Performance standarts vs. Manufacturers limitations

[Deyan 31]

I was thinking for some time about this, but the recent fatality in Hungary made me think about it even more.
So , what is the real deal with the TSO performance standards? Who make them? Based on what research?
My understanding is that FAA/EASA asks PIA to set its own standards. Then PIA sends the documents back to FAA/EASA for approval.
We have small reserves because the manufacturers are allowed to make them. And they are allowed to make them because their products meets the standards set by themselves.
On the other hand, is it really acceptable to have a performance standard like this one:


from AS-8015B 4.3.7 Rate of Descent "The average rate of
descent shall not exceed 24 ft/s (7.3 m/s), and the total velocity shall not exceed 36 ft/s (11.0 m/s), in
an unaltered post deployment configuration, corrected to standard sea level altitude conditions".

Why not some more survivable speeds?! Let say no more than 5 m/s descent and 8 m/s total velocity. That will force the manufactures to drop the idea of 99sq.ft reserves. Maybe even 135 sq.ft.

I went trough some of the TSO'd C23D reserves just to compare the MAX suggested weights
Here is the result.
PDR 113 Max(Expert) 159 lbs / 72 kg.
Icarus Reserve 119 Max 158 lbs / 72 kg
Smart 120 Max 165 lbs / 75 kg
Techno 128 Max 163 lbs / 74 kg
Speed 2000 120 Max 158 lbs / 72 kg.

It seems that the manufacturers are fully aware that reserves in the range of 120 sq. ft. are not suitable for jumpers heavier than 160 lbs exit weight. So why not just lower the performance standards?

"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen

[mjosparky 3]

Present TSO minimum performance standards are AS-8015 Rev. B. The “AS” if for Aerospace Standard. They were developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers. To date PIA has not been able to get the FAA accept their standards. (PIA TS 135)

There 2 weights that you see thrown around. One is the Maximum Operation Weight and the other is Test Weight. MOW is the weight the system/canopy is certified to. Test weigh is MOW x 1.2 with a minimum of 264. There are other thinks involved but that’s the basics.

When it’s all said and done, you give me enough money and I will TSO a table cloth.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Why not some more survivable speeds?! Let say no more than 5 m/s descent and 8 m/s total velocity. That will force the manufactures to drop the idea of 99sq.ft reserves. Maybe even 135 sq.ft.

Why?

I mean on a deeper level why is it's anyones job to protect fools or the experienced from themselves. We have higher minimum standards for students. We have a culture that should be looking out for low timers.

Why stop those that think they can handle a 99sq ft reserve? Enough with the nanny state mentality.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Why not some more survivable speeds?! Let say no more than 5 m/s descent and 8 m/s total velocity. That will force the manufactures to drop the idea of 99sq.ft reserves. Maybe even 135 sq.ft.

Why?

I mean on a deeper level why is it's anyones job to protect fools or the experienced from themselves. We have higher minimum standards for students. We have a culture that should be looking out for low timers.

Why stop those that think they can handle a 99sq ft reserve? Enough with the nanny state mentality.

How far should that logic extend? For example, elimination of, say, requiring reserves, or minimum main pack opening altitudes? (That's not an argument, btw, it's just an inquiry.)

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Why stop those that think they can handle a 99sq ft reserve? Enough with the nanny state mentality.

Because those idiots who do stupid shit will do stupid shit regardless of what any rules or regulation say.

The rules and regulations are for the sane people who care about their own safety.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[skybytch 259]

Quote

That will force the manufactures to drop the idea of 99sq.ft reserves. Maybe even 135 sq.ft.

Right. Because there are no skydivers who weigh less than 160 pounds.

[riggerrob 558]

"

Quote

...
The rules and regulations are for the sane people who care about their own safety.

"

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

Good point!

[riggerrob 558]

All good points, just remember that TSO standards started with ancient MIL SPECS (military specifications).
The first generation of sport parachutes were just military patterns in prettier colours. It was only when sport parachutists demanded better performance, than manufacturers started developing higher-performance canopies. The first sport parachute canopy was the Para-Commander with remarably better performance, but remarkably worse malfunction rate!

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Quote

That will force the manufactures to drop the idea of 99sq.ft reserves. Maybe even 135 sq.ft.

Right. Because there are no skydivers who weigh less than 160 pounds.

"

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

Reserves smaller than 150 square feet were first developed for Japanese girls. It was only when stupid, fat white men started jumping tiny canopies that a problem developed.

For example, the young skydivers used to think I was a boring old fart when I warned them against Micro Ravens. They ignored me until a medium-sized male skydiver stalled a Micro Raven broke a lot of bones. Sales of second-hand Micro Ravens immediately collapsed!

Caveat: I have nothing against small people jumping small Ravens, but I think it is stupid for big people to jump small Ravens.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

"

Quote

...
The rules and regulations are for the sane people who care about their own safety.

"

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

Good point!

~One thing I don't understand, IF you're going with an AAD part of the reason is incapacitation.

WHY would you then have such a device on a system that cannot likely be landed unless you have full use of your mind & body?

Before I purchased my current reserve (a 220 loaded 1.2:1) I made a few jumps on a factory demo. For shits & giggles I thought I'd try to land it on a clam day without releasing the brakes.

I'm older, smarter & more fragile than I use to be so I chickened out a few feet off the deck and used rears to a PLF.

I'm convinced it would have been survivable without doing that, but even @ 1.2:1 ~ I wouldn't relish the thought of a downwinder in moderate winds on concrete...and who knows, that 'could' happen.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Deyan 31]

Quote

Present TSO minimum performance standards are AS-8015 Rev. B. The “AS” if for Aerospace Standard. They were developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers. To date PIA has not been able to get the FAA accept their standards. (PIA TS 135)

Really good info here. It seems that I was misinformed.

"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen

[Deyan 31]

Quote

Why?

I mean on a deeper level why is it's anyones job to protect fools or the experienced from themselves.

On even deeper level why do we need the TSO at all ?!

"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen

[Deyan 31]

Quote

Quote

That will force the manufactures to drop the idea of 99sq.ft reserves. Maybe even 135 sq.ft.

Right. Because there are no skydivers who weigh less than 160 pounds.

Wanna bet ?
My exit weight is 157 .......and YES I drink beer after jumping

"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Rob,

Quote

The first sport parachute canopy was the Para-Commander

A slight correction if you do not mind.

The first sport parachute was the Pioneer 1.6; commonly known as a 'one-six.' 1.6 material was a ripstop fabric of 1/6 oz/sq yd that had been calendarded ( sp? ), which meant the fabric went through a series of presses to flatten the threads of the fabric reducing the porosity.

Then, in the Spring of '64 the CrossBow came on the market; along with Security's Tracker canopy. The Tracker was a typical round canopy made of 1.1 oz fabric that had been calendard.

The appearance of the CrossBow on the market forced Pioneer to get their keesters in gear and finish the development of the ParaCommander.

JerryBaumchen

PS) I have never been able to find any technical reference to 'calendaring.'

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

that had been calendarded

Calendering

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Hi Rob,

Quote

The first sport parachute canopy was the Para-Commander

A slight correction if you do not mind...

Then, in the Spring of '64 the CrossBow came on the market ...

The appearance of the CrossBow on the market forced Pioneer to ... finish ... development of the ParaCommander.

JerryBaumchen ...

"

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

Jerry,
I do not mind your correction.
I know why Crossbows did not sell well.
I have one-and-a-half jumps on a Crossbow.
I also have one jump on a 24 flat military-surplus reserve. Good thing I was young and skinny and tough ... er ... had a high threshold for pain ... and landed in a freshly-plowed field.
I never jumped another LeMoigne-class canopy.

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Quote

Why?

I mean on a deeper level why is it's anyone's job to protect fools or the experienced from themselves.

On even deeper level why do we need the TSO at all ?!

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

Pilot Emergency Parachutes are considered "aircraft accessories" under TSO C23.
Skydiving was not very popular when TSO C23 was first written. The FAA never seriously considered that significant numbers of people would voluntarily jump out of airplanes. Now those damned skydivers clutter the skies!!!
Since the TSO for PEPs was extended to include skydiving reserves, the FAA is stuck with regulating reserves.

Similarly, seat-belts are considered "aircraft accessories under TSO C22.

[Deyan 31]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why?

I mean on a deeper level why is it's anyone's job to protect fools or the experienced from themselves.

On even deeper level why do we need the TSO at all ?!

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

Pilot Emergency Parachutes are considered "aircraft accessories" under TSO C23.
Skydiving was not very popular when TSO C23 was first written. The FAA never seriously considered that significant numbers of people would voluntarily jump out of airplanes. Now those damned skydivers clutter the skies!!!
Since the TSO for PEPs was extended to include skydiving reserves, the FAA is stuck with regulating reserves.

Similarly, seat-belts are considered "aircraft accessories under TSO C22.

Thanks for the history lesson Rob
But my question was rhetorical .

Here's another one. ( not rhetorical this time )

The quoted speeds from AS8015b are the same as the one suggested from PIA in TS 135, but what about the speeds in AS8015a and the previous NAS 804,are they still the same?! I don't have those documents at home so I can't check them now.

"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen

[riggerrob 558]

"

Quote

...
So , what is the real deal with the TSO performance standards? ...
My understanding is that FAA/EASA asks PIA to set its own standards. Then PIA sends the documents back to FAA/EASA for approval. ...

"

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

In that respect, the FAA is brighter than Transport Canada.

To illustrate my point, may I quote an example that involves TSO C22 ... seat-belts.
In the aftermath of the 1992 crashes, the FAA told USPA "to encourage skydivers to wear seat-belts, or you will not enjoy the (regulatory) alternative."
USPA listened and did an admirable job of convincing skydivers that seat-belts were the latest fashion. In their rush to make seat-belts fashionable, the FAA quietly ignored the lack of paperwork generated by redneck engineers like Jack Hooker (single-point restraints). That was a good thing.

Fast forward to 2008, when I reminded my (Canadian) boss that some of his airplane were along way behind (the American) fashion curve - when it came to seat-belts, he replied "They (Hooker's single-point restraints) are not TSOed" (which translates to to "Without perfect paperwork, Transport Canada will give me grief over non-approved aircraft accessories.")

A few months later, none of the skydivers were wearing seat-belts when he crashed a King Air.
I am still bitter over the fact that I was unable to jump for almost six months ... was unable to walk without pain for a year ... and the fact that my right shoulder will never be as strong as before the accident.
When Transport Canada phoned to interview me - a few months after King Air crash - TC sounded totally clueless about bloody lessons learned by American s16 years earlier, so I ignored their questions about the King Air crash ... Instead I gave Transport Canada an educational earful about the bloody lessons learned by Americans 16 years earlier.

Now Workmans' Compensation of British Columbia is suing Transport Canada (and a bunch of other defendants) over the lack of adequete seat-belts.

P.S. If anyone is offended by me referring to Jack Hooker as a "redneck engineer" ... they can "suck it up princess!"
I have a lot of respect for Jack Hooker, because he was able to solve a problem that baffled the military-industrial-complex for decades: how to anchor parachutists in a crashing airplane. The true brilliance of Jack's invention (single-point restraints) is that they employ stock hardware, stock webbing and can be copied by any Master Rigger with a heavy-duty sewing machine.

[mjosparky 3]

AS8015-A allows testing in 3 different categories with varying weight and speed. NAS-804 allows for testing in 2 categories. Since neither standard is in affect what the speeds and weights used are moot. The current TSO-C23-d uses AS8015-B as its standard and will probably be in effect for some time.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Deyan 31]

Quote

AS8015-A allows testing in 3 different categories with varying weight and speed. NAS-804 allows for testing in 2 categories. Since neither standard is in affect what the speeds and weights used are moot. The current TSO-C23-d uses AS8015-B as its standard and will probably be in effect for some time.

Sparky

Thanks Sparky,

I know all of the above. What I don't know is the allowed decent rate per TSO C23-b low and standard speed and the TSO C23-c categories a,b and c.
AS8015B allows testing in many speeds and weights, but the descent rate stays the same, so I think that for TSO-b/c despite the different weights and speeds, the descent rate requirement might stay the same.

What I'm trying to find out is when this 24ft/s descent and 36 total speed was accepted?! In 1949 with C23-b, in 1984 with C23-c or in 1994 with C 23-d.

Thank you for your time

"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

What I'm trying to find out is when this 24ft/s descent and 36 total speed was accepted?! In 1949 with C23-b, in 1984 with C23-c or in 1994 with C 23-d.

May this will help.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals