Emergency Aircrew Parachute

[pathfinderirl 0]

I'm looking to get an emergency parachute for use as aircrew.

I'd like to use the C9 canopy but need a harness / container for it. I'm aware that there are several companies that use this canopy in their systems.

I can acquire a C9 canopy no problem but need an appropriate harness/container, at a reasonable cost.

I've looked at the BA17/22 systems but they are a little bulky. Something like the Softie Mini, but not the seat version.

I know Airborne Systems (Irvin) manufacture a similar system called the B Mk 72 / 73 but again I'm looking for a cost effective alternative.

I'd like to know peoples thoughts on this.

[firemedic 7]

Check with Butler Parachutes and Strong Enterprises. They both have Aircrew systems compatible with a C9.

[riggerrob 558]

What type of airplane are you flying?
Are you a pilot?
How fast does it fly (Vne)?
How much do you weigh (exit weight)?
Which seat are you occupying?
What type of parachute container (back,seat or chest) was that seat originally designed for?
Where is the nearest exit?
How recently have you reviewed bail-out drills - with an instructor?

[dpreguy 14]

C-9 canopy. Presumeably not steerable. Assuming you do find a harness/continer; check the manual for Butler. They state that if you put a non- steerable parachute in one of their containers, they WILL file a FAA violation- as being forbidden by the mfg..(them) They have a good point. If you call the other manufacturers, you will probaly find they don't want one non-steerable either. In my opinion, any rigger who is intending to put a C-9 into a modern manufacturer's continer should consult with the manufacterer of the H/C prior to doing so. Also, the C-9 is in the "standard" category,and most modern harness continer systems are in the "low speed" category. This compatibility issue also ought to be addressed with the harness/continer manfacturer. In these modern times, most riggers will refuse to pack a pilot emergancy parachute that is not steerable anyway. They should refuse. (my opinion). The C-9 ought to be made steerable, or not used at all, (my opinion again) with a 4 line release conversion modification. This conversion requires a master rigger and elevates the cheap C-9 from cheap, to an expensive choice. If done, it must be done with a conversion kit that is TSO'd, not just cobbled.

My advice is to question your committment to a C-9, military surplus non steerable canopy as your first choice for a canopy for a pilot emergency rig. C-9's are bulky, and heavy. They are great for many in the warbird community, as most military planes have a deep seat pan for the bulky C-9, and it nestles in and provides a stable seat. I think all of the 4 mfg's offer a TSO'd seat version for C-9's, but I have not seen a modern back C-9, and doubt Butler, National, Strong or ParaPher make a back version. Aslo, unless your pilot is short and has a lot of head room, the 9 or 10 inches of seat would elevate the pilot, and be like sitting on a basketball, unless there is s seat pan to steady it.

If you want to have a cheap option, my suggestion is to go to dealer or a parachute shop that will sell you a complete, modern TSO'd used system, instead of cobbling up a rig from pieces. Might be cheaper, or nearly as cheap as putting one together. And the system is a compatible one.

Once again, this is my opinion

[dpreguy 14]

Oops got corrected. I guess the C9 canopy itslef isn't standard category, just the military harness and container.

[councilman24 36]

Actually none of the military stuff is any "catagory". It's built under military contract and as such is legal for civilian use. If anything is a "standard" catagory it's C-9. It is the canopy that was used for testing standard catagory harnesses. NAS-804, the standard for TSO C23b, includes a table on for what weights and speeds are necessary to generate 5000lb load, based on the C-9. NAS 804 can be found in the Parachute Rigger Handbook.

The original Sofite back, not the mini, not the micro, is sized for a C-9. I have a pristine assembly downstairs. In addition Butler includes the C-9 in its sizing chart for customers and sold C-9s in seats at least. I've packed several. They also advertise adding their slider to a C-9. And since the back rig was standard catagory before retesting under 23c cat b I assume they'll put a C-9 in there also.
I wasn't able to find the Butler statement you referenced. Link?

Strong also makes seat and back containers for the C-9.

To the OP...

All of that being said I don't recommend a C-9 for a pilot emergency rig. A C-9 weighs 12 lbs (canopy only), is only steerable if modified from it's original configuration (no longer legal for emergency use, IMHO) or used with a four line release system, has to have a deployment system (diaper) added if desired, and generally lands like a rock. No other canopy weighs much more than 9 lbs, most much less. A four line release is an extra step to use that most folks may not be able to figure out how to work. Without a diaper and the lines stowed in the container your tumbling into the top of the lines. With a diaper and a staged deployment your better off but have a hell of a brick to pack and pull off. There are calculated rates of decent that show a C-9 slower than almost any other round emergency canopy. But I certainly don't believe it. Even my Phantom 24 came down slower than the C-9's I jumped.

So, you can get a lighter, slower descending, smaller, more reliable, and stronger (rated for 382 lbs at 190KEAS at the highest I know of) canopy. Also I understand that the military contractors are no longer supplying C-9's for civilian emergency use. Mills was as late as 2005 but I understand not any longer. That's not to say that 6 year old or older C-9's aren't airworthy but not as I understand you can't get a new one.

Depending on all of the questions rob asked above a suitable canopy can be recommended. IF your set on a C-9 and have one you can order an original back Softie to put it in.

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Terry,

Quote

A C-9 . . . is only steerable if modified from it's original configuration (no longer legal for emergency use, IMHO)

You really should read that stuff I send to you.

I have FAA approval to modify a C-9 to a 3-hole steerable configuration.

Quote

Actually none of the military stuff is any "catagory". It's built under military contract and as such is legal for civilian use.

You could not be more correct.



JerryBaumchen

[councilman24 36]

But Jerry, you send me so MUCH!

and I appreciate all of it

Actually I might even remember that now. But, do you think it's more or less reliable with the mods? Mesh or no mesh?

I actually have a 24' T-10 reserve downstairs that is label as remanufacturered by John Sherman, Master Rigger, with his serial number on it. The original data panel was cut out. Hmm, 1971 or 72 I think.

I still think something else is a better option.

And I ment to qualify my statement about military stuff not being tso'd. A lot of the new stuff is tested (if not actually applied for) to TSO C23d standards. Reference Airborne systems ramair system pages.

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Terry,

Quote

But, do you think it's more or less reliable with the mods? Mesh or no mesh?

I can only offer my perspective.

I think that if you were to take two C-9 canopies; one unmodified & one modified, and then do 100 drop tests using the Functional Test method of the TSO standard, you would not find any differences in opening times and I doubt that you would experience any malfunctions. And, I personally, do not believe that the mesh/no mesh makes much difference. Are you talking about mesh at the skirt ala 32 ft parabolic military canopies or mesh in the turn windows ala Strong canopies?

Ask & answered; I think

JerryBaumchen

PS) Whenever I modified a round canopy to a steerable configuration and the data panel was in the way, I merely rotated the canopy 180 degrees and did the mod in what was the 'front' of the canopy. That keeps all of the info there in the event it might be needed in the future. Ya gotta think out of the box sometimes.

[riggerrob 558]

"

Quote

... And I meant to qualify my statement about military stuff not being TSOed. A lot of the new stuff is tested (if not actually applied for) to TSO C23d standards. Reference Airborne Systems ramair system pages.

"

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

Agreed!
One of my first jobs - with Rigging Innovations - (November 1994) was to help GQ Defence drop-test a round canopy, in a static-line rig to prove that it satisfied all the requirements for FAA TSO-C23D.

GQ Defense is now part of Airborne Systems.
They were bidding on a contract to sell static-line parachutes to the Indian Army and the Indian Army insisted on TSO C23D.

[riggerrob 558]

"

Quote

... Also I understand that the military contractors are no longer supplying C-9's for civilian emergency use. Mills was as late as 2005 but I understand not any longer. ...

"

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

That may have been a valid statement from 2005 to 2008.
When I visited Strong Enterprises (April 2008), they could not get C-9 canopies.
However, the last time I talked with Dan T. (Para-Phernalia) he had resumed buying C-9 canopies from one of the companies that sews them for the military (Mills?).

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

C-9 canopy. Presumeably not steerable. ..."

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

Only if that C-9 was sewn before (1980 or 1990?) the military standardised the production pattern with 4-line release.
All the C-9s that I packed for Butler (1992-1993) were manufactured with 4-line release. During the 1980s, Bulter also sold hundreds of 4-line release kits (TSOed by Waters).
Similarly, all the C-9s, that I packed at Para-Phernalia (1998) came with 4-line release already installed.

• Quote

[riggerrob 558]

"... but I have not seen a modern back C-9, and doubt Butler, National, Strong or ParaPher make a back version. ...

[riggerrob 558]

"... C-9. ... has to have a deployment system (diaper) added ... Without a diaper and the lines stowed in the container your tumbling into the top of the lines. With a diaper and a staged deployment your better off but have a hell of a brick to pack and pull off. ...

[potatoman 0]

http://www.paragear.com/templates/parachute.asp?group=272&t2parent=2&parent=12&level=3

You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to tell you how Fu***** stupid it is.
Davelepka - "This isn't an x-box, or a Chevy truck forum"
Whatever you do, don't listen to ChrisD.

[pchapman 261]

Quote

When I worked for Butler, I made a few dozen diapers and sewed them onto a variety of military-surplus canopies.

What's the certification basis for being allowed to do so?

Quote

the simple answer is to stow only the (top of the) left line group on the diaper, and stow the rest of the suspension lines in the pack tray. Both Butler and Strong say that is okay

Wow, being allowed to turn a full stow diaper into a line equalization diaper - that's what you are saying, right? Use only the locking stows I presume?

You've got some really interesting info here in this thread Rob!

P.S. Councilman24: I have a '65 Switlick Navy canopy in the basement, with steering vents added and a stamp saying "John Sherman steerable canopy #160349 Re-manufactured 1973 C-23b". Interesting that (like your T-10R) it is effectively called something new, rather than being called a modified Navy canopy.

[dpreguy 14]

I thought I knew something about the civilian use of the vereable C-9 canopy. Turns out my knowledge is only rudimantary. I have about 200 jumps on modified C9's, have "cut out" (with a soldering iron -type woodburning tool), melting cutting T U and Hustler modifications for myself and jumping them. I also assumed that the military bail out assemblies were in the standard category and also thier components. Not sure they are now.

Even so, this thread started out with a well-meaning guy who figured he coud start with a cheap C9 and get a (probably used) container and have an "aircrew" assemly on the cheap. Even though I have never seen any of the back versons, I doubt those containers are obtianable now, except in some old cardboard box in the back corner of an older loft.
Now the thought of trying to attatch a C9 to a modern rig with rapide links, (56 550 lines on 4 rapide links?) or worse yet, getting a mfg's approval to retrofit risers to L bars to accommodate those lines, all combine to make the choice of a C9 an unwise and uneconomic choice. I agree that 4 line release would probably not be used by an untrained aircrew member, as the steps would be unfamiliar to the 'first look' user. My point, was to state that putting an unsteerable canopy in an aircrew container is not a good practice. If an aircrew assembly is put together and sold with the premise that "It probably never be used anyway", then when that rare use does occur, it may not actually not be lifesaving, if the user hits a power line, or a moving train. (Yes a parachitist was actually killed when hitting a moving train)

I readily defer to those of you guys with in depth knowledge of C9 reserves with diapers, in Long Softies, etc., in back assemblies and with different kinds of line stowage devices. Your knowledge is beyond mine by a lot

Yes the Butler manual states they WILL turn in any rigger installing an unsteerable canopy in one of thier rigs. You who rely on the internet for all of your info, may not find this, as it may not be in internet form. that's why I keep manuals, to supplement the internet sources.

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Quote

When I worked for Butler, I made a few dozen diapers and sewed them onto a variety of military-surplus canopies.

What's the certification basis for being allowed to do so?

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

Back during the 1980s(?) Manley Butler did a few drop-tests and applied to the FAA for a TSO on an after-market diaper. They are Type 4, with 3 locking stows and all the lines stowed parallel to the radial seams.
All of Butler's diapers share similar part numbers, it is only the last couple of digits that define their size. A diaper for a bulky canopy (e.g. military-surplus) will end with the digits 11...
OTOH a Butler diaper for a low-bulk, low-speed canopy (e.g. Para-Innovators) will end with the digits 9... The primary difference is the circumference ... 11 inches for a military-surplus canopy.

The manual addendum says that lines may be stowed in the Type 4 manner (all lines on diaper) or Type 2 manner, with only the (top of the) left line group locking the diaper and the rest of the suspension lines stowed in the pack tray.

However, Type 2 stowage is only relevant on very thin containers (eg. Butler long-back or Long Softie).

An addendum allows an FAA Master Rigger to retrofit a Butler diaper to most round canopies.

Back during the 1980s most PEPs were military-surplus. The containers were uncomfortable ... er incompatible with some civilian cockpits ... and wearing out, so the simple answer was for a glider pilot to buy a new Butler long-back type PEP container and (hire a rigger to) stuff his old military-surplus canopy into it. Butler sewed on a diaper as part of the upgrade process.
Butler used to sell hundreds of diapers - to Master Riggers - back during the 1980s and 1990s. But as the supply of military -surplus canopies dried up, demand diminished.
Hint: Crown Assets Disposal and the U.S. military quit selling canopies intact circa 1980.

• Quote

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Peter,

Quote

What's the certification basis for being allowed to do so?

I do believe that they are called field approvals.

I have FAA approval to install a 3-hole mod to round canopies and two FAA approvals to install 2-types of diapers on round canopies.

You have to do all of the documentation ( justification ), the drawings, and then visit your local FSDO and 'schmooze' the local FAA guy into OK'ing it.

It really is quite simple but most people IMO do not like to do the necessary paperwork to get the approval(s).

As to your Navy having a notation of 're-manufactured,' IMO that is something that John Sherman probably had on his documentation when he submitted it to the FAA. It was his choice on how to go about it.

Hope that this helps a little with understanding this stuff,

JerryBaumchen

PS) A former manager of the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office left the FAA and went to work for a company in California that did aircraft modifications for cargo purposes. Want to guess why they hired him?

[riggerrob 558]

"

Quote

... this thread started out with a well-meaning guy who figured he could start with a cheap C9 and get a (probably used) container and have an "aircrew" assembly on the cheap. Even though I have never seen any of the back versions, I doubt those containers are obtainable now, except in some old cardboard box in the back corner of an older loft.
...

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

Probably in Ralph Hately's loft!
Hah!
Hah!

Seriously, Butler or Para-Phernalia will cheerfully sew together a new back-type PEP - sized for a C-9 - from patterns that have been hanging on their cutting room wall for decades.

Trivia: any TSO paper trail requires those patterns to be inspected (to confirm that they conform to the original drawings) every year or two.

[riggerrob 558]

"

Quote

... Now the thought of trying to attach a C9 to a modern rig with rapide links, (56 550 lines on 4 rapide links?) or worse yet, getting a mfg's approval to retrofit risers to L-bars ..."

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

That would be doing it the "hard way."
Converting risers from Maillon Rapides to L-bars is easy.
Far simpler to just leave all the suspension lines attached to (MIL SPEC) L-bar links and screw those L-bar links onto the tops of the risers.
To prevent the L-bars from tipping and "end-loading," just put two hand-tacks in the top of the risers.

• Quote

[dpreguy 14]

Don't think you could rely on a couple of hand tacks to prevent the L bars from "tipping" and the entire opening shock being taken on the little screws. I wouldn't. Especailly for those rigs that have two of the risers with the two thin 2500 lb risers.

Having Butler cheerfully sew a special back container for a C9 would be more expensive than finding a complete used rig. This well-meaning fellow who started this question, is trying to be economical

Also, every modern manufacturer sews mesh where the mod is cut from. For good reason. Just cutting an approved mod in a C9 and leaving the holes open (Even though I know we all did that for many years) risks the possibility of fabric blowing thru the mod. , which is obviously what the modern mfgs are preventing with the mesh. Old technology is still just that: old technology.

I think the key is to contact the mfg of the harness and container and see if they would allow what is proposed, from cutting out mods to wierdo line stowng ideas, to converting rapides to L bars. I think all 4 mfgs would give the boot to all of these old ideas, and stick with what they are selling-and in the case of C9's I have only seen new modern rigs (2009 ParaPhernalia seat pack, Butler uh...2007 I think, seat packs), that I have recently packed in my loft, with 4 line releases. 4 line relaease was offered as an option on a new seat pack on display at a booth I visited at Osh Kosh 2011 two months ago. Would the same mfgs make a back assembly on a special order basis? I don't know, but I'll bet that even if they did, the canopies would be 4 line release only. I don't think any mfg would allow or presently or offer a cut out mod of any kind on a C9. And, I agree with Terry, 4 line r. would not be the steering system of choice for an untrained passenger. I think the C9 4 line release is simply a niche market for the old warbird guys, who want the same canopy they were trained on 30 years ago. And the mfgs are willing to go along with that, if the canopy is made steerable that way. I'm just going on what I have seen, as I haven't polled the mfgs to see what they would or could offer.

In my opinion, bottom line is to buy a modern rig and forget the C9 idea.

[riggerrob 558]

"

Quote

Don't think you could rely on a couple of hand tacks to prevent the L bars from "tipping" and the entire opening shock being taken on the little screws. I wouldn't. Especially for those rigs that have two of the risers with the two thin 2500 lb risers. ...

"

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

Wow!
Harnesses with only two risers are soooooo old (maybe 1980) that I completely forgot about them!

I saw that method - of hand-tacking - riser ends in an old rigging textbook (Poynter?). The fancy way is to sew an additional box stitch with a Class 6 or Class 7 sewing machine ... using 5-cord or 6-cord.

[dpreguy 14]

Yup, might work, esp with a stiff and thick chafing strip under

Any way, thanks to all of you guys with the better and more complete historical knowledge. My hat's off to you guys. Hopefully the fellow who was thinking of this has enough info to make his own decsion now.