0
pnuwin

Re: Fatality - Cross Keys - 3/25/11

Recommended Posts

Quote

It could just mean that the Optimum is the reserve of choice when trying to build a rig with the biggest possible reserve in the smallest possible container.



Maybe the Optimum's opening speed isn't a factor, rather the fact that people tend to pack a bigger optimum into a container because they're supposed to pack one size smaller. Maybe they don't quite pack one size smaller and are very tight when sized this way.

Obviously a very tightly packed reserve container not performing to TSO spec is an issue that can happen with any reserve/container combination. It's not an Optimum reserve issue.

So without doing extensive drop testing, how does a skydiver know that their reserve/container combination is now too tight and no longer meets TSO's 300ft/3sec reserve deployment specs? If the rigger managed to pack it, then it must be ok, right? Maybe container manufacturers should have some hard and fast rules on what is too tight in their containers. Even if they do have these rules, how does a manufacturer know for sure what is too tight without testing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



So without doing extensive drop testing, how does a skydiver know that their reserve/container combination is now too tight and no longer meets TSO's 300ft/3sec reserve deployment specs?



One way to prevent a problem of this sort is to follow the container manufacturers guidelines with regard to which mains and reserves are recommended for the size container you are buying, and dont stuff something thats larger than recommended into it.

Buy your canopies first, and then get the right size container for those canopies.
__

My mighty steed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It could just mean that the Optimum is the reserve of choice when trying to build a rig with the biggest possible reserve in the smallest possible container.



Maybe the Optimum's opening speed isn't a factor, rather the fact that people tend to pack a bigger optimum into a container because they're supposed to pack one size smaller. Maybe they don't quite pack one size smaller and are very tight when sized this way.

Obviously a very tightly packed reserve container not performing to TSO spec is an issue that can happen with any reserve/container combination. It's not an Optimum reserve issue.

So without doing extensive drop testing, how does a skydiver know that their reserve/container combination is now too tight and no longer meets TSO's 300ft/3sec reserve deployment specs? If the rigger managed to pack it, then it must be ok, right? Maybe container manufacturers should have some hard and fast rules on what is too tight in their containers. Even if they do have these rules, how does a manufacturer know for sure what is too tight without testing it?



Well, one way would be to be sure that you choose things that are listed as "perfect fit" or something like that by the manufacturer.

As with anything that is constructed of fabric, things can run a bit larger or smaller than the target size.

If you pick the smallest container, and it runs smaller, and you pick the biggest canopy, and it runs big, maybe there's a possible problem.

Looking at the Mirage sizing information, there are even combinations that say "Requires a really good rigger", or something like that.

Maybe those are better left avoided.

(I don't mean to pick on Mirage. It is just the one I recall having such a note.)

Just because the dealer says this will probably fit does not necessarily mean your rigger won't be pissed to do it. So, maybe if your rigger is cursing you when you need a repack, well, maybe that's not the best sign.

Sorry, re-reading this, I can see that it might not be much real help. Try to be conservative. There's plenty enough risky stuff in this sport that gear selection doesn't need to be where you get your thrills.

OOPS! Sorry Bill, you are right. Move this as you see fit, and if I continue, I will continue there. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Maybe the Optimum's opening speed isn't a factor, rather the fact that people tend to pack a bigger optimum into a container because they're supposed to pack one size smaller. Maybe they don't quite pack one size smaller and are very tight when sized this way.



It is reported this jumper was jumping a Javelin J6. According to SunPath's (the mfr of the Javelin H/C system): Reserve sizing for a J6 shoud be 235sq ft, with microline. *(I do not know, whether the PD Optimum ships new with either microline or dacron, which is the only reason for my highlight. So maybe someone who better knows, can actually further answer that).

It is also reported that his reserve was a PD Optimum - 253sq ft. appearing +18 sq ft, on the surface of it, above the recommended size (limit?). However, according to PD's website:
Quote

It is made from a new low permeability, low bulk fabric available exclusively from Performance Designs. We’ve combined this fabric with special aerodynamics and extensive reinforcing to create great strength, better performance, and a far smaller pack volume for a given size.



What does "far smaller" actually equate to? Personally (again) I do not know. Is this/was this a factor? Once more - (obviously) I do not know.

Quote

So without doing extensive drop testing, how does a skydiver know that their reserve/container combination is now too tight and no longer meets TSO's 300ft/3sec reserve deployment specs?



I thought that some pretty good guidance was provided actually on this, recently by USPA wherein a specially-released Skydiver Advisory, that can be found here, instructs (in part):
Quote

When a reserve parachute is due for a repack, each owner should put his rig on (fully adjusted with the main parachute packed to simulate a total malfunction) and, in the presence of his rigger, pull the cutaway handle and reserve ripcord and have the rigger observe the pilot chute launch. Following this, with the aid of the rigger, carefully place the harness and container on a flat surface (or perhaps on someone else’s shoulders) and have the rigger extract the reserve freebag from the container by the bridle. Any anomaly to a normal, unrestricted pilot chute launch and freebag extraction should be thoroughly investigated and documented by the rigger and reported to the equipment manufacturers and PIA’s Technical Committee. Use this opportunity to ask the rigger any questions about the equipment and obtain a working knowledge of the parachute system.



Is this not happening? ...Is not anyone paying attention? You'll have to answer that one, strictly for yourself. As for the masses, one last time - I personally just don't know.

Hope though that at least some of the above, is for some - providing even if not any "answers", then at least maybe a little guidance.

Blue Skies,
-Grant
coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just caught up on this thread here.

I think it's a very good question. How tight is too tight. I've struggled for years with tight rigs. I feel strongly that people should jump larger canopies but I also feel that the containers should also be larger. I think that we have not only hit a point of deminishing returns in terms of comfert but also in function and safety.

I think this is something that should be lookd at in greater detale but the problem is that there are too many variables. I actually gave a lecture on some of this at PIA. I wont bore you but part of it was about how the shape of a packed canopy changes as size and other perramiters in its design change. It was about how to compensate in the pack job for these changes in order to make various canopies fit into diffrent bags. It was Two houres of incoherent ramballing and I don't think I really scratched the serface or fully convayed the ideas. But what I'm saying is that the question very quickly becomes complicated.

I might be able to pack that rig, but can some one else? Can they do it at Eloy? Can they do it after it's had a ride? They grow when you jump them you know? Ever plan to wash the rig?

And just because I can pack it, arange the bulk in the bag, etc. does that mean that the system is compatable and airworthy based soully on the fact that it will function reliable when I pack it? What about when the guy has a ride at nationals and all he can find is some kid that just got his ticket and is working on a tarp in the sun. Is the system unairworthy if he can not pack it or it will not function reliably if he does manage to close it?

So what's the answer? Make a list? And what? exclude all the canopies that you don't manage to mention? Based on whos skill level? Based on what part of the country, humidity, heat, etc. Oh wait, this canopy doesn't fit even though it 's on the list. Those canopies aren't all the same size are they?

Ok, so I'm being a little flippint. But I would like to see this discused.

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


And just because I can pack it, arange the bulk in the bag, etc. does that mean that the system is compatable and airworthy based soully on the fact that it will function reliable when I pack it?



I agree with your sentiments.

I always feel a little uncomfortable when there are those "secret tips" on how to pack a certain rig the proper way. It's a little different if the company emphasizes particular things in the manual -- at least the new rigger doing it by the book can pay attention to those cautions.

I'm all for demonstrating my skills and taking pride in my work, using both force and finesse, but sometimes it is a bit of a contest, rigger vs. rig, man against nylon.

It just seems silly to have rigs where you need "a really good rigger" to make it look right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think all of you forgot one point. Canopies and H/C assemblies must meet the AS/8015B and mainly paragraph 5.1. One example,no Optimum has been tested in our Advance rig and I thing none in Sun-Path, UPT, Velocity Sport rigs and others. Paragraph 5.1 is the key, manufacturers MUST perform the tests and have a proof of them. Who does and who did, none....
Jérôme Bunker
Basik Air Concept
www.basik.fr
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think all of you forgot one point. Canopies and H/C assemblies must meet the AS/8015B and mainly paragraph 5.1. One example,no Optimum has been tested in our Advance rig and I thing none in Sun-Path, UPT, Velocity Sport rigs and others. Paragraph 5.1 is the key, manufacturers MUST perform the tests and have a proof of them. Who does and who did, none....



For those who do not know what AS8015-B is here is the section he is referring to.

Sparky



5. COMPONENT QUALIFICATIONS:

5.1 Parachutes may be qualified as complete assemblies or as separate components (such as a canopy, a stowage container [pack], and/or a risers. The airworthiness of a parachute assembly, including other separately approved nonoriginal components, is the responsibility of the manufacturer who performs the certificating tests for the parachute assembly. The manufacturer shall publish and make available a list of nterchangeable components which have passed the following tests in 4.3 when tested in conjunction with the assembly or component(s) being certificated.

5.1.1 Canopy Including Suspension Lines: 4.3.3, 4.3.4.1 (or 4.3.4.2), 4.3.5, 4.3.6, 4.3.7, 4.3.8, 4.3.9



My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


And just because I can pack it, arange the bulk in the bag, etc. does that mean that the system is compatable and airworthy based soully on the fact that it will function reliable when I pack it?



I agree with your sentiments.

I always feel a little uncomfortable when there are those "secret tips" on how to pack a certain rig the proper way. It's a little different if the company emphasizes particular things in the manual -- at least the new rigger doing it by the book can pay attention to those cautions.

I'm all for demonstrating my skills and taking pride in my work, using both force and finesse, but sometimes it is a bit of a contest, rigger vs. rig, man against nylon.

It just seems silly to have rigs where you need "a really good rigger" to make it look right.



On more than one occasion I have declined to pack a reserve when the canopy was larger in volume than the container was designed for or in my opinion it was just too tight.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a riggers opinion would it be deemed somewhat "safer" to pack a loose fitting reserve(by loose I mean NOT out of the manufacturers recommendation) compared to that of a "tight" packed reserve?

Obviously the standard fitting reserve would work optimally but just comparing loose vs tight
For info regarding lift ticket prices all around the world check out
http://www.jumpticketprices.com/dropzones.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In a riggers opinion would it be deemed somewhat "safer" to pack a loose fitting reserve(by loose I mean NOT out of the manufacturers recommendation) compared to that of a "tight" packed reserve?

Obviously the standard fitting reserve would work optimally but just comparing loose vs tight



There is a happy medium between too tight and too loose. Since there can be a 10% difference in pack volume of 2 canopies of the same make and model I think the closer you can be to that happy medium the better off you be. But skydivers have always tried to pack 10 pounds of shit into a 5 pound bag and I doubt that will change soon.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not that simple. Yes, a softer bag means lower exstraction force pulling the bag out from under the corners. However, you actually want some retention. It's important that the bag not go tumbleing out of the tray before the PC hits bridal streatch and beguins to pull. I've actually seen canopies that I feared would fall out of the bag eather side of the safty stow.

Haveing said that most of the rigs I've run into over the years were over stuffed. No one seems to under stand how much softer and more comfertable a cotainer will be if it's sized apropretly for them and their canopies. They will look better, last longer, avoid closure problems, etc.

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great question Lee. Here is the Jump Shack response: There should be no such thing as overstuffed. The manufacturer can't put that on the rigger. If a rigger can get it in then it should come out and deploy normally. Any rig which can be jammed from over stuffing is unsafe and should not be used. There are some great riggers out there who can pack anything. They should not have to worry about function because of fit. We publish a list of canopy volumes and recommended container sizes. We do this because of cosmetic reasons not function. I have seen some really bulging pack jobs on Racers, so overstuffed that the corners won’t tuck but they still work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Great question Lee. Here is the Jump Shack response: There should be no such thing as overstuffed. The manufacturer can't put that on the rigger. If a rigger can get it in then it should come out and deploy normally. Any rig which can be jammed from over stuffing is unsafe and should not be used. There are some great riggers out there who can pack anything. They should not have to worry about function because of fit. We publish a list of canopy volumes and recommended container sizes. We do this because of cosmetic reasons not function. I have seen some really bulging pack jobs on Racers, so overstuffed that the corners won’t tuck but they still work.



Does that say that we should stop making rigs that rely on container tension to provide staging?

Because the amount of tension will vary with the volume of the parachute packed inside. I does not seem to me that this will be about closing loop length, because at the time when the container tension is providing the staging, the closing loop is already out of the picture. So it really depends on how much parachute you have in there in the first place.

Or should we say that rigs that rely on container tension should have a clear list of canopies that will fill the rig correctly so as to provide the correct tension, and limit the owner to those reserves only?

IOW - are we just not getting enough information from the rig manufacturers to do a proper job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

IOW - are we just not getting enough information from the rig manufacturers to do a proper job?



Do the manufacturers even have the information you're alluding to?

Is it even possible for every mfg to pack every concievable reserve that might fit into a certain size and test the deployments?

Even if they could, what about the differences in pack jobs? Let's say you pack a rig with more bulk in the bottom, where the corners of the reserve container are built up, and after being packed in there and settling for months, those built-up corners might be able to hold the bag in with 'x' amount of force.

Now take the same rig to another rigger who packs it top-heavy, where the reserve container side wall is shorter, and there are no constructed corners. The softer bottom portion of the pack job will be mroe likey to slip out of the container, and the heavier top end is unrestricted just due to the consturction of the container. Overall, the bag will be held in with less force.

That's the fundamental problem of having a 'certified' reserve system that's made up of two components that were independantly certifed. While they each may have performed well under the test conditions, how does that guarantee their compatibility or performance when combined?

Not to side track the thread, but this is where the idea of bumping the AAD activation altitude comes in. I understand the gear issue is seperate from the AAD activation altittude, but with the number of variables present in harness/containers, reserves, and pack jobs, it becomes very hard to mitigate the problem of inconsistant reserve deployment times.

If you look at the one component that is tested, for all practical purposes, in a 'real world' environment, that being the reserve canopy, you can see that the testing allows for 300 ft of altitude to open. Considering that once the canopy hits the airstream, it's essentailly in the same conditions as the test, so we can use that as a reliable maximum altitude needed for inflation.

If you subtract that 300ft from the 750ft activation altitude, it only leaves you with 450ft (or about 2.5 seconds) from firing to the freebag clearing the canopy at line stretch. If you take anymore than that, you're counting on the reserve to open faster than it's certified to, which it may, but that's not the prudent way to design a safety system.

Between different combinations of containers and canopies, different riggers, and spring loaded PC hesitations on even the best configured/packed rigs, maybe 750ft just isn't enough time to 'ensure' a reserve deployment and inflation before impact.

Even though the problem isn't the AAD, the solutuion may be. It's a given that the jumper has failed horribly when an AAD fires, so to push for jumper education and training makes no sense. These people made a mistake, and no amount of training is going to eliminate that.

So if we focus on the gear, I don't think it's hard to see that things have changed. I recall years ago when I first saw a Mirage G3 in person, and I was amazed at how 'nice' it was. The construction, the padding, the layers of fabirc, it all added up to a reserve container that looked more like the inside of a luxury car. Compare that to the Racer I was jumping at the time, which was one layer of courdura between the world and my freebag. It was my wife's new rig, and I was jealous.

The point is that in the days since the AAD protocol and the current min pull altitude were set, things have changed significantly in terms of the gear. Reserve containers are more built up, with more flaps, and more material shoved into a smaller space. Main canopies are taking loger to open, and they spin and malfunction faster if that should be the case. With these changes in mind, to not make other changes accordingly is stupid and short-sighted.

It's not 1991 anymore. What worked then may not work now, and it seems like it's not. You can go on and on about jumper training, gear issues and the like, but in the end an AAD is really designed for an unconsious jumper. What it needs to do is reliably get a reserve out and inflated before impact with no input from anyone. If the gear of today needs more than 750ft to make that happen, then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a big racer fan. I hate to think that I'm on the same side as John Sherman. I know I'm going to get shit for saying some of this.

From a purely functional stand point the old racer... eleates? there's been so many versions/names but I mean the ones with the downwards closeing riser covers and all the velcro were actually one of the most functional designs ever made. Haveing the riser cover intergrated into the reserve flap allowed it to open with the reserve container. The bag was far less constrained at the top, there was less vareation in the exstraction force from one configuration to another. Even when they went to a tray Jump Shack was one of the few to not go over board with their riser covers over the shoulders. They are also the only company to actually have the sence to down size the diamiter of there reserve piolt chute which is one of the biggest problems with deployments from small rigs today. There. I've said it. I've agread with John Sherman. Now please some one shoot me and put me out of my missory.

The answer to this might actually be a step backwards. Hesetator loops lost their cool for a while but there comeing back now with all the sky hook sillyness. I've heard stories too about miss rigging but the fundomental idea is sound and it makes the design of the container and fit of the canopy far less critical.

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"
Quote

Quote

...



It is reported this jumper was jumping a Javelin J6. According to SunPath's (the mfr of the Javelin H/C system): Reserve sizing for a J6 should be 235sq ft, with microline. *(I do not know, whether the PD Optimum ships new with either microline or dacron ... Blue Skies,
-Grant



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

Sounds like the combination would be on the "soft" side of Sun Path's reccomendations.
For comparison, I have packed hundreds of Tempo 250s into Javelin J7s and that is almost to the "perfect" combination.
I have packed one PD 253 into a Javelin J5 and that was a ^%$#@! tight combination!

PD Optimum reserves come stock with Spectra suspension lines. Spectra suspension lines pack about 15 percent smaller than the same canopy with Dacron lines.
During PIA 2009, I packed a PD Optimum 253 into a Softie designed for a 210 reserve and it just "fell" in. Mind you Softies have always packed softer than most skydiving rigs.

Fashions for pack density/volume have changed since I started skydiving. Back in the late 1970s, skydiving rigs were comparatively "soft" and staging loops (aka "hesitator loops") were needed to ensure that reserve pilot-chutes were pulling (at full bridle extension) before round reserves fell out of the container. Round reserves open best when you maintain steady tension on suspension lines during the entire opening sequence.

Note: that without freebags, round reserves could fall out of containers a little bit at time, and out-of-sequence deployments really mess up reliability.

Over the years, fashions for container volume/density got tighter. What was once considered "stupid tight" and "only the best rigger at the factory could close it" slowly became the norm.

As density standards changed, friction between the freebag and container changed, ruining some of the TSO drop test standards.
By 2009, UPT/Relative Workshop had to issue a Service Bulletin requiring retrofitting staging loops to their Sigma tandem container to ensure that the reserve pilot-chute was pulling (at full bridle extension) before the free-bag could exit the container. The Sigma deployment sequence got further complicated by the Skyhook, etc.

But the bottom line is: if you overstuff a container, you become a test jumper. If you over-stuff a container, you "mess with" the friction staging sequence. And if you ever die with an over-stuffed container, insurance companies will use that as a n excuse to avoid paying your widow, because4 you failed to follow the manufacturer's instructions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Does that say that we should stop making rigs that rely on container tension to provide staging?


Container Tension: Yes, we should not build containers that depend on container tension to stage the reserve deployment. If you grossly under stuff a Racer there is no tension and it will still stage. We box the lower corners of both our main and reserve. We do that to stage the bag. It doesn’t mater how tight the corner is, the bag will still stage. The bags are designed to rotate out by pulling the top of the bag and pivoting in the boxed corners. The main does use some tension to keep the bag from falling out if the pin is pulled on the ground. That tension is created when the bag is forced against the bottom of the reserve against the vertical partition. We rotate the bag from that location. We design our containers so that if the container is opened while walking or standing the bag won’t fall out. However if you remove the rig from your body it will fall out. My internal spec for this situation is that the bag should take no more than its weight to pull it out of the container. However, because we know the drag capability of our pilot chute we set the allowable bag extraction force to about double that. However, that can be better understood by reading: http://www.jumpshack.com/read/tech/Reserve_Bag_Extraction_Forces.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"
Quote

... Maybe container manufacturers should have some hard and fast rules on what is too tight in their containers. Even if they do have these rules, how does a manufacturer know for sure what is too tight without testing it?

"

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

Container manufacturers test-pack as many different sizes of reserves as they can get their hands on. For example, from 1994 to 1997, I was the rigger - at Rigging Innovations - who test-packed all the new reserves (Raven M109, PD113R, etc.) into all the Talon 2 prototypes.

Meanwhile, Sandy Reid was busy running new canopies through his volume-testing cylinder.
Sandy would generate a number, then I would test-pack to determine if it was a practical number.

Some of those combinations were "no big deal," while others were reported as "%$#@! tight!"
After you have packed a few Tempo 120s, Micro Raven 120s, PD 126R, etc. into a given size of container, you develop a "trained eye" that can make an "educated guess" about whether a Techno 120 will fit "tight" or "loose" into the same container.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do the manufacturers even have the information you're alluding to?


Parachute Labs. has all of the information to which you allude. Most manufacturers don't even know the capability (Cd) of their reserve pilot chute, ours is published as our allowable extraction forces.
Quote

Is it even possible for every mfg to pack every conceivable reserve that might fit into a certain size and test the deployments?


No it is not! However, the designer must not allow the container design to malfunction when over or under stuffed. We studied that issue over 20 years ago and established deployment control parameters, which could not change with, content size. These were dimensions for certain locations and they are the same on every Racer ever built. It ain't rocket science. We also tested our reserve pilot chute as well as both the old and new Vectors at the NASA Ames 7x9 facility. Results: Racer Cd=.84, Old Vector Cd=.79, New Vector Cd =.33.
The changes to which you allude (single complete unit certification & altitude increases) probably would not help: “you can’t solve stupid and it is difficult to control greed”. At his point I find it difficult to remain civil. As I find it necessary to comment on the work of my peers. I can think of one or two that that are exempt from what I am about to say. But, generally, the people who make your gear are a bunch of ill educated copycats who can sew. The ones who are “inventing” and are being copied are not interested in doing much more than appeasing their client base. A Camel is a horse designed by a committee. If the committee is client base and the designer only panders to that base then you will get the results you are getting in today’s gear. The problems we are addressing here today aren’t new. I told BJ after he jumped the hole in Mexico that “it was good his main worked ‘cause his reserve wouldn’t have”. He just stared at me. This problem has been going on since then and this
Quote

I recall years ago when I first saw a Mirage G3 in person, and I was amazed at how 'nice' it was. The construction, the padding, the layers of fabirc, it all added up to a reserve container that looked more like the inside of a luxury car. Compare that to the Racer I was jumping at the time, which was one layer of courdura between the world and my freebag. It was my wife's new rig, and I was jealous.


Yes, that is about where it all went wrong. I was heavily criticized for my stubbornness to change at that time. We did make some changes for that client base but we mostly lost market share to cosmetics and ignorance. All of that glitter was not gold or as my British friend calls them Gucci Rigs. Today we are paying the price, “and now there are eleven”.
You are right it isn’t 1991 and SOME gear is different. I believe that the folks who weren’t diligent and made it different should pay a price for their negligence and sacrifice their ill-gotten gains. That is the way it works in our society. To make changes to appease ignorance is to reward those who didn’t do their homework and is unacceptable. Maybe one piece of cordura between the world and the freebag was better after all. I hope you wife is OK.
Oh BTW: you don’t get to add the 300 feet to the distance it takes for the canopy to come out of the bag. It’s 300 feet from pull. Do you know of a rig other than a Racer that can do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes John, I know one rig able to match the Racer, no, 2, the Advance and the Seven.:P
Take care

Jérôme Bunker
Basik Air Concept
www.basik.fr
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Yes John, I know one rig able to match the Racer, no, 2, the Advance and the Seven.:P
Take care



To be extra clear, you mean the Advance OUT and Seven?

Or does the Advance IN also?

I know the Advance OUT and Seven have staging loops.

Does Advance IN?


Hi Paul

Out and Seven only, the In has flaps, this means slower even with a special bottom corners design.
Jérôme Bunker
Basik Air Concept
www.basik.fr
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That's great Jerome!
Show me the video!
I didn't see it on your web site or Facebook
Here is mine:www.jumpshack.com
Chow



Yes its great, I have to check my files and I will..On your its almost a transfer:P
Take care
Jérôme Bunker
Basik Air Concept
www.basik.fr
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0