Sub 150 reserves for larger people

[xijonix 0]

I'm shopping around for a new reserve and it looks like only PD and Aerodyne make reserves that are recommended or even TSOd for higher weights. Obviously they're the industry leaders but are the only reserves for someone 200lbs+ PDRs, Optimums, and Smarts?

[gowlerk 1,903]

Possibly a Precision R-Max. But their website and info has become too unreliable and so difficult to find that it's starting to be hard to take them seriously in the market anymore. I looked for the specs, but they are not available.

Icarus reserve 149 is rated for 197 lbs.

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi xijonix,

Quote

I'm shopping around for a new reserve

Look here also: http://www.paratec.de/?page_id=3519&lang=en

Jerry Baumchen

[pchapman 261]

This gets into the issue of recommended vs approved weights -- and the original poster probably has looked at all of the numbers I quote here.

Someone refresh my memory: If a canopy is certified to TSO C23d, is the certified weight the only limitation that applies? Or can the manufacturer impose any other weight?

Manufacturers always make their statements seem mandatory, but it isn't clear to me whether they really are.

So for example, PD's PD 143R has various weight recommendations for different experience levels, but the maximum allowed is the actual FAA certification limit: 254 lbs.

Still, at the Expert level they want no more than 1.4 wing loading, or a max of 200 lbs for the 143.

Above that, PD requires at least 500 ram air jumps and 100 with a canopy no more than 15% larger, OR a certain type of instructor signoff.

They then say "These are both FAA (USA) and Performance Designs requirements that must be met for you to be
legal. Other countries throughout the world may also enforce these limitations."

Is this really true that what the manufacturer says about wing loading is also an FAA maximum?

Icarus is different. They quote 255 lb max by the FAA (effectively they round differently), and then prohibit more than a 1.325 loading. Numbers based on that form their "Maximum Exit Weight". That gives their 149 reserve a load of 200 lbs max.

Aerodyne's Smart shows levels including Advanced jumpers, the top level, at max 1.3 loading. (E.g., for the 150 canopy, 195 lbs max recommended). But the true Maximum they show is the FAA limit, which for the 150 size is 264 lbs.

If one goes to a European canopy that some like,the Paratec Speed 2000, they're also conservative about wing loading. They warn never to exceed 194lbs for the 150 canopy, although are certified to 254lbs under C23d.


I'm not saying all this to want to load reserves really heavily. But heck, even in the mid 1990s, a cool jumper might have a PD 126R, and that wasn't just for skinny little guys. So if someone 180 lbs had one, plus 25 lbs of gear minimum, that's over a 1.6 wing loading.
(Using PD's own wing area calculation style, not the larger PIA style area that isn't thought about much nowadays.)


So this doesn't solve the original question, and PD and Aerodyne do indeed show up as companies grudgingly allowing jumpers to use reserves up to the certified limits, unlike some other companies. Whether companies 'mandatory' lower requirements are law, I don't know.

If one company is more restrictive than another, despite similar certifications, does that mean they are just more conservative, or do they not trust their own stuff? That's being a little provocative, but it is a line of thinking that could occur based on comparing manuals. A jumper will also look at what's been happening out in the field for the last 20 years with highly loaded reserves, and try to reconcile that with what the manufacturers are saying.


EDIT: Since it got mentioned, let me add the Precision R-Max: For their 148, they have 254 lbs max by C23d, with a recommended Expert level of 184 lbs (1.24 load). Which funnily enough isn't much above what was recommended for their canopies of the old days that didn't land well at high loadings, one issue the R-Max was supposed to solve.

[Quagmirian 40]

pchapman

If one company is more restrictive than another, despite similar certifications, does that mean they are just more conservative, or do they not trust their own stuff? That's being a little provocative, but it is a line of thinking that could occur based on comparing manuals. A jumper will also look at what's been happening out in the field for the last 20 years with highly loaded reserves, and try to reconcile that with what the manufacturers are saying.

I think there's a difference between imposing wing loading limits to hide bad performance and the manufacturer having integrity. Sure, they say, this reserve lands fine at 2.0, but we don't think any reserve should be loaded that high.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Peter,

Quote

recommended vs approved weights

You may be confusing/mixing the different TSO standards.

I 'think' that the PDR 143 was certificated under C23c, Category B. This has the 254 lb weight limitation.

TSO C23d allows the mfr to certificated a canopy to any weight that they may want, as long as it can pass the performance testing. However, there is a minimum ( a 'floor' so to say ) that they cannot go under.

I understand that the larger PDR's and the Optimums are certificated under C23d; but I may be wrong.

The weight limitation was established by the FAA when they published the TSO standard and the reference document(s). And it is IMO a limitation. As you state: 'So for example, PD's PD 143R has various weight recommendations for different experience levels, but the maximum allowed is the actual FAA certification limit: 254 lbs.'

Jerry Baumchen

PS) TSO C23b has no upper weight limitations.

[pchapman 261]

Yes, sorry, I wasn't being clear about mentioning which reserves were under which TSO version, although I used C23d as an example for discussion. Rules can indeed vary widely between TSO versions!

I double checked the PD's: The 126 to 253 sizes are the "classics" under C23b , while larger and smaller sizes are C23d.

EDIT: As pointed out in later posts by Jerry and Mark, I typed the wrong thing, it is C23c Category B. The '80s regs, that were in place by the time the PD reserves were designed.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Peter,

Quote

I double checked the PD's: The 126 to 253 sizes are the "classics" under C23b

I suggest that you triple check, as the b version does not have this: 'the maximum allowed is the actual FAA certification limit: 254 lbs.'

Jerry Baumchen

[pchapman 261]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Peter,

Quote

I double checked the PD's: The 126 to 253 sizes are the "classics" under C23b

That's still true, but yes, dammit, I keep forgetting that C23b is the one based on NAS-804 of 1949. Yes everyone, your PD reserve is based on a 1949 standard.

You're keeping me honest here whenever I don't fully reload my memory banks on all this TSO business.

So that means that, IF what's in a manual isn't mandatory, then there is no upper certified weight or speed limit whatsoever for the classic PD reserves.

PD does helpfully state in their manual:

Quote

Parachute equipment produced under TSO C23b has no required placarded maximum weight or
speed. However, this is very misleading. All parachute equipment has a maximum weight and speed
combination above which failure is likely. Unfortunately, TSO C23b did not provide a means for determining
a maximum certified weight or speed so these values are unknown. It is worth noting that
most equipment recertified in more recent TSO’s had to be structurally upgraded in order to pass
the newer TSO. In most cases it is significantly easier to pass the 5000 lb shock load of C23b than to
pass the minimum testing requirements of TSOC23C or TSO C23D.

At least PD does say that

Quote

all Performance Designs
reserve parachutes have been tested with weights in excess of 300 lbs (135.9 kg) and airspeeds180 kts
or greater.

If one then removes the 1.2 factor used to absorb variation and allow for a little margin in later TSO's, that suggests that the 254 lbs and 150 kt limit that PD sets for its classic PD-R's is what the legal maximum would be with a later TSO.

Even though I messed up, this is a good example of how a given limit may mean different things.

So even though a PD 126 is certified to the weird old NAS-804 standard (all the FAA had at the time), PD is still more confident about people using it at high loadings, than some of the other companies are about their C23d reserves...

[RopeaDope 0]

The MSW on a Main canopy is simply a recommendation. The manufacturers post the weights they have found to provide optimal performance on a particular canopy design. You may exceed that weight is you so choose, however, as the weight increase beyond those recommendations, the performance of the wing begins to degrade.

The MSW on a Reserve canopy is an actual legal limit. The manufacturers mention that those canopies are tested at much higher weights, however, the TSO is approving more than just the strength of a canopy. They are certifying a reserve based on things like opening shock at max speed and poor body position and landing without the ability to flare in case of injury or unconsciousness.

[mark 102]

pchapman

***Hi Peter,

Quote

I double checked the PD's: The 126 to 253 sizes are the "classics" under C23b

That's still true, but yes, dammit, I keep forgetting that C23b is the one based on NAS-804 of 1949. Yes everyone, your PD reserve is based on a 1949 standard. . .

So that means. . . there is no upper certified weight or speed limit whatsoever for the classic PD reserves.

No.

The first PD reserves were certified to the standards of TSO-C23c Category B: 254# exit weight, 150kts. C23c/AS-8015A was adopted in 1984. I think you may be confusing C23c Category B with TSO-C23b. They are not the same thing.

The only C23c Category A article I've seen is a Cricket reserve. To the best of my knowledge, nothing was ever certified to C23c Category C.

Mark

[pchapman 261]

Ok, I'm not doing well here.

I misread what Jerry meant.
I was right originally when thinking that class PD's are "one level back" from C23d. Yeah, they are C23c which is what I thought. Duh.

I just accidentally typed C23b not C23c for the classic PD's... and then rushed and thought Jerry was saying they were indeed C23b, which sent me off in the wrong direction because C23b is so much cruder than C23c.

I was likely correct about C23b, but it's not applicable to PD reserves. (Now about Vector III's and Wonderhogs...there C23b still applies if I recall correctly.)

So I've deleted the post where I went on about what C23b implies.

So yeah, of course the classic PD's have a 254lb FAA weight limit as I thought (which is a result of the commonly used C23c Cat B). Interesting about what was or was not certified in C23c Cat A or C.

Back to the alphabet...

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Peter,

Quote

Back to the alphabet...

And if I never made a mistake I would have won the lottery by now.

I only wanted to correct you ( as I was very sure that you knew this stuff ) so that someone else did not misunderstand this stuff.

And, yes the alphabet soup can get murky,

Jerry Baumchen

[riggerrob 558]

FAA TSO standards require reserves to prove minimum performance standards. Those MPS include surviving opening shock with 254 pounds suspended weight.
However, wiser manufacturers know that most customers' ankles won't survive landing tiny (sub 150 square foot) reserves with 254 pounds, so they post lighter recommended suspended weights.
Manufacturers' MSW are legal limits because federal air regulations always loop back to "in accordance with manufacturers' instructions."

Ever since Micro Ravens debuted, I have been sarcastic comments about "stupid, fat white men jumping tiny reserves."
The scariest thing is how few SFWM understand how differently (even the best of reserves) flare compared with smaller, modern mains.

[pchapman 261]

riggerrob

they post lighter recommended suspended weights.
Manufacturers' MSW are legal limits because federal air regulations always loop back to "in accordance with manufacturers' instructions."

That's what one might expect, but where exactly in the FAA regs does one find it?

Or does the USPA say something about it for USPA jumps?
(I didn't find it. The term "manufacturer's instructions" shows up a lot but mainly just about rigging and AAD maintenance, or to understand how equipment is used -- but not statements about mandatory following of instructions as far as I could see.)

I don't remember ever seeing this whole question actually resolved for certain. I want to see proof in actual FAA regulation.

This is somewhat like the arguments where someone says "Company X says in their manual that their gear can't be used after 20 years", and the response is, "But that's not stated in the actual TSO so doesn't apply!?"

Also, the requirements for a jumper tend to be less strict than for a rigger.

An FAA rated rigger does indeed have to follow manufacturers' instructions.

(For example, FAR 65 includes:)

Quote

§65.129 Performance standards.

No certificated parachute rigger may—
[etc]

(e) Pack, maintain, or alter a parachute in any manner that deviates from procedures approved by the Administrator or the manufacturer of the parachute; or [etc]

[xijonix 0]

To piggyback off of your explanation of the different TSOs, the C-23d classification would explain why a Micro Raven 135-M (label attached) lists various maximum weights at different sea levels as well as an overall max?

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi xijonix,

Quote

various maximum weights

Without getting out my copy of the standard and spending some time studying it, I doubt that the TSO allows that.

I 'think' that the TSO only requires the max weight & speed.

Your photo could be a little clearer, but it looks like that data panel might be missing the req'd Peak Force value obtained during Strength Testing.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) As I have posted before on this site, the FAA only requires certain info; you may also put the Lord's Prayer if you want, the FAA does not care. They only care about what is req'd as a minimum.

[pchapman 261]

Quote

To piggyback off of your explanation of the different TSOs, the C-23d classification would explain why a Micro Raven 135-M (label attached) lists various maximum weights at different sea levels as well as an overall max?

No sign of that being a requirement in C23d (And where the real info is contained, in the document it references, SAE AS 8015B).

Precision probably are just being realistically conservative about what they want to see, since true airspeeds are higher at higher altitudes, with landings faster and openings harder.

PD has similar recommendations in their manual, reducing max recommended weights by 2% per 1000 ft for landing, and 1% per 5 deg F above certain standard day conditions. They also then discuss how jump runs or freefall at high altitudes may approach or exceed the TSO'd speeds of one's reserve.

[hackish 8]

Something to think about is not a design problem with a reserve, it's a design goal. You wouldn't put a F14 shaped wing on a cessna! For a reserve it's the same idea, design goals. Why did the micro-ravens stall when heavily overloaded? They were not designed to be used that way! Similarly, when PD says 200lbs is max, it means that that's the upper envelope of their design.

If a bridge says maximum 10t, would you drive your 14t truck over it? Would it hold? Probably. Who would your next of kin blame? Will your optimum 143 work OK with 254lbs MSW? Probably. You decide on the rest or get a bigger reserve.

-Michael

[riggerrob 558]

***Something to think about is not a design problem with a reserve, it's a design goal. You wouldn't put a F14 shaped wing on a cessna! For a reserve it's the same idea, design goals. Why did the micro-ravens stall when heavily overloaded? They were not designed to be used that way! .... or get a bigger reserve.
.........................................................

Back when Ravens were introduced (mid-1980s) no-one was loading main canopies at 1 pound per square foot ... so why anyone would expect a heavily-loaded (more than 1/1) Raven to land softly is a complete mystery to me??????

I cannot follow the logic/math of people who want to heavily-load Micro Ravens.
Have they considered the lost wages while they recover from a broken ankle?

[xijonix 0]

My thoughts exactly. I raised this question because I just purchased a complete set up from a local jumper who was even larger than myself and I found it odd that his reserve was a Micro Raven 135-M. I'm not comfortable with that so I want the largest reserve that can fit into a TJNK.5 AND has a high enough MSW.

Doing some research has shown that not only are the options quite limited for anyone over 200lbs, but that many people are ignoring the MSW of their reserves; Perhaps a topic I should bring up during safety day.

The issue seems to be that as times have changed and main canopy designs have advanced, many reserves cannot handle the same wingloading. Whether they should or not is a completely different issue in itself but I think the reserve options available for this specific group of jumpers is dangerously limited and causes many jumpers to get whatever reserve fits and be done with it.

[gowlerk 1,903]

There is a lot of that. Tiny rigs for the tiny, speedy mains with matching small reserve trays. 200 pound people flying small mains should get containers that hold larger reserves, but that is not very fashionable. And fashion rulez.

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Ken,

Quote

And fashion rulez.

Only until they land that reserve while unconscious.

If anyone has ever seen a square reserve land with a 170 lb test dummy they will get an eye awakening.

And every square reserve I have drop tested has turned downwind on its own.

Jerry Baumchen

[skydiverek 54]

JerryBaumchen

If anyone has ever seen a square reserve land with a 170 lb test dummy they will get an eye awakening.

This may open some eyes - 'unconscious' high wing loading 'landings'...:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERRrUcyOiE4

[gowlerk 1,903]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Ken,

Quote

And fashion rulez.

Only until they land that reserve while unconscious.

If anyone has ever seen a square reserve land with a 170 lb test dummy they will get an eye awakening.

And every square reserve I have drop tested has turned downwind on its own.

Jerry Baumchen

Hi Jerry,
There is that. But on the other hand even with a larger reserve unconscious landings are bad news. So you're probably screwed anyway, may as well look good.

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