L-39 Ejection seat chutes

[WGore 0]

Has anyone packed any of the ejection seat chutes for the L-39 Albatross? I had a request to do a couple but they had no instructions for them and I was already up to my ass in alligators. They are going to bring them back next time though and if anyone has the packing instructions I'd like to get a set if possible.
Might also be a little stick time in it as well.

GUNFIRE, The sound of Freedom!

[Slurp56 0]

I wouldn't be surprised if Jim Cazer could round up a set for you. Give him a call: (256) 268-9843. He's in Alabama, so that's what, central timezone?

________________________________________
I have proof-read this post 500 times, but I guarantee you'll still manage to find a flaw.

[RiggerLee 61]

L-39 Russion jet? I haven't done them but Jeff Wagner used to pack those for Don Curlin who ran the World Freefall Convenion. If you can get a hold of Curlin from Quincy IL he can get you the instructions and even better he has a video of how to do it. If it's like the Migs that came into the shop here you will have to have the instructions and video. The shit is diffrent. They use compleatly diffrent philosophies then we do.

You might want to check on how it's being certified. The way this is some times done is the ejection seat is cerified as part of the system of the aircraft when they aprove it for flight here in the US. A lot of these things were done under experamental exebition but I'm not sure how the paper work is being done now. My point is that depending on how the paper work is writen up the parachute may or may not be legal, and the seat may or may not be hot.

There's a guy in Las Vages that works on the seats. Again I think you can find him through Curlin, I met him there at Quincy. Any way my point is that it may not be as simple as getting an ENGLISH copy of the instructions and repacking it every 180 days. And be carefull a lot of these owners may down play all of this. They just want you to sign off on their card. And you may find your self hanging if you repack a canopy in a seat with out of date rocket moters or a seat that is not suposed to be live or one that is dead and the guy goes in because the rig would not operate properly with the seat dead.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Has anyone packed any of the ejection seat chutes for the L-39 Albatross?

Yes, I do them.
I have done some work for Don Kirlin and others around. I got my start doing Martin Bakers in the Folland GNat and British Provost Jets.

Quote

I had a request to do a couple but they had no instructions for them and I was already up to my ass in alligators.

You need to work with someone that has some experience with these things as they are somewhat complicated.

Also of note, you as a rigger, do not sign them off, the A&P does that. The parachutes do not carry a TSO and are packed as per the service inspection that has been signed off by the FAA.
Most of these operate under "Exibition Experimental".


BS,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[lowapproach 0]

I spoke to a company that owns a couple and they said they get the parachutes from Strong, so you might try them.

[WGore 0]

Quote

L-39 Russion jet? I haven't done them but Jeff Wagner used to pack those for Don Curlin who ran the World Freefall Convenion. If you can get a hold of Curlin from Quincy IL he can get you the instructions and even better he has a video of how to do it. If it's like the Migs that came into the shop here you will have to have the instructions and video. The shit is diffrent. They use compleatly diffrent philosophies then we do.

You might want to check on how it's being certified. The way this is some times done is the ejection seat is cerified as part of the system of the aircraft when they aprove it for flight here in the US. A lot of these things were done under experamental exebition but I'm not sure how the paper work is being done now. My point is that depending on how the paper work is writen up the parachute may or may not be legal, and the seat may or may not be hot.

There's a guy in Las Vages that works on the seats. Again I think you can find him through Curlin, I met him there at Quincy. Any way my point is that it may not be as simple as getting an ENGLISH copy of the instructions and repacking it every 180 days. And be carefull a lot of these owners may down play all of this. They just want you to sign off on their card. And you may find your self hanging if you repack a canopy in a seat with out of date rocket moters or a seat that is not suposed to be live or one that is dead and the guy goes in because the rig would not operate properly with the seat dead.

Lee

You are correct the A&P actually is responsible but he wants a rigger to actually pack them. One of the guys flying this one is a Fed and a friend so I want it right.
Does anybody have contact info for Jeff Wagner? I will probably get these in 6 months if I can get the info.

GUNFIRE, The sound of Freedom!

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Hank Ascuitto or Bob Celaya would be my 2 guesses of folks that might know something about L-39 ejection seat chutes.

Hank is still on the top side of the dirt, but I have no idea how to get in touch with him. Someone else might?

Bob goes by 2jumphi around here, but I don't know how much he lurks dropzone.com anymore.

You might want to try mjosparky here too, he may have a tipper or two for you if what others have already posted haven't hooked you up yet.

Good luck.

[RiggerLee 61]

Ok, some one is going to have to help me. This is absolutly driveing me insane. I never packed the rigs for Kerlin Wag always did that so I never saw the things but he always told me how weird they were. A couple of years later a pair of rigs showed up in the loft out of a couple of Migs. I've been trying to remember how they worked and I can't. Normaly my memory is pritty darn good but I'm brain locking on this. Part of the probblem is that even after stairing at them for a week I only half understood them then. It's driveing me insane.

Here's what I remember from the system.

There was a big metal seat frame that seemed to stay attached under your ass. I couldn't see how you could ever sepperate from it and I did not see and way to plf with it there. It was heavy.

The canopy was in a sleave and I seam to recall that it was strange maybe a square round but I may have just heard that from wag. We never stripped off the sleave. We could barely figure out how the container worked.

I seem to recall that there was one or maybe two droges on the thing. One of them was little more the webbing. It must have been for super sonic.

I do recall that there were mutiple means of deployment. There was a rip cord but I remember that there was anotherway that it deployed. The top flap could open independent of the ripcord and the canopy could extract through the hole. By the drouge?

I recall that there was a failpoint like a screamer in climping where it tore the zigzag lose in peel. I think that was on the pilot chute that was used in ripcord deployment. When you pulled the ripcord it was in shear. The drogue pealed it lose and left the pilot chute in the container. but I dont remember how the drogue disengaged when you pulled the ripcord.

See what I mmean about it being weird. even stareing at it for a week I could only figure out parts of it. We were in the same boat. couldn't get directions. Finely gave up and told them to go away. Could you please refresh my mimory on how the damn thing worked. Sequence of deployment. How the diffrent systems disengauged from one another. I only half understood it then and now I can't recall. It's driveing me crazy. I cant sleep. And if you ever find the instructions I'd love a copy just so I can try to figure it out. It's alway been the white whale that got away. It's about the only thing I've ever run into that I couldn't figgure out.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[ripcord4 0]

At the risk of being a smart-ass here - I think this falls firmly into the category of "When in doubt - DON'T pack it".

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

At the risk of being a smart-ass here - I think this falls firmly into the category of "When in doubt - DON'T pack it".

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

Agreed!

Opinions vary.
At one end of the interpretation scale, you have A&Ps signing off on parachutes re-packed by riggers.

I do not believe it is legal for an FAA rigger to sign-off on military surplus parachute built outside the USA.
Especially if he does not have an english-language version of the manual.

As an aside, I have worked from manuals - for German-made parachutes - that were such bad translations, that I found it easier to work from the german-language original manual!

I was exposed to a lot of Communist-surplus parachutes when I worked for Manley Butler. Most of the time he was able to talk them into buying new-manufacture American parachutes ... even if Manley did work himself to exhaustion learning how to fit American-style parachutes in to weird-shaped Communist-surplus seats.
We even "overhauled" some parachute containers for Foland Gnats. I learned massive amounts doing that project!

The ulimate foolishness occurred when I was working at Para-Phernalia when a Yak 5? owner came in demanding that I re-pack his original Communist-surplus seat pack. The thing was faded, frayed and filthy and its KAP-3 AAD was so badly rusted that I doubt if had been inspected during the last decade. The rig was so complex (drogues, AADs, etc.) that I seriously doubted if it would deploy in time during a low-altitude bail-out.
The Yak owner got upset when I said that I could not read the Russian-language manual. He also insisted that his parachute was "okay" because it was original issue.
In the end, he left angry because he could not intimidate a mere FAA Master Rigger.

In conclusion, the simple answer for most L-39 owners is to buy, custom-made L-39 seat packs from Strong Enterprises, so that any seat-rated FAA rigger can repack them.
Messing with communist-surplus parachutes is waaaaay too much of a headache!

P.S. Non-military-surplus riggers messing with "live" ejection seats is a stupid practice, bordering on criminally insane!

Rob Warner
FAA Master Rigger (back, seat and chest)
CSPA Rigger Examiner

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

In conclusion, the simple answer for most L-39 owners is to buy, custom-made L-39 seat packs from Strong Enterprises, so that any seat-rated FAA rigger can repack them.

Actually, They are not legal as the parachutes are not certified to the speed of the aircraft.
This is why there are several different sequences odf deployments that the original parachute can go through, depending on the senerio.

Quote

P.S. Non-military-surplus riggers messing with "live" ejection seats is a stupid practice, bordering on criminally insane!

I must be insane then!

But, the British Air Ministry gave me a letter of authorization to receive Pyro over here for the Martin Baker seats.

So I quess that makes me "certified" insane.

Cheers,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[WGore 0]

I've picked up some good info already. A senior rigger has been packing these and from what I understand it is pretty much like an NB8 or 9. The seat is not involved in the actual packing that is serviced by the A&P.
The guys flying the the L-39s have the option of using standard Emergency rigs if they so desire but bailout is just that, open the canopy and climb out. If you keep the ejection seat active it has to be serviced every year with a new charge at what I heard was 10K. Of course if you can afford the jet as a toy then you can afford the amenities. And this guy can.
I've been a master rigger long enough and worked in the industry enough to know when to pass on something that I don't understand. As far as supersonic ejections the L-39 is not a supersonic capable aircraft like the Mig.
I have not looked at this setup yet but will before taking it on. From the PMs that I've gotten it doesn't sound like this is that complicated.
As far as the FARs this is an experimental aircraft, not certificated aircraft and it is restricted where it can fly and not subjected to a lot of the regs certificated aircraft are. It doesn't even have to have an annual inspection signed off by an IA. An A&P can do the inspection and it is just called a condition inspection.
The other thing to remember is one of the pilots of this aircraft IS an FAA Inspector and can't do anything even slightly shady for fear of losing his job.
If anybody has had to deal with the Feds in the last couple years the biggest thing that you run into is these guys don't want to approve anything without a pile of engineering paperwork. It took us a year and a half to get a jump door on a 182 approved. This used to be a 337 with acceptable data, (another approval) and wham bam you had your door. This time we submitted the door off of another jump plane only 15 SNs different from ours with the paperwork from that plane. Then the saga began.

GUNFIRE, The sound of Freedom!

[riggerrob 558]

"... If anybody has had to deal with the Feds in the last couple years the biggest thing that you run into is these guys don't want to approve anything without a pile of engineering paperwork. It took us a year and a half to get a jump door on a 182 approved. This used to be a 337 with acceptable data, (another approval) and wham bam you had your door. This time we submitted the door off of another jump plane only 15 SNs different from ours with the paperwork from that plane. Then the saga began.

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Quote

In conclusion, the simple answer for most L-39 owners is to buy, custom-made L-39 seat packs from Strong Enterprises, so that any seat-rated FAA rigger can repack them.

Actually, They [Strong's] are not legal as the parachutes are not certified to the speed of the aircraft.
This is why there are several different sequences of deployments that the original parachute can go through, depending on the scenario.

.......................................................................

Then legally they may have to go with something USAF-surplus or civilian stuff certified by Manley Butler for higher airspeeds.

My impression of Russian-surplus seat-packs installed in Yaks, is that they were originally designed for super-sonic fighter planes and were waaaay too complicated for 200 knot piston-pounders.
L-39s are somewhere between the two scenarios.

• Quote

[riggerrob 558]

" ...

Quote

P.S. Non-military-surplus riggers messing with "live" ejection seats is a stupid practice, bordering on criminally insane!

I must be insane then!

But, the British Air Ministry gave me a letter of authorization to receive Pyro over here for the Martin Baker seats.

So I quess that makes me "certified" insane.

Cheers,
MEL

.......................................................................

MEL,
Can we agree that you are brighter than the average rigger?

I was trying to make the point that most civilian-trained riggers will quickly find themselves beheaded by a drogue gun or eviscerated by a spreader gun if they try messing with "live" ejection seats that they do not understand.
I worked on a few complex, military-surplus parachutes when I worked for Manley Butler, but the most complex ones required more time reading obscure military manuals than spent packing!

Some of those obscure manuals had to be snuck out the back door of Edwards Air Force Base.

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

I was trying to make the point that most civilian-trained riggers will quickly find themselves beheaded by a drogue gun or eviscerated by a spreader gun if they try messing with "live" ejection seats that they do not understand.
I worked on a few complex, military-surplus parachutes when I worked for Manley Butler, but the most complex ones required more time reading obscure military manuals than spent packing!

I was just having some fun with you this AM....trying to forget the fact that it is Friday the 13th AND I am undergoing a FAA survelliance today here at the shop today.

Cheers,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

A senior rigger has been packing these and from what I understand it is pretty much like an NB8 or 9. The seat is not involved in the actual packing that is serviced by the A&P.

I kow for fact that if the senior rigger is doing the sign off alone, it's not a legal packjob.

....even if it is just the parachute not the complete seat.

Quote

As far as supersonic ejections the L-39 is not a supersonic capable aircraft like the Mig.

But it still is a 450 knot plus aircraft which well exceeds the maxium deployment speed.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[pchapman 261]

Quote

But it still is a 450 knot plus aircraft which well exceeds the maxium deployment speed.

No big deal, but one can argue about the implications of that:

1) The original reference to using other canopies may refer to using them for manual bailout, not part of the ejection seat system

2) If the ejection seat is optional in the use of the aircraft (as has been stated), does the ejection seat have to be maintained to its full original specifications, or can it be derated? What was written about having to replace the charges annually suggests that it might be like AADs in the US -- You either don't use one, or you have to follow all the rules on them.

3) Due to ejection seat sequencing and drogues and the the like, the max ejection speed may well be higher than the max main canopy deployment speed. So the canopy might not need to be rated to 450 kts.

4) There are plenty of rigs & canopies used for bailout from aircraft, where the aircraft is certified to higher speed than the parachute.

(I'm not arguing anything seriously here, just taking the one statement and running with it. It looks like you, Mel, were "just talking" too, and not making a precise statement regarding FAA regulations.)

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

1) The original reference to using other canopies may refer to using them for manual bailout, not part of the ejection seat system

If you were using the seat the seat has a drogue (actually two) that will:
1. slow you down to safe deployment speed
2.Be used to seperateyou from the seat

Quote

2) If the ejection seat is optional in the use of the aircraft (as has been stated), does the ejection seat have to be maintained to its full original specifications, or can it be derated? What was written about having to replace the charges annually suggests that it might be like AADs in the US -- You either don't use one, or you have to follow all the rules on them.

Well it all depends on how the service manual is written. This service manual is written/developed by the owner and mechanic and then approved by the FAA at the overseeing FSDO.
The seats can be certified up to five years while the parachutes can be certified to 3 years.

Quote

3) Due to ejection seat sequencing and drogues and the the like, the max ejection speed may well be higher than the max main canopy deployment speed. So the canopy might not need to be rated to 450 kts.

Sequencing of the seat and parachute will slow the deployment speeds to around 200 knots before deployment.

Quote

4) There are plenty of rigs & canopies used for bailout from aircraft, where the aircraft is certified to higher speed than the parachute.

Certified speed is somewhat different than cruise speeds. In the L-39, you would be cruising at probably 350 knots or faster.

Quote

(I'm not arguing anything seriously here, just taking the one statement and running with it. It looks like you, Mel, were "just talking" too, and not making a precise statement regarding FAA regulations.)

Funny, I just had a room full of the "guys" here talking about this stuff..yep...just talking like you stated.

Anyway, I am just waiting on one of these newly manufactured parachutes to be used in real life.

My bet is that the guy never makes it out of the aircraft in the first place!

BS,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[RiggerLee 61]

It's an interesting question. It's some thing we tend to turn a bit of a blind eye too. What really defines an aircraft speed? Cruse, VNE, how fast it will dive at the ground when you take the wings off over G'ing it. They seem to have a pretty strong oppionion on it in TSO C-23B. Recall the wording on the low speed plackerd. The reality is that a pilot isn't going to get out unless it's on fire, he has a control failure, or th wings come off. In the later two he probably wouldn't have control over airspeed. Then at the other end of the spectrum are planes that go way too fast for any canopy. Ok, so if you have a live "smart" seat you might argue that it will make the decisions to slow you down and stage the opening to allow the canopy to survive. I seem to recall that that seat had at least three AAD's on it. I could guess at their uses, altitude, airspeed, time, etc but it would just be speculation. I also heard that the rockets would shoot you out and if you were up side down turn you upwards and fly you away from the plane. It all sound grand but what happens when they make the seat cold. Now you've got a legitamently fast plane with no smart seat to make exscuses for you. What are the reqirements then? If the answer that your'e just going to take a delay and wont pull the handle till you slow down was good enough why have that low speed plackerd? Hell I'd dare any body to just try to climb out of that plane on the ground with the shit I saw strapped to them. What about replaceing the rigs? Do the Strong and Butler rigs intergrate with the seat to take advantage of all the drouges? Are they put in there "cold" How do they justify the certifacation at that speed? Do they opperate under their TSO or under the experamental approval of the airplane? When you put a Strong rig in there do you have to get a new manual approved?

I guess what I'm asking is what is leagle even in a more normal airplane? Who is responceble? The Rigger that packed the rig? The Pilot that put the rig in the airplane? Or in this case the A+P that signs it off? Or even the FSDO that approvedthe manual? If a US rig was instaled in a cold or hot seat would it even be covered in the approval of the manual?

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[WGore 0]

As with so many FARs it can be a catch 22 situation. If the aircraft isn't being used for aerobatics there is no requirement for emergency parachutes. This particular jet started out with standard emergency backpacks but I guess he figured out that if he really had to get out, it would be next to impossible. I don't know if the ejection chutes are 0 0 anyway so it might be that if they had to punch out at low level, which is where they would be doing aerobatics, they would work anyway.
One L-39 pilot I talked to has the seats cold and uses standard rigs. His thinking was that if he needed to get out it wouldn't happen anyway because he would be on the deck and he was gonna die. He only had the chutes because they wouldn't let him in airshows without them. This line of thinking goes for most aerobatic airshow acts. If something goes that wrong at 200ft you just aren't going to be able to get out.
As far as the rating on the chute when you pack it, that is all that you are hired to do. You might have a moral obligation to advise the pilot that his chute is not designed for the speed that he might be doing but that is all. In many cases I wouldn't have a clue what the chute was being used in.
Yes there are a lot of interesting questions here but personally I don't want the FAA mandating us to be someone else's conscience. I will get a handle on the manuals before I take this on for sure. I don't want or need to have my butt on the line anymore than necessary. Although it really does come down to the A&P's ass that is signing it off. But I wouldn't hang him out to dry either.

GUNFIRE, The sound of Freedom!

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

As with so many FARs it can be a catch 22 situation. If the aircraft isn't being used for aerobatics there is no requirement for emergency parachutes. ..."

.....................................................................

Parachutes are also required when flying in formation.

• Quote

[riggerrob 558]

"... Who is responcible? ... The Pilot that put the rig in the airplane? ...

Lee

[riggerrob 558]

"... In many cases I wouldn't have a clue what the chute was being used in.
..."

........................................................................

Agreed!

I have packed hundreds of pilot emergency parachutes without a CLUE as to what type of airplane they were going to be installed in.

Aircraft performance is outside the perview of parachute riggers.
Since your FAA written exam did not include any questions about airplane performance, a mere parachute rigger cannot be expected to know the finer points of matching parachutes to airplanes.

Parachute riggers have a very narrow focus. Their job is all about "maintaining parachutes in accordance with manufacturers' instructions."

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Rob,

Quote

Aircraft performance is outside the perview of parachute riggers.

Absolutely. One day the rig could be in a restored F-86 Saber jet & the next day in a T-Craft.

It is outside of the control of the rigger who is doing/does the I&R. Oops, IMO.

JerryBaumchen