My little project

[Quagmirian 40]

GoneCodFishing

*** and go away and do a degree in engineering, for insurance purposes.

You serious? Did they actually say that? Oh man, that's tjhe biggest load of crap i ever heard the BPA come up with. Hand on heart it's true. The minutes will come out in a few months and then it's public for all to see. The way it was explained is that since I have no insurance, if there was ever an incident the lawyers would then go to the BPA. They would then have to explain why they let an 'unqualified' person make and distribute gear. You can kind of understand but it's hypothetical scaremongering to the max. I sometimes wonder if these people forget that we jump out of aircraft for fun.

I also tried explaining that aerospace engineering doesn't really cover parachutes, but that also fell on deaf ears. It was a very one-sided meeting where everybody seemed to have made up their minds before I even arrived.

[riggerrob 558]

Sounds like BPA is trying to raise the price so high that you will be forced to quit.
Sad to hear that BPA's lawyers have stooped so low .... even lower than American lawyers.

[RiggerLee 61]

To the best of my knowledge, please feel free to correct me, their is only one manufacturer with an aero space engineering degree. Manley Butler of Butler parachutes actually went out and got his degree. My understanding is that he actually did his thesis on parachutes. Or at least that's how the story goes. He is actually a doctor of parachutes.

I'm glad that they have finely established an actual definition of what qualifies as a Recognized Manufacturer. It is their right and I think we should ALL support it. Their for I am calling on all Manufacturers, Dealers, Dropzones, and jumpers to obey this guide line.

I am calling on all manufacturers who do not hold an aerospace engineering degree in parachutes to cease all shipment of their products to the UK. All manufacturers not caring liability insurance in the UK must stop all sales at once. I am calling for all drop zones their to ground all equipment not built by a recognized insured manufacturer. Starting with every Vector built by the UNINSURED RELITIVE WORK SHOP.

Lets see how long this last when people start getting calls cancelling their orders for next season. If we all have the balls to stand up to this we can fight this. Why should they? Why should Bill Booth give a shit about you? Or John LeBlanc? If any thing you might one day be a competitor to them. I don't think you're much of a threat. But once upon a time, they were you. Thirty years ago Bill Cole was setting in his spare bedroom sewing canopies just like you. And I can't imagine them wanting to see you squished under some buricratic heel. They've come a long way since then. In truth if they were to look at any of this, and your designs they would probably laugh, but I like to think that it would be a good hearted chuckle. But this is growing beyond you. This is reaching the point that it could actually start to affect them. This is getting real. I'm not saying that any one their is going to turn some one away from a plane tomorrow because they have a vector 3 on their back but what happens when they go in. This rule is now or soon will be in writing. That rig is built by an unrecognized uninsured manufacture. What happens when a lawyer, or barrister, or what ever you have over there gets a hold of that and starts pulling on that thread. The gear is illegal. The jump's illegal. The drop zone just allowed illegal unapproved gear to be jumped. The pilot just dropped a jumper with illegal unapproved gear to jump from his plane. What about the rigger that packs gear from an unrecognized uninsured manufacturer? Knowingly doing so might seen to constitute gross negligence which could jepredise any waver that was signed. I don't know how things work there but this doesn't sound like a good thing to me. I don't think this is well thought out. I think they are putting their head in an even bigger noose to no good end.

Seriously, Leblanc, Cole, Booth, George, Sandy? Any of you guys looking at this? Do any of you carry liability insurance in the UK? This is leaning towards making you gear illegal in the UK unless you carry insurance. This poor guy may never be more then a curiosity but this is starting to have implications. I really think you might want to start making phone calls. I know that there is a strategy of wanting you gear to be just slightly illegal in hope that if their ever is a trial you can point to it and try to lay the blame on some one else but I don't agree with this type of defense. I think it's cowardly. And I think it could hurt a lot of people and ultimately hurt you.

I think we need stand behind this guy. Not just because what he is doing is cool but because of what this might mean for the future. Big precedents can be set in small cases.


Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[RiggerLee 61]

Seriously, ever thought about moving to America? When you fly to California just don't get on the return flight. Two words, Sanctuary City. You can not be deported.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[hackish 8]

Define degree in engineering? Maybe you could get them to agree to a "diploma". In Canada the term "Engineer" is a protected title so it can't be thrown about but in the USA everyone is an engineer, even without a degree or membership. Some trade schools offer diplomas in engineering with as little as 1 year of courses.

Another thing to think about is why do you need the blessing of the BPA? As long as you're not using their name you could be selling parachute shaped bedsheets.

Finally, if they have decreed that no parachute in the UK may be jumped unless it was designed by an engineer then I think you could get that ruling cancelled pretty darn fast as soon as you compile an extensive list of commercially available canopies that were not.

If they wanted to put you through the ringer make a rigger inspect it, otherwise this thing stinks.

-EDIT- I think Lee typed out what I was thinking better. I've found some of the big guys to be very helpful in taking time to talk about ideas. Next trip you plan to America you should go to Deland and see if you can arrange a show and tell with PD. I think you'll find them to be very encouraging and helpful toward your project.

-Michael

[RiggerLee 61]

It might not kill you to get your riggers ticket. I think you would enjoy it. Thought, How does your country feel about FAA Riggers tickets? You can do a shake and bake riggers course here in the US in about 10 days. It's not easy. I'm not a fan of that, but it does get you a widely respected riggers ticket.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[gowlerk 1,923]

Quote

Another thing to think about is why do you need the blessing of the BPA?

That would be because it's one of the Nanny States. It's not legal to jump in GB unless you do it at a facility that has BPA blessing. And to have that you must adhere to BPA rules. He can build all the parachutes he wants, but no one can jump them there.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[JerryBaumchen 1,059]

Hi Michael,

Quote

In Canada the term "Engineer" is a protected title so it can't be thrown about but in the USA everyone is an engineer, even without a degree or membership.

You have hit a 'hot button' for me.

Here in the USA it is up to each state to determine what is & what is not an 'engineer.'

Here in Oregon, one cannot hang their shingle out as an engineer unless they are a state licensed engineer; no matter what school one attended.

Ex: I have a degree in Mech Engr from an accredited school. However, I am licensed in California as a Quality Engineer.

OK, back to being on topic.

I think the BPA is completely nutz. He might consider some type of 'consulting arrangement' with PD.

Just a thought,

Jerry Baumchen

PS) Nicely done RiggerLee.

[riggerrob 558]

BPA just wants a professional engineer to sign on top of your work. That gives BPA an extra layer of legal protection if there is an accident.

BPA's attitude is the exact opposite of the Federation Francais du Parachutisme. When I brought my first kit-built parachute to Strassbourg, they replied "Cool! How high do you want to jump from?"

Then FFP said that French citizens were only allowed to jump French -certified parachutes.
Funny how many French skydivers were jumping chutes made under American TSOs.
Hah!
Hah!

As for hiring a professional engineer .... only a few manufacturers employ university-trained engineers.

Gerry Baumchen is a civil engineer

John Sherman is an automotive engineer

Manley Butler is an aeronautical engineer. AFAIK Mr. Butler only earned a Bachelor of Engineering Degree, but his design and manufacturing skills are up at the PHD. level.

The two founders of Performance Designs: Bill Coe and John Leblanc met while they were studying at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

Rigging Innovations has employed a few degreed engineers (e.g. Storm Dunker) over the years.

Strong Enterprises has employed a few degreed engineers, but I think their skills were more software-related for developing GPS-steered cargo chutes.

[Quagmirian 40]

To change the subject to something slightly more positive. I've been ground launching my new canopy and for the first time ever got a friend to ground launch it too. He didn't kill himself, but it's something we probably won't be repeating.

He did get some lovely pictures of the canopy too:

[inline 1.jpg]

[inline 2.jpg]

[inline 3.jpg]

[Joellercoaster 6]

gowlerk

It's not legal to jump in GB unless you do it at a facility that has BPA blessing.

This is not actually true.

Long story short: It's illegal to jump (or throw anything) from aircraft here. You need a CAA special-case permission to get around that law. In order to get this, you need to provide a bunch of documentation and procedures showing that you will do it safely.

The BPA already has all of this, so generally joining it and using its Ops Manual is what dropzones do. But it has not always been like that, and does not have to be in the future.

The waiving could for be an entire dropzone (it's happened, now closed), or a one-off event like the wingsuit landing or the jump into the Olympic stadium.

This does not really help the OP unless he wants to fill out even more paperwork. Like, a lot more

--
"I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan

"You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

[Joellercoaster 6]

Quagmirian

The way it was explained is that since I have no insurance, if there was ever an incident the lawyers would then go to the BPA. They would then have to explain why they let an 'unqualified' person make and distribute gear.

There's a lot of people over here jumping Vectors. They don't have insurance or Engineers.

EVERYBODY PANIC

[edit: I also thought the top rigging qualification over here involved building your own container and shit. I've definitely seen one home-made container... maybe you can just get your BPA Advanced Rigger rating?]

--
"I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan

"You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

[Quagmirian 40]

It's true that to become a BPA advanced rigger, you have to build a container from scratch, including all components. You can take one apart and copy it, or build one at a factory. After that, it's a bit hazy whether you're allowed to design new containers or just keep copying and modifying existing ones. None of this helps of course, since I am designing canopies. It would hurt everyone if the BPA were to say that to design canopies you had to be an advanced rigger or foreign equivalent.

On the subject of non-BPA dropzones, if one sprang up I would visit straight away. It's one of the reasons I'm going abroad. When summer comes around I may go for a short trip to Ireland.

[Joellercoaster 6]

I think this smells funny.

There's a whole bunch of canopies being jumped in the UK right now that were not designed by anything like an "engineer", and gear that is manufactured and designed by explicitly uninsured entities. It seems like they've invented a new rule just for you, which while not unprecedented, seems pretty shitty.

The minutes from the STC and Riggers are not published yet, I'll be pretty interested to see what they say. If anything.

--
"I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan

"You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

[Quagmirian 40]

This will probably be my last update before I go to sunny California and hopefully post lots of photos of my new canopies. I'll be in the Perris/Elsinore area from April 7th to May 5th, if anybody wants to say hi or have a 'product demo'.

I've been sent a preliminary version of the minutes from the February rigger's meeting and they do indeed require manufacturers to have liability insurance. So I'd better not catch anyone jumping a Vector at a BPA DZ. The minutes should be available publicly soon from here:
http://www.bpa.org.uk/member/agendas-and-minutes/

[Quagmirian 40]

Ok, so far I've done 16 jumps on the grey canopy, 5 on the orange and two on the ZP monster.

The grey canopy is great. It opens quite positively and likes to turn on opening, but rolling the nose seems to control the heading and soften the openings a touch. I've taken it on 4 ways, tracking dives and a balloon. I love it.

The orange canopy is a bit of a mystery. It opens like I would expect a reserve to. It seems really flat as well. It just sits in the sky and has no control range. This is puzzling because it should be trimmed like a PD 7 Cell. I think it might have something to do with cascade height, so I need to measure the trims and maybe modify it.

The yellow ZP monster is a piece of shite. Excellent flight characteristics with a nice long control range, and more stability than I expected, but fuck the openings. They're uncomfortable even at 5 seconds. I think it's the brake settings, since the canopy is till inflating after the slider comes down. I would love to get some video at some point.

I'm in SoCal for another 2 weeks, so if anybody wants to say hi, get in touch.

Finally, what the BPA have to say on all this is available publicly here:
http://www.bpa.org.uk/assets/Minutes/Riggers-2016-02-04-pdf.pdf

[BrianM 1]

Quagmirian

Finally, what the BPA have to say on all this is available publicly here:
http://www.bpa.org.uk/assets/Minutes/Riggers-2016-02-04-pdf.pdf

Quote

Following discussion, the Committee believed that the original intention of the definition of a recognised parachute equipment manufacturer was a company
(i) whose equipment met industry standards covering design, manufacture and testing etc,
(ii) had liability insurance in place, and
(iii) who produced goods in large* quantities [*relative to the sector]

(i) Which industry standards? A standard means formal, documented criteria. Saying "industry standards" without referring to which standards is meaningless. Do they perhaps mean "common practice", and if so, who decides what that is, and how?

(ii) As has already been pointed out in this thread, this excludes an awful lot of large, established manufacturers (such as "uninsured United Parachute Technologies")...

(iii) Same issue as (i). Where do you draw the line for "large"? Plus, in any market with a significant number of manufacturers, they can't all be large relative to the sector. I think this point would exclude a number of manufacturers that they aren't intending to exclude. It's also a catch 22: you can't be a manufacturer until you're large, but how do you become large without first manufacturing gear?

If every country took this approach, we would have no gear to jump!

"It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

[RiggerLee 61]

Interesting. As I read it all three of those requirements are necessary to be considered a "Recognized Manufacturer". The catch all seems to be the "Riggers with the necessary qualifications" statement. I wonder what that means. What exactly is an Advanced Rigger? Like a Master rigger? Is this something that permits them to design and build equipment? It sounds like you just need to find one that's interested in your project and get him to sign off on the testing of your designs. If they're any thing like riggers here I would think that they would find this cool and want to jump the damn things. I'd sign it off just to get the chance to jump it.

If I'm reading this correctly I think they are shooting them selves in the foot over the insurance thing. In essence they just made all gear illegal. Unless they are just saying that any rigger from any country can build gear. In which case would you like me to write you a letter approving your gear? Of course I'd have to examine and test jump the canopies... Just to make sure that they are airworthy you understand. But I don't see that argument flying. This could be a problem for a lot of people. If British lawyers are any thing like the ones in the US, the next time some one goes in they will drag that in to a court raging about unapproved gear, lack of insurance, and unrecognized manufacturers. It will be like a bomb going off and the DZ, pilot, rigger, every one will be caught in it. You're English, What did you call it... the blitz? Remember that shit? I'll bet there are still holes in your country. It will be like that. Every rig. every canopy, every jump, is now illegal.

On to more fun things...

How are the turns on the Gray thing now? Your test jumper said he thought they were weird. Did you try moving the break lines out one half cell? I'm wondering if it might help your stability on opening as well. My thought. If you move it out like that I'm wondering if you'll get the center of the canopy flying a bit sooner. Get it leaned forward and the flow attached to the center of the canopy earlier in the opening. Might make it a bit more stable? Of course that's straight out of my ass. Might do the opposite. Don't know. Play with it. Play with the break setting.

Orange... Sounds like your too flat. Could be several things. If your rib is a different shape it might have a slightly different CP making it fly flatter then the PD7. A difference in the cascade changes that hinge point which could cause a little dimple in the canopy. The cord trying to bend into an S shape. But I think it's a bigger problem then that. I think it needs a little steeper trim. Down and dirty first thing to try. Put n extra rapid link in the rear risers. Let the toggles out on the break line as well. It's crude but we do it all the time with crw canopies. See if it flies a little better. Next step figure trap a bit of line into the A lines and C lines. You can shrink the lines that way. For Dacron it's about an inch per foot of line you figure trap in. leave a little bit hanging out on the bottom so you can pull it out easy. between an extra link in the back and a few inches of figure trap in the A and C lines you can tweak the canopy very nicely right on the packing floor. Have Fid will travel, the riggers creedo. I think you can make it work if you play with it. Keep notes.

Yellow. Welcome to design. Start tinkering. Start by playing with the break setting. You can also play with swapping out sliders. See if you can borrow a slightly larger one. I don't like to go wider then the center cell on the grommet spacing. You don't want the grommets being pushed farther down the line before the slider is pulled down off the bottom skin. Like when you pack it. If you press down in the tape at the front of the slider. The slider should take the load not the leading edge of the bottom skin of the canopy. Sliders can be too wide. Check that as well. It's center cell width and stabilizer length. that determine how wide it can be. How long are your stabs? If they are well below the A line attachment you might conceder shortening them. If you can find a sewing machine, peel them loose and push them up an inch. Your stab will flutter more but no big deal. It will give the slider more mechanical advantage at the start of the opening. Look at the Spector. They do that. It's up real tight, nice slow openings. PD reserve, long stabs, fast opening. The slider must be dominant over the canopy at the start of the openings. Don't take a longer delay till you sort this out.

Keep notes. Keep us posted. Post pictures and vid. Where's the fucking vid?

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[hackish 8]

That offer of the ZP is still open if you want some ugly pink zp. I have access to an entire roll for only a few hundred dollars. It was military surplus and purchased through paragear. I'd love to see videos of your openings. This whole project has inspired me. Maybe I'll build a canopy this winter... Now if I can get a puller for my double needle... I spent some time at a manufacturer in Deland and it makes a cell replacement a zillion times easier.

-Michael

[Quagmirian 40]

I'm sure I sent you a message saying I'd love some. Anyway, yes please, it would be really useful.

I did some more subterminal jumps on the ZP monster, without the brakes set. It seemed to slow them down a lot to be honest, like the canopy was fighting the slider and cell inflation was taking over. I've done some 5 second delays with the brakes set halfway, using a method Marty Jones showed me. The openings are really nice so far.

[Quagmirian 40]

Ok, 3 weeks and 50 jumps in...

The grey thing is still working fine. It's actually really nice once you get used to it. At terminal it has 700 ft openings which are mostly on heading. The weird turns aren't actually that weird. It brakes a bit when you toggle turn, but all rectangular canopies do that.

I've given up on the orange thing for now. I really need a day in the rigging room to change all the lines. I think it'll be quite a fun canopy when I get it right. The turns actually seemed quite smooth.

I've changed the brake line config from 1,2,4,6 to 1,2,3,5 on the ZP monster. It seems to help the openings and high toggle pressure a bit, but I'm still concerned about over extending the control range and reducing flare authority. I haven't gone properly terminal yet. So far it seems to be easy to land so long as there's a bit of wind.

All in all it continues to be a fantastic learning experience. And I managed to buy some type 1a tape from Apex Base.

Picture of my excellent landing:
[inline grey2.png]

[RiggerLee 61]

Don't give up on orange. Try what I suggested above. Slap a couple of rapped links on the rear risers. It's basically about an inch of built in front riser. No big deal. We do it all the time. You don't have to make a big production out of retrimming the whole thing. If you like it you can tweak it a bit as I described by shrinking the A and C lines with a little splice of line. No sewing necessary.

Tips for landing a flat canopy with out busting your ass... Flat canopies are a pain. They tend to lack flare authority and can stall out on you hard. Steeper trims are actually more forgiving and safer to play with. Never the less a lot of CRW canopies have been trimmed very flat, Scary flat. Landing them can suck. The trick is to flare them with the front risers. You make your approach to landing frontrisering the canopy. Maybe with a bit of a turn, it's a bit early for that here. Point is that you're artificially steepening the trim. You actually flair by letting off of the front risers and gentile with the breaks. Don't stall it. On a really flat canopy the breaks are not to flair the canopy, just to help you slow down a bit. This isn't a small, heavily loaded, high performance CRW canopy. You probable won't be able to surf it in, but you get the idea. If it's too flat to land make the trim steeper manually and let the canopy do most of the flare by it self as you let off on the front risers. This assumes that it shows good front riser stability. You should have a grasp on that by now. Final is not the place to learn that the nose rolls.

Try changing the break lines on the gray thing as well. It might make the turns a bit smoother, less brakey.

Glad you're having fun.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[accumack 13]

Looking Good! Keep at it.

[Quagmirian 40]

Ok, four inches on the rears is too much for the orange thing. 1500 feet/min at 0.9 is fucking scary. Let's reduce that a little bit...

There's just something that doesn't feel right about this canopy. The turns are great but the stalls are quite sharp. Brakes don't slow it down too much and the flare leaves much to be desired. Glad I made it a 210 to be honest.

[RiggerLee 61]

I'm confused. Four inches on the rears?

You put one extra rapid link on each rear riser right? That's about an inch and a quarter of built in front riser. That should be a comfortable subtle change. You didn't put four links on each riser did you? You might go as far as to try two on a canopy of that size but beyond that you might want to do at least a little tweaking of the other lines to smooth out the cord.

Sharp stalls, bad break response and lack of flair authority do sound like it's too flat.

Could you clarify what you're trying on it? Don't give up. This is the fun stuff. If you don't want to play with it toss it in UPS and I'll take a crack at it.

Lee

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com