Reserve extraction fixes

[RiggerLee 61]

There are a couple of threads about reserve bag extraction forces. They most consist of bitching, moaning, and figure pointing. If we could set all of that aside could we try to have a productive discussion about possible short and long term fixes to some of these issues. Why, since bitching is so fun? Personally I just bought a new rig. I don't have a canopy in it yet so I'm not sure exactly how much of an issue it might have. But just eyeballing it, keep in mind I've built a lot of shit over the years, I can see where it could have potential problems. One thing I will tell you is that I will not be maxing out the reserve in it. I'm not sure the make and model are that important because I think there are a lot of containers out there that could have issues. It's not that I'd be afraid to jump it. And I paid too fucking much for it to shelve it. I will bend around what ever it's performance envelope is. But I can't help thinking about all the rigs out there and what we could do, what I would like to do, to fix it. So let's actually try to be productive. I'll start it off with a few thoughts.

After market pilot chutes.

The obvious thing would be for the manufacturer to replace the old PC with a new design, It's been done before, but I don't see any body jumping up and down to do it. So let's talk alternant solutions.

There was a time, it was a while back, when we used to talk about the interchangeability of TOS'd parts. In fact some containers were fairly open only specifying the diameter of the pilot chute spring. We used to say that if a component had been through TSO drop testing with another system and that the rigger determined it to be compatible that it could be used on the system. This started to get muddy as more people started building all of their own components. Now I think every one builds there own pilot chute for example. Containers changed and components became less interchangeable. I think pretty much every one in the sport world has a statement in there manual saying that only OEM parts may be used. I think part of this relates to cypreses and issues with deployments or fears there of. But we've kind of come full circle where our equipment has in essence become similar again. And we have real indications of poor performance of some of these pilot chutes. So what would it take to put an after market PC in a rig? Let's assume there is a statement against it in the manual. Could a master rigger apply for an alteration through his FSDO? What would it take? I mean it's all TSO'd parts. They have proven them selves on other systems. There should be no structural issues with the PC blowing up. Or at least that's how the old theory goes. What would it take to get a approval through the FSDO for such an alteration? I mean it's like a 337 right? Just a little less paper work intensive. So it's not like there are no presidents for it. Butlers four line. There's a guy with a Javelin style RSL for a vector two. I'm sure there are others. So what would it take? Ground and low speed test drops? How much would the FSDO want to see. It's already been high speed tested. Low speed is relatively cheep. Or would just functionality test on the ground do? Could you argue that it's shown it self to meet the low speed requirements as well? Do you think they would buy that? Let's leave the cypress approval out of this for the moment.

Container mods.

Opening the reserve corners on the lower reserve tray. A lot of trays are sewn up the side and part way across towards the middle. There have been mods before where we pulled some of those stitches and moved the bar tacks back to make it more open and let the reserve bag deploy easier especially with a downwards pull. Remember the early Reflexes? I recall doing a couple of those in the shop. Could you talk the FSDO in to a container mod allowing you to open the reserve try corners more? What about retailoring the upper corners. A lot of these are coming up unnecessarily high on the out side upper corner. It would not be practical to change this on all rigs but On some you could. There are some containers where for totally esthetic reasons they have moved that point very high. With just a little tailoring you could greatly ease the deployment with out negatively affecting the function in any way.

Main tray mods.

People have been modding the shit out of main trays and riser covers forever. In theory a master rigger doesn't even need any paper work. A lot of these trays are seriously hampering the reserve during deployment. Some of the come way high over the lower corners and some of the riser covers are out of control. Any body got a seam ripper? Magnet mod?

Let's hear your two cents on actual solutions to what might make this better.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[riggerrob 561]

If you install a reserve pilot-chute - with a smaller diameter spring - I would not complain too loudly.
For example, I recently repacked a Telesis I that included a "Stealth" (Telesis 2) pilot-chute.

Exchanging pilot-chutes in the opposite direction (e.g. wider spring in a narrower container) would be silly ... increase the amount of energy wasted launching the pilot-chute from the container.

[Southern_Man 0]

Hi Lee,

I am a relatively new senior rigger with very little experience so I am going to weigh in without pretending I know much.

I keep waiting for somebody to publish all of the known information on incidents with reserve extraction issues (line stretch at impact). I have asked people directly at both USPA and PIA to publish what is known. Knowledge is power and it is exceedingly difficult to prescribe a correct solution without being sure that we have diagnosed the problem correctly. I am not sure we have. Honestly it infuriates me that these bodies will not publish their known information. I believe I have most of the incidents isolated but I am not honestly sure. Based on what I think I know there is at least one common element to all of the incidents that nobody is talking about.

Second, I will not pack an overstuffed rig--one that is actually above the max reserve size recommended by the manufacturer. It is one of the first things I check on bringing a rig into inspection. I am honestly not sure if I will pack a max-max combination. I've packed these (and had one work but on a manual pull, would it have worked on a total w/ AAD fire, I'm not sure). I do have the jumper pull his reserve w/ main packed and put a fish scale on the bridal (the BPA test--although I'm not convinced of its total validity it is better than nothing).

Third in my gear recommendations to new jumpers I have and will continue to recommend that they pick a reserve in the middle size category for their container. Somehow we have to have a cultural change and question the common belief that a smaller container always is cooler/looks better. An overstuffed container of any size looks like shit, is often uncomfortable to wear, and may lead to rig damage and safety compromises. Some manufacturers worse than others. I understand why jumpers want to stuff the main to the maximum extent possible to save money but I have no idea what compels them to put the biggest possible reserve in instead of buying a different container size. It makes no sense at all. I do worry a bit that riggers have a bit of ego involved in thinking they can make a rig stuffed at the top of the range or even above the range look good, which is natural as certainly bulk distribution is a huge skill acquired through work and dedication. Let's make sure we make recommendations that are as safety minded as possible, though, and assume that even if you can pack it and make it look good the next rigger that packs it will be an inexperienced noob like me! I think riggers are in the best position to influence this badly needed culture change.

None of that really addresses the points you made! I have some knowledge of container design change over the years but my knowledge is dwarfed by most on this forum. Also I do not have any ability to make alterations so I do not even want to get into the plusses and minuses of those possibilities.

Just a few thoughts from a new senior rigger with a little more free time on his hands this week then he expected...

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[theonlyski 3]

Southern_Man

Third in my gear recommendations to new jumpers I have and will continue to recommend that they pick a reserve in the middle size category for their container. Somehow we have to have a cultural change and question the common belief that a smaller container always is cooler/looks better. An overstuffed container of any size looks like shit, is often uncomfortable to wear, and may lead to rig damage and safety compromises. Some manufacturers worse than others. I understand why jumpers want to stuff the main to the maximum extent possible to save money but I have no idea what compels them to put the biggest possible reserve in instead of buying a different container size. It makes no sense at all. I do worry a bit that riggers have a bit of ego involved in thinking they can make a rig stuffed at the top of the range or even above the range look good, which is natural as certainly bulk distribution is a huge skill acquired through work and dedication. Let's make sure we make recommendations that are as safety minded as possible, though, and assume that even if you can pack it and make it look good the next rigger that packs it will be an inexperienced noob like me! I think riggers are in the best position to influence this badly needed culture change.

FWIW, I know a jumper that ordered a rig based on the canopies that were going into it and let the mfg pick the rig size.

The combination that was recieved is listed on the vendors site as being "EXTREMELY tight, requires skilled rigging". Why the mfg would do this, I haven't the slightest fucking clue.

That rig is a BITCH to close.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[Southern_Man 0]

theonlyski

FWIW, I know a jumper that ordered a rig based on the canopies that were going into it and let the mfg pick the rig size.

The combination that was recieved is listed on the vendors site as being "EXTREMELY tight, requires skilled rigging". Why the mfg would do this, I haven't the slightest fucking clue.

That rig is a BITCH to close.

I have no idea either. as far as I can tell almost nobody downsizes their reserve except when they change containers so stuffing it makes no sense (for aesthetic or practical reasons).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[theonlyski 3]

Southern_Man

***

FWIW, I know a jumper that ordered a rig based on the canopies that were going into it and let the mfg pick the rig size.

The combination that was recieved is listed on the vendors site as being "EXTREMELY tight, requires skilled rigging". Why the mfg would do this, I haven't the slightest fucking clue.

That rig is a BITCH to close.

I have no idea either. as far as I can tell almost nobody downsizes their reserve except when they change containers so stuffing it makes no sense (for aesthetic or practical reasons).

Actually, I think the owner is finally going to give me a christmas present and sell that reserve.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[fcajump 153]

I purchased a rig a few years ago from a manufacturer who makes both container and reserves. I sent my measurements and weights and ask them to specify the reserve container size. I specifically talked to them about the significant difference between what I am accustomed to packing and their rig. (Figured I'd learn/get comfortable on my own rig before someone brought me one.)

The rig looks great and is very comfortable to wear.

Factory pack job (#1) pulled at a reserve handle force (inline with the housing) at >35-lbs (and a bit of a bend in one pin).

Factory pack job #2 was upper 20's.

My own pack jobs have been much higher than I am comfortable. (BUT I am new to this rig... I'll accept that it's just my learning their system)

Currently it is off with a colleague (MPR/DPRE) who is much more familiar with that design than I to see if it is just me and the factor rigger that can't pack it right, or if the factory spec'ed a bad size match.

Ironically... once the RC is pulled, freebag extraction is well within John Sherman's test protocol he published when he discussed the matter on here a couple years ago...

I don't pretend to know the majic of canopy/container matching as well as the factories, but clearly even they don't always make for an easy pack even when that's what was requested.

JW

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...