stands for Cubic Feet Per Minute.

It is a measure of how much air is flowing THROUGH the fabric.

The test is performed under certain controlled conditions, like how much pressure differential is used, and how much area the air is leaking through. With new fabric, you will get 0-3 CFM leaking through the fabric itself.

The canopy does not stay new, and once it gets inspected and repacked a few times, that number will start going up.

This number essentially represents how well the fabric is going to carry a weight, because more air leaking through the fabric means less ability to carry a weight.

Your 10 year old Tempo that has seen lots of repacks will not perform like a mint condition Tempo of the same era, much less perform like a newer design that is also has fewer Inspection and Repack (I&R) cycles on it.

By the way, you mention a Tempo 175. Isn't it actually a Tempo 170?

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

the difference between me violating the TSO with my old ass Tempo,

You are not violating the TSO by jumping the canopy. It was tested and certified under TSO-C23c. That means 254 lb. at 150 KEAS. The manufacture can say anything they want but the FAA recognizes the standards under which the Approval was granted. (See attachment)
But it is my opinion that you are violating the common sense rule by jumping with that reserve. While there is a good chance you will not have any problems at all, there is also a chance you could get hurt or die. Jumping is all about risk management and this is a risk that is within your power to eliminate.
This is a quote by Tom Brown, who posts here.

Quote

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[pchapman 261]

Quote

You are not violating the TSO by jumping the canopy. It was tested and certified under TSO-C23c. That means 254 lb. at 150 KEAS. The manufacture can say anything they want but the FAA recognizes the standards under which the Approval was granted.

Interesting perspective!
The issue of load limits is one that has been debated a lot in skydiving. Riggers (in FAA-land) have to follow what the manufacturer says. But you would then suggest that there's nothing saying that the jumper must follow what the manufacturer says, as long as it is within the TSO limits?

Unless anyone can come up with a FAR saying skydivers must follow manufacturer recommendations, what you say sounds good.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Peter,

Once again: I do not speak for the FAA.

However, I do agree with Sparky.

I was on the committee for both C23(c) & C23(d). This argument ( along with many, many more [ right Terry? ]) was one of the reasons that C23(d) allows the mfr to test to whatever weight & speed they want ( with minimums for both ) so that they, the mfr, can control this issue.

IMO he could jump it without violating ( please hold your letters, folks ) the TSO. C23(c) says that it is placarded into certain weight & speed categories and if you meet those weight & speed limitations you are OK.

That, however, is not a very bright or prudent thing to do.

JerryBaumchen

PS) Mfrs 'playing games' with the loopholes in C23(c) is one reason why C23(d) requires the same packing method be used for all testing.

[councilman24 36]

It wasn't clear to me which set of limits the OP was busting. the I agree with Sparky that the 23c limits are the law and the other manufacturer's suggestions are common sense.

If he's not busting the 254lbs 150knots he's legal. Dumb, but legal.

Maybe.

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

[half-a-greek 0]

It's a 170, I mixed it up with my Tri 175.

And in conclusion, I'm legal as far as the TSO, but the manufacturer strongly frowns upon 230 lbs leaving the aircraft. And due to it's age there is no way of truly knowing if it can safely deliver me to the ground, from deployment to flare.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

It's a 170, I mixed it up with my Tri 175.

And in conclusion, I'm legal as far as the TSO, but the manufacturer strongly frowns upon 230 lbs leaving the aircraft. And due to it's age there is no way of truly knowing if it can safely deliver me to the ground, from deployment to flare.

And this holds true for any canopy on the market today.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggerrob 558]

Barracks lawyer time !!!!

Ignoring a manufacturer's specification automatically means that you also ignored a FAR.

The FARs always link back to "... in accordance with approved manuals ..." which means that any time you ignore a manufacturer's manual, you are also ignoring an FAR.

Like I tell Canadian Rigger A candidates: "American FARs may not be LAW in Canada, but they are considered best business practices. If you ignore a FAR, you stand alone in court!"

The preferred defense - in court - is: "I did that in accordance with page 17 in the Cypres manual ... page 7 in the Tempo manual ... page 19 in the Vector manual ..."

[pchapman 261]

Quote

Ignoring a manufacturer's specification automatically means that you also ignored a FAR.

Hey Rob,
But where does it say a JUMPER has to follow what a manufacturer says? (Rather than a pilot or a rigger.)

That's the issue here. I don't know the answer but nobody has yet quoted a FAR that requires it.