Packing a reserve to improve extraction?

[Divalent 89]

Packing a reserve to improve extraction? Is it possible?

There have been several examples discussed in this forum of reserves not being timely extracted following a successfully PC launch and bridle extension (including some with video's proving the delay), and there may have been some fatalities where a delay could have been a contributing factor in the outcome.

I am wondering it there are things that a rigger could do when packing a reserve that might help ensure that the freebag is more easily extracted once the PC has been launched. Maybe things like variations in how the canopy is distributed within the bag (is that possible?), or where the excess bridle is stowed (to occupy space so that the freebag is forced to remain lower).

I'm not a rigger, and so am not familiar with the details of how they are packed and the container closed, and so I don't know what latitude a rigger would have in how it is packed. Obviously whatever is done would have to otherwise follow the procedure specified by the manufacturer. But just wondering if you riggers out there have thought about possible techniques to help improve the forces needed to extract the freebag from the container.

[Note: I'm not interested in restarting a "container war" discussion. Given that a customer owns a rig and needs a repack, might there be things you can do when packing that rig that might help, given what is in front of you in your packing area. So mostly looking for generic techniques that might work on most containers, but okay if you have specific things for specific containers you know of.]

[mcordell 2]

As for the distribution of the bulk, once the canopy is wrestled into the freebag it's pretty damn tight. It's been my experience that theres not much that can be done to move it around.

In regards to the bridle, the container has to be closed exactly as the manufacturer stipulates, including how much of the bridle is stowed where and in what fashion.

I think the problem stems more from containers being made as small as possible and made to be more fashion than function. Making containers that are "very tight" on the reserve is going to increase tension and make extraction harder.

Just mu .02

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[likestojump 3]

The single best thing a rigger can do to improve extraction is to refuse to pack overstuffed containers. The test is usually determined by the manual and cannot be changed.

[Divalent 89]

likestojump

The single best thing a rigger can do to improve extraction is to refuse to pack overstuffed containers. The test is usually determined by the manual and cannot be changed.

While I would agree with your advice, I know that one of the recent examples of a delay was a rig that was packed with a reserve of the right size for the container. (i.e., not a reserve size listed as "tight", but one listed as the size it was built for).

So while an oversized reserve might be one cause of reserve hesitations, and one that a rigger might notice at pack time, it is not the only one. It could be a poorly designed or poorly mfg'd PC, some quirk of the reserve compartment, something that might develop after packing, some condition (body position, etc) at deployment time, or some other thing that would not be plainly evident to a rigger at repack time. So my question is mostly trying to get to whether there are things a rigger might do to improve extraction even when there is no reason for you to suspect there is a problem.

Mcordell's reply seems to suggest there is little one can do in terms of distributing the pack volume in the container. Is that absolutely true? I only pack mains, but I know that from pack to pack, there is some variation in how my main is stuffed in the baq (e.g., wide vs narrow; even distribution vs more material in the center, etc.) Maybe small things could play a role. (But I'll again admit my ignorance of packing reserves, and so must trust what you guys say.)

Edited to add: I will also mention that perhaps there are things a rigger does that slightly deviates from the mfg's recommendations that might seem inconsequential, but might be important. (Again, I'm not a rigger, so this is an example from ignorance, but it maybe illustrates where I'm going: suppose a rigger doesn't exactly follow the mfg's description of distrubuting the pack volume, but instead pushes some off to the side to allow more room for the PC.)

[theonlyski 3]

Divalent

Mcordell's reply seems to suggest there is little one can do in terms of distributing the pack volume in the container. Is that absolutely true? I only pack mains, but I know that from pack to pack, there is some variation in how my main is stuffed in the baq (e.g., wide vs narrow; even distribution vs more material in the center, etc.) Maybe small things could play a role. (But I'll again admit my ignorance of packing reserves, and so must trust what you guys say.)

Most the reserves I end up packing are at the top end of the containers ability to hold, while that doesn't sound bad, it doesn't give me much flexibility when it comes to bulk distribution. Especially true on smaller sport gear, you can end up with no leeway for the bulk distribution and basically have to experiment to find the best way to pack it.

Easiest reserves I've ever packed were the Strong Dual Hawk tandem rigs. You just gotta get the thing in the bag in a shape that looks kinda like a wedge and it's happy.

The hardest is probably a small Mirage that I've packed a few times. I have to almost measure my previous folds and make sure that I do it again, or it will simply not close.

There are 3 priorities when it comes to packing reserves:
1. It works.
2. It looks good.
3. It feels comfortable on your back.

Most of the time, people will bitch if #2 isn't met, even if it would be completely functional/safe and comfortable.


***Edited to add: I will also mention that perhaps there are things a rigger does that slightly deviates from the mfg's recommendations that might seem inconsequential, but might be important. (Again, I'm not a rigger, so this is an example from ignorance, but it maybe illustrates where I'm going: suppose a rigger doesn't exactly follow the mfg's description of distrubuting the pack volume, but instead pushes some off to the side to allow more room for the PC.)

Believe it or not, riggers are generally afforded quite a lot of room as for how we do our bulk distribution and reduction folds. We each have our own techniques and since it isn't usually covered in the manual, you can actually tell riggers apart by the way the folds are done.

"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

[mcordell 2]

I have found I have some control over bulk distribution in my old vector 1 because the center of the freebag is open at the grommet where as my wings is sewn so it goes in how it goes in but this is all freebag design and has nothing to do with me.

Since you brought up variances in main packing size, you have to remember the d-bag is an open square with nothing in the middle so you can vary it a lot. A freebag has one or two closing loops running through the middle and you have to form the canopy into molar ears to fit around those obsticals so you dont really get much opportunity to pack tall and thin or short and fat. The most variance I get is adjusting the s-fold at the bottom to make it shorter and fatter or longer and flatter but honestly by the time you close the safety stow it is what it is.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[theonlyski 3]

mcordell

The most variance I get is adjusting the s-fold at the bottom to make it shorter and fatter or longer and flatter but honestly by the time you close the safety stow it is what it is.

I can typically clean up the reserve just a little and possibly push a little more fabric deeper into the ears with my paddle, but yeah, once it's in there, not a whole lot you can do.

"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

[Divalent 89]

Okay, so then given that there is at least a bit of latitude in what you do, can you think of things you riggers might be able to do to improve extraction times/forces? Even if seemingly minor, and that, at best, you'd think will only have a small effect. Less canopy material at the top? Less in the top corners? Narrower distribution in the bag so it's more streamlined? Anything?

Again, I'm not expecting the packing technique to resolve the problem, just wondering if there is anything you guys can think might help.

[gowlerk 1,915]

Seriously, the answer to your question is no. Anything I might try would be purely speculative. I would have no way of knowing the effect if any. I can think of no way to ease your mind about this at all.

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

[councilman24 36]

There are many reasons that a reserve may not launch in the time we expect it to.

The first is that most container sizes/reserve volume combinations have never been tested. Only the largest container and the smallest container of a model are required to be tested. And then the manuf. gets to pick the reserve to go in it. We don't know if they all work when everything is right. Now with an appropriately sized reserve I expect most containers to work but performance doesn't necessarily scale. I'm not saying anyone is doing anything wrong. And I expect that most container manufacturers have more data than required. But the fact is they still aren't anywhere near all tested.

Perhaps more important than the bulk distribution, or equally as important, is the loop length. There are experimental data and videos around of the testing that shows a loop length change of less than 1" (longer) can affect the ability of the PC to launch after an AAD fire. I tried to council one rigger who didn't seem receptive to learning. He would measure the pull force of each pack job. That's good. But he would do it very slowly. As the tip of the pin started down the side of the grommet the force would increase making virtually all rigs measure over 22lbs. To fix this he would lengthen the loop, by inches! or replace the top reserve flap grommets that actually showed very little wear and were fine. Many people told him the idea of lengthening the loop was dangerous but last I knew he had ignored all such advice.

Remember, it's not just extracting the bag. The pilot chute has to leave the container. The bridle has to leave the container cleanly. The PC has to inflate. The bridle has to extend. The pull direction of the bridle has to be in the intended direction (not so good if you on your back). The bag has to extract, the lines have to extract, the bag has to open, the canopy has to come out of the bag. (I had a reserve that spent the summer in a car trunk that took 35lbs of force to extract the canopy once the bag was open. It was stuck to the coating on the interior of the bag) Then the canopy has to open.

PC's don't always leave the container immediately. The certainly don't inflate and leave the jumper immediately. I had a 1400' reserve total likely caused by the rigger burying the bridle in the corners. There was a video going around Safety Day of a member of a world class team talking about things he did wrong in an emergency situation. I don't remember all of the details but he made a big deal of being absolutely flat and stable so when his AAD cut the loop the PC would have the best chance to launch. Those of of old enough to have jumped spring loaded main PC's know that that's the WORST position to get a PC to leave..

When I've surveyed riggers at PIA Symposiums I was amazed to find that most I talked to took the main out BEFORE they pull the reserve to observe the launch. Leaving the main in is how I found the issue with the Quasar 'flingers' prompting Strong to issue a grounding and recall. Also of issue are main flaps covering a portion of the reserve container, especially on smaller rigs.

USPA and PIA issued a notice a few years ago, available on PIA's website, pointing out some of the issues that may be causing the failures of reserves to inflate in time. We asked for riggers to open rigs in a belly to earth sort of configuration and if they noted issues in launch or extraction to document the issue and the equipment and supply the data to PIA. To date I think we've received 3 reports. Not because there aren't issues to find but because riggers aren't doing it and or reporting the information to PIA rigging committee.

A long answer (non-answer) to the question. I'm not saying bulk, design and over stuffed reserves aren't an issue. I'm saying that's one issue, and most likely a major one. While there are things that riggers can do to distribute bulk with all but the fullest rigs this is done mainly for cosmetic reasons. And those actions may or may not be consistent with the best extraction distribution.

Are riggers an issue? Yes. As are customers (buying incompatible gear) and rig designers. As someone said not long ago, "I want my two pin WonderHog back."

rant off

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

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

Certianly matching canopy size and container size is critical. Other than that, a flippant but quite accurate reply is to FOLLOW THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. Yes, there is a lot of leeway for the rigger in some regards... but in other regards, the instructions are often quite specific... such as how and where to fold the reserve bridle or how to stow the pilot chute fabric. These issues can influence getting the reserve out quickly.

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[Dokeman 0]

i think a lot of this would go away if manufactures quit with the idea that the same reserve containers holds 3 different sizes. I think it would be safer for jumpers and less headache for riggers it each container size was approved for 1 size only.

[RiggerLee 61]

I'm going to offer a differing view on packing and bulk distribution. I like to tinker with pack jobs. I actually think there is a lot that can be done with how you distribute bulk in side the bag. Most of the problems I've seen with containers are a result of how and what people tried to put into containers. Flap problems, tab problems, wrinkles, appearance, even seam damage.

I actually tried to give a lecture once at PIA on this. Basically I conned them into letting me in for free in return for an hours worth of incoherent rambling. I wish I still had my notes but they were on another computer.

Most of it was an argument as to why you had to modify packing techniques do to differences in the design of different canopies in relation to container design.

So it's like this. A basic propack is pretty much the same for all canopies. It's the equivalent of a long fold on a round. But due to design decisions including size, cord, span, stabilizer, trim, airfoil, and break setting. you can wind up with a lot of variance in the length and width of the canopy as it lays there packed. There are the same number of layers of fabric layed out for all canopies, assuming they are seven cells. But the number of layers changes along the length of the pack job. The trim controls how the layers stack up as it becomes progressively thicker along the pack job. The break setting affects how far down the tail pulls and where you pick up that extra bulk. There can be a void at the bottom where it's just stabilizer if it's long enough.

Point is that there can be a lot of variation in length and even width for the same size canopies. but they are all about the same thickness even though that distribution can be a little different. I was basically talking about how you have to change the way you fold the canopy to absorb this length and distribute the bulk relative to the shape of the bag and container. Not just in where you make the folds but in how many. I was also trying to convey the idea that the canopy can be spit in half not only in the upper ear but also bellow the center cell allowing the lower folds to extend beyond the closing loop or the start of the ear of the molar bag. This allows more control over the taper of the pack job and can allow you to absorb more length then you would be able to below the loop in just the lower part of the bag alone. This gives you more control over how much length/bulk you have to put in the top of the ear and can give you much more control over the shape of the top of the bag.

A lot of this was things we had learned from packing really tight fucking rigs. No one around there ever bought a reserve smaller then the absolute maximum size reserve and some times one size over. I didn't sell these rigs. I was not the dealer. I was not consulted. Believe me the world would be a very different place if people would just consult me on all their major decisions. World peace. I could do world peace, if they would just listen to me... Point is, every one around there just learned to deal with it. And it does not necessarily mean that the rig will not open but it could contribute to a problem if the bag is not packed right. Size and compatibility are not the only issues here. I wish the problems were that simple we could have this fixed with in a year.

Returning to topic. I'll give you an example of how it could affect bag extraction on a container. I just happen to have my brand new wings sitting beside me . But I'll use it as an example. I've said before that the upper corner of the reserve tray has a pretty good size "horn" on it that allows the angle of the top of the side reserve flap to go up higher on the yoke. I'm sure it will be very attractive and clean looking rig once I get it packed up. It's in my lap right now. The free bag is short enough that it should be below that horn and none of this should be a problem. Let's say "Joe Shmoe" rigger packs this rig. It's a long canopy like a PD but he packs it just like he does any rig and absorbs that length simply by lengthening the folds below the split in the bag and folding more ear down. This is as far as the teaching of packing technique goes for most riggers. It can result in to long of a fold below the split or loop and the bottom of the bag looking pregnant with canopy hanging out beyond the design length of the bag. This pushes the bag much higher in the container and forces the ears that are larger and fuller then they were designed to be higher under that "horn" on the reserve tray. This can cause all kinds of problems with the pattern set with riser covers, flaps, etc. But now lets say the rig rides high on the guys back and the horns of the side flaps and the riser covers and their tuck tabs are bent over the shoulder. Now the top of the bag which is unnaturally high in the container is caught under the curve of that corner and further under the cup of the riser covers which can be much harder to release if located over the curve of the top of the shoulder.

None of these things alone are necessarily a problem but all together on one rig along with a sloppy but perfectly normal pack job can combine to cause an issue. And that for the right size canopy. If you try to use those same packing techniques on a tight rig then the problem will be even worse. On the other hand If he filled the bag properly even with a very tight canopy folding it to conform to the designed shape of the bag then it would fit properly in the tray and none of this might be an issue. Or if any of the other links in the chain were broken. This is why I don't think we will find it easy to nail down this problem. There are too many variables.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[riggerrob 558]

I agree with Riggerlee.

Depending upon the type of container, I may have anywhere between three layers (120 reserve in a Reflex) and six layers of canopy (Next tandem) at the bototm of the container.
It also depends upon the year the container was made. For example, if a Javelin was sewn before mid-2000, I only put one, loose layer of reserve in the top of the "ears", however, if a Javelin was made later, it is okay to shove a thick fold (two layers) of reserve into the top of the ears.
If you are silly enough to use the post-2000 technique on an older Javelin, you create a variety of problems, like cracked main riser covers.

[mcordell 2]

One of the rigs I pack regularly is an old javelin (96) and I don't shove it into the ears very much because it seems tight up top when I do. I flat pack reserves because the rigger that taught me preferred to flat pack and I find it easier to get a neatly layered pack job that way. I do have to admit though that I have had that pregnant freebag on one of my rigs but I think there's not much I can do on that one to get it all in there without bulging out the bottom. My new wings rig is a different story. I ordered it for that reserve and it fits like a glove. Both of my personal rigs extract like butter every repack....and I do pull it with the main in the tray. I think it also has to do with how that bulk is distributed as the container is being closed as much as when the reserve is being bagged. I find I can manipulate that part just as much. More importantly, both rigs have the reserves they were made for.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging