0
degeneration

Reserves and manufacturers' MSW - & reserve selector

Recommended Posts

Having just ordered a new container, I was looking into what reserve canopy to get, or keep an eye out for on the 2nd hand market. There were several different brands and sizes that I was happy to jump that I knew would fit in the container, but then I started to notice their MSWs.

With the exception of the low pack volume reserves, every single one of the other reserves in the size I thought I'd be happy jumping, that fit in the container I ordered, I exceeded the stated MSW.

I'm getting an Icon I3, and it will fit up to a 135 Smart reserve, but for an Advanced skydiver (which it is unlikely I'd be classed as anyway), their MSW is 176 pounds. Out the door with my weight belt on (which I do usually wear) I am about 185 lbs, so going by this I'm too heavy for it, even though it is a size I thought I'd be ok with.

So what is the deal with MSWs? as I read on forums people having high wing loading on reserves, which would quite likely exceed the MSW. And alot of the smaller reserves must either have tiny people using them, or people ignoring the manufacturer's MSW. Is it illegal or anything to jump them over the MSW or just strongly advised against?

To try to help me find a reserve for my new container I made a basic excel spreadsheet - http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?28v523525x4n8c9 - which will show all the reserves that would fit in the given reserve pack volume range required for my rig (fields are editable) and also where my exit weight is below the MSW.

That's where I was surprised to find that only the Optimum, Speed 2000 and X-Fast have sizes that fit all criteria.
Sky Switches - Affordable stills camera tongue switches and conversion adaptors, supporting various brands of camera (Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The number you're looking at, 176 pounds, is the max they feel an advanced skydiver should weigh and be able to safely pilot the thing.

The number on the far right, 220 pounds, is the maximum weight that should be suspended under it. I'm hazarding to guess that is what the reserve was TSO'ed at and if so, that means (in the US, no clue about UK's rules) it would be illegal to use if you weighed more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Having just ordered a new container, I was looking into what reserve canopy to get, or keep an eye out for on the 2nd hand market. There were several different brands and sizes that I was happy to jump that I knew would fit in the container, but then I started to notice their MSWs.



What are MSWs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Having just ordered a new container, I was looking into what reserve canopy to get, or keep an eye out for on the 2nd hand market. There were several different brands and sizes that I was happy to jump that I knew would fit in the container, but then I started to notice their MSWs.



What are MSWs?



Manufacturer Suggested Weights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Having just ordered a new container, I was looking into what reserve canopy to get, or keep an eye out for on the 2nd hand market. There were several different brands and sizes that I was happy to jump that I knew would fit in the container, but then I started to notice their MSWs.



What are MSWs?



Manufacturer Suggested Weights



How about Maximum Suspended Weight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've made a classic error. Buying a container first before determining what reserve you could/should wear.

As to MSW's. PD's tend to be conservative but so do I. You list a smart 150 now. Why do you think you should downsize your reserve?

Yes many people ignore not only recommended max suspended weights but even certified legal limits. As to what is legal in the UK I can't help you.

Since you just ordered it you may want to change your order.;)
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The canopy was tested at 264 lb. the minimum test weight allowed by TSO-C23d. It is certified or TSO’d to 220 lb. The 176 lb. is the manufactures opinion of what would be a safe weight for an advance canopy pilot to safely land the canopy.

In the US it is a violation to exceed the certified weight. I don’t know about the UK.

Things to consider when picking a reserve are experience, keeping the W/L below about 1.1 and how many jumps you have on a LoPo 7 cell. For someone who has nerve jump one they can be unforgiving. They don’t fly or land anything like the present day 9 cell ZP canopies.

The way you should go about buying gear is to pick the appropriate canopies for your experience and comfort level and then order a container to fit them. Is it too late to change you order?

Sparky

I have never head of anyone landing a reserve and complaining that it was too small. ;)
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You've made a classic error. Buying a container first before determining what reserve you could/should wear.



Possibly. Although I had intended on starting out not doing this!! I had the set of reserves that I figured I would definitely be happy with lined up, knew they would fit in the container I wanted so was happy.

As to why to go smaller than a Smart 150 - yes a reason was to fit in the container. I wanted a container that had max. main size equal to my current main, I found one that also allowed reserves in sizes I was happy with. So I thought all was good. My 1st choice was an R-Max 138, which was a size I was happy with, so I figured if I was happy with it...

But now given the available options, it is possible that I may be going for anything from a Op. 143, which if I am right about the different ways PD and aerodyne measure their areas, would actually be quite like 150 in size, or a Speed 200/X-fast 170, so I may be upsizing my reserve!

So who actually jumps the reserves like PD113 or PD126? Cause surely they are over the MSW?

The max certified weight is the legal limit, but the MSW is just a suggested guideline and there are no legal ramifications for exceeding?
Sky Switches - Affordable stills camera tongue switches and conversion adaptors, supporting various brands of camera (Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


So who actually jumps the reserves like PD113 or PD126? Cause surely they are over the MSW?



Just about everyone experienced. Well, no not everyone, I'm not looking for responses here from people with big reserves...

Even back in the mid 1990s, a not uncommon reserve for anyone experienced, would be a PD126. Maybe not for an extra large guy, but even for someone 180 lbs before gear. So MSW's have been ignored practically forever.

(If one looks at container sizing charts from the era, say for the Vector II, you find that the rigs that in theory fit a Stiletto 120 properly -- a common hot canopy of the day -- will only take something like a PD 126 at the most.)

Quote


The max certified weight is the legal limit, butis just a suggested guideline and there are no legal ramifications for exceeding?



Yes, just a guideline (at least in USA & Canada). Companies tend be conservative with their numbers. Clearly though a bigger reserve will be safer if one uses it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im 200-205 out the door, and I've used my smart 120.

They sink out quick tho, good flair at the end, stalls out little higher and quicker than normal flair stroke.

Seemed like it was sinking way too quick to stay afloat with my main.

I've got optimum 143 for the other rig and hopefully that stays up little longer.
Bernie Sanders for President 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiya,
my advise would be to ask the manufacturer if they can change the order to a bigger container size. that way you can get the bigger reserve that is suitable for you.
i find that a good few people want the smallest rig possible for looks only! and dont think of the consequences. look at the worst case scenario, you somehow get knocked out on a jump and will land like that. you would want the biggest reserve possible as you have a much better chance to get away with it. i have seen people try to land overloaded reserves that wa outside the scope and tehy did not have a nice landing, a couple even stalled.after seing that i looked into that and decided to stop those people from jumping that reserve again.
and once a customer gave me a rig for a repack, this guy was 280 lbs and had a PD106 reserve. i refused to pack it for him.
so my suggestion is make a safe choice and go for a bigger reserve,and hopefully the order with aerodyne has just been placed,so hopefully it will not be a problem to change it at this stage

rodger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've found several reserves that are of equal size or bigger than the one I have at the moment, so I don't think I'll need to change the order, just maybe change my thoughts on reserve!!
Sky Switches - Affordable stills camera tongue switches and conversion adaptors, supporting various brands of camera (Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The max certified weight is the legal limit, but the MSW is just a suggested guideline and there are no legal ramifications for exceeding?



There can be ramifications far exceeding the legal realm. Before making a buy decision, how about making a test jump decision. Ya know Billvon's Downsizing checklist ain't just for main canopies. Don't get hurt under a reserve, man. It's your last chance.
Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

You've made a classic error. Buying a container first before determining what reserve you could/should wear.



Possibly. Although I had intended on starting out not doing this!! I had the set of reserves that I figured I would definitely be happy with lined up, knew they would fit in the container I wanted so was happy.

As to why to go smaller than a Smart 150 - yes a reason was to fit in the container. I wanted a container that had max. main size equal to my current main, I found one that also allowed reserves in sizes I was happy with. So I thought all was good. My 1st choice was an R-Max 138, which was a size I was happy with, so I figured if I was happy with it...




Picking a container size where your main is at the max that will fit is also a bad idea. Lots of folks do it but that is essentially what you can stuff in it. Look at UPT's (I think it's UPT) with loose, normal and tight fit. You can live with a tight fit but life is happier with a normal fit.

The same thing is much more important with your reserve. If you choose a reserve that the published numbers say will fit, barely, in your rig it may NOT fit at all. Reserves and containers vary in volume between individual items. The canopy manufacturers admit it. I don't think I've seen a container manuf. say it and it probably is less of an issue with container since they have less sewing in them. But a reserve may be 10% bigger (and to some extent smaller) than the "nominal" volume. Smaller isn't an issue but if you happen to get a reserve on the big side in volume it may not fit in a container/size that another example of that same reserve does fit in. I have had to have customers send back rigs that their reserve was supposed to fit in and it didn't.

Your only going to piss off your rigger! Get a rig where the main and reserve fall in the middle of the size range, or at least your reserve. I know this is not what most people do. They want the smallest rig they can get away with. But when you get everything they may not fit! Apparently in one part of the U.S. the dealers routinely sell reserves one size bigger than is supposed to fit in a rig. And the riggers manage to stuff them in.

Extremely tight reserve containers may be one contributing factor to some reserves not opening in time to save their wearers. TSO testing (in the U.S.) doesn't require rigs to be stuffed as tight as possible. Riggers may tend to want to lengthen loops, or have to to make it fit. This can cause rigs to take longer to open. And perhaps not open at all, at least in time.

So keep everyone happy including yourself (so your rig all fits together when you get it) and size canopies in the middle of the container range.

Everyone with tiny rigs stuffed full are now rolling their eyes at what I've written.:P

Okay, off my soap box.:)
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...Everyone with tiny rigs stuffed full are now rolling their eyes at what I've written.:P

Okay, off my soap box.:)



And every rigger who has to deal with a tiny rig stuffed full stood up and cheered. ;)
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Terry,

Quote

Okay, off my soap box.



No, stay on that box.

My best friend in skydiving has a rig/reserve canopy that is so tight I refuse to pack it for him.

Riggers need to just say NO.

And in the latest issue of PARACHUTIST ( Page 67 ) has a fatality where the AAD did its job but the deployment did not occur in time to save the guy.

JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

...Everyone with tiny rigs stuffed full are now rolling their eyes at what I've written.:P

Okay, off my soap box.:)



And every rigger who has to deal with a tiny rig stuffed full stood up and cheered. ;)



I definitely don't want a rigger to be frustrated when packing my rig.

I've only bought 2 new rigs (both since '02) during 31 years of jumping. Both times I told the good folks in the Great Northwest that make the Infinity exactly what canopies I was going to put in their fine product, and left it up to them what main and reserve size for them to build. I didn't put any pressure on them to make it a tight fit so that I could downsize, blah, blah. I just left it up to them. The result was predictably a fit that is just right. It looks just right, the flaps and tabs fit just right, and riggers have no problems packing it. Not so hard to do.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I've found several reserves that are of equal size or bigger than the one I have at the moment, so I don't think I'll need to change the order, just maybe change my thoughts on reserve!!



i am glad you asked the question on here,that why this forum is here for.
there is some excellent advise from councilman-terry urban and jerry baumchen below. i dont know them personally but i have great respect for the 2 of them as they always make great posts on here. and i value there knowledge and judgement on matters.
i been in the sport nearly 20 yrs now and a rigger for 14 of them.and i have seen some stuff that i would not like to ever seen again. so i always like to take a safer option like going for a 1 size bigger container.
but at least you have some great info to make your decision

rodger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Everyone with tiny rigs stuffed full are now rolling their eyes at what I've written.

Okay, off my soap box.



This is a quote from AC-105-2D:


(1) Assembled parachute components must be compatible. Each component of the
resulting assembly must function properly and may not interfere with the operation of the other components. For example:

(a) Do not install a low-volume canopy into a high-volume container, since it could adversely affect the proper functioning of the entire parachute assembly. Likewise, do not install a high-volume canopy into a low-volume container.



While Advisory Circulars are supposedly advisory in nature ignoring them can lead to a Violation under Part 91.13.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking as a person who stuffed the hell out of my container INITIALLY there are a few facts that I would like to make either clear or redundant.

When first purchasing the rig I confirmed on the sizing chart that it would fit, but extremely tight fit. Needless to say I was oblivious to the danger that I created on the reserve perhaps inducing a hesitation and putting additional un-needed stress on the fabric and seems as well as making packing a pain in the ass.

Secondly, I believe I speak for quite a few people here that skydivers in general like to "get the most bang for their buck" as do most people that go to buffet restaurants and stuff themselves sick. With that being said I state the obvious and redundant: If people's mentality is such why spend MORE money for another brand new rig later down the line when you could just SAVE money and keep the new rig now but overstuff it for future downsizing (if they so choose to do so). Education is key in this aspect

Lastly, I believe when we know, see or hear of people ordering brand new rigs perhaps we should chat with them and enlighten them regarding the safety issue and potential consequences regarding overstuffing a rig & how difficult it would be to pack as well, as not as many people read DZ as they do skydive.

------------------------------------------------------------

Going back to the OP original post/question

As long as you are BELOW the Max weight you are fine jumping it....at least this applies to the U.S Now just because you don't max out a 99 sq ft reserve doesn't mean you should jump it, but of course all up to what you deem is safe and appropriate size & WL

Hope this helps! Be safe & HAVE FUN!
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
If the French had gotten their way PIA TS135, the new TSO standard, would have required a totally inclusive list or what reserve and model/size could go into what rig and model/size. Not as advisory but as an absolute of what can go together legally. Anything else would have been illegal.

Because of the variation in canopy volume the rest of the committee said that this was impractical. I do believe that the new TSO will require some guidance in determining compatibility.

It's still up to a rigger to decide. The advisory quoted essentially tells a rigger to do their job. Nothing new there.

One good guide is if you can't get it in the rig with the loop length mandated by the rig manufacturer, IF they spec one, it's too big.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

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.

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