What options exist for low pack volume reserves

[gnasher70 1]

I like chips, pies and skydiving and in an effort to keep my wing loading at a safeish  level considering that im not jumping as much as I used too, what are the pro's and cons for low volume reserves and how much of a size might I be able to upsize to with a low volume reserve. My  Tempo 150 reserve sits pretty tight in my Vector might I be able to get a 170 low pack volume in the same reserve tray ? How many low pack reserves exist on the market these days are there any more than the Icarus Nano ? 

Edited January 11, 2023 by gnasher70

[kleggo 138]

"My  Tempo 150 reserve sits pretty tight in my Vector might I be able to get a 170 low pack volume in the same reserve tray ?"

in my experience a PD optimum 143 has very nearly the same pack volume as a "standard" PD 126 reserve, so moving up one size is doable if moving from standard to low pack.

Ask your preferred canopy vendor to be certain

[MickPatch 44]

Paratec Speed pack one size smaller

[sundevil777 93]

The Tempo had a reputation for being relatively low pack volume, isn't that correct?

[skytribe 16]

Take a look at the pack volume

https://www.pia.com/wp-content/uploads/TS-104CanopyVolume.pdf

the tempo packed up pretty small to start with so if that was tight you may be out of luck.

[gowlerk 1,901]

13 hours ago, gnasher70 said:

I like chips, pies and skydiving and in an effort to keep my wing loading at a safeish  level considering that im not jumping as much as I used too, what are the pro's and cons for low volume reserves and how much of a size might I be able to upsize to with a low volume reserve. My  Tempo 150 reserve sits pretty tight in my Vector might I be able to get a 170 low pack volume in the same reserve tray ? How many low pack reserves exist on the market these days are there any more than the Icarus Nano ? 

What size is the Vector? UPT publishes a chart ya know.

[tabouare 25]

I've only ever considered those 2 low pack volume reserves

1. PD Optimum
2. Icarus Nano

Be aware that the Nano has a wingloading limit so too much pies is a no no

[NickDG 23]

When Mains started getting smaller in the early nineties I was jumping a Stiletto 135 with a Raven 170 reserve. And the thought struck me we are now building container systems the wrong way around. The smaller main should be in the top pack tray with the larger reserve on the bottom.

I've always thought your reserve should be big enough to land you (in relative safety) if you're unconscious and the brakes are still stowed, but nobody thinks like that anymore.

Of course, I'm also the guy who thinks 'gut' gear will someday make a return to the skies. Think about that in terms of modern materials and how much more we know now. Instead of packing two parachutes into a tight package on your back the two canopies could be 'spread out' to the point your rig profile, especially for freeflying, would practically disappear. We also learned, from BASE jumping, that parachutes tend to work better when not packed down to the density of a brick and stuffed into a small container you need a tool to close. 

Moe Villetto built a stealth BASE rig designed to be worn under your street clothing to get by security guards on high profile jumps. Like if you wanted to, I don't know, day blaze the Empire State Building. I think he called it, "The Blade." And as innovative, slim, and form fitting as that rig was - it's the various ways Moe is coming up with to pack a square that is interesting to me. He found ways to spread them out so it seems like they aren't even there.

Another advantage to gut gear is you aren't grounded when your reserve needed repacking. You'd just borrow a reserve from somebody else. In fact why even own a reserve parachute at all? They should be hanging on hooks at the drop zone where you just grab one and pay the day rate.

However, for the new 'Gut Gear' (we'd need a much better name) to work skydivers would have to give up using deployment bags. And that's okay, again BASE jumpers have been doing terminal speed openings for the last 40 years or so without deployment bags. And it works fine. You just need a Tailpocket on the canopy to control things. Also D-bags do cause malfunctions sometimes, so there's that.

One issue I can see is that BASE jumpers, in general, are very careful packers while, also in general, skydivers are not. But that is somewhat mitigated by the fact skydivers hire professionals to pack their mains and those guys & girls can easily learn a new trick or two.

 

 

   




 

[kleggo 138]

3 hours ago, NickDG said:

I've always thought your reserve should be big enough to land you (in relative safety) if you're unconscious and the brakes are still stowed, but nobody thinks like that anymore.



 

 

   




 

but nobody thinks like that anymore

Not true.

Some of us still do.

Thanks for the Moe memories

 

[riggerrob 558]

2 hours ago, NickDG said:

When Mains started getting smaller in the early nineties I was jumping a Stiletto 135 with a Raven 170 reserve. And the thought struck me we are now building container systems the wrong way around. The smaller main should be in the top pack tray with the larger reserve on the bottom.

I've always thought your reserve should be big enough to land you (in relative safety) if you're unconscious and the brakes are still stowed, but nobody thinks like that anymore.

Of course, I'm also the guy who thinks 'gut' gear will someday make a return to the skies. Think about that in terms of modern materials and how much more we know now. Instead of packing two parachutes into a tight package on your back the two canopies could be 'spread out' to the point your rig profile, especially for freeflying, would practically disappear. We also learned, from BASE jumping, that parachutes tend to work better when not packed down to the density of a brick and stuffed into a small container you need a tool to close. 

Moe Villetto built a stealth BASE rig designed to be worn under your street clothing to get by security guards on high profile jumps. Like if you wanted to, I don't know, day blaze the Empire State Building. I think he called it, "The Blade." And as innovative, slim, and form fitting as that rig was - it's the various ways Moe is coming up with to pack a square that is interesting to me. He found ways to spread them out so it seems like they aren't even there.

Another advantage to gut gear is you aren't grounded when your reserve needed repacking. You'd just borrow a reserve from somebody else. In fact why even own a reserve parachute at all? They should be hanging on hooks at the drop zone where you just grab one and pay the day rate.

However, for the new 'Gut Gear' (we'd need a much better name) to work skydivers would have to give up using deployment bags. And that's okay, again BASE jumpers have been doing terminal speed openings for the last 40 years or so without deployment bags. And it works fine. You just need a Tailpocket on the canopy to control things. Also D-bags do cause malfunctions sometimes, so there's that.

One issue I can see is that BASE jumpers, in general, are very careful packers while, also in general, skydivers are not. But that is somewhat mitigated by the fact skydivers hire professionals to pack their mains and those guys & girls can easily learn a new trick or two.

 

 

   




 

That reminds me of a discussion ... er ... drunken bull-session ... many years ago.

Given that scared students instinctively curl up in a fetal position and military paratroopers are taught a modified fetal position for static-line jumps, I opined that skydiving students would cheerfully sit-fly if that was what we taught from the start. That led to sketches of a front-mounted main container and a back-mounted reserve.

When sketching the front-mounted main container, I added an "apron" to simplify donning. The apron also helped conceal the harness, risers, etc. that might clutter up a cockpit.

This apron came in handy when I sewed together a lap-type pilot emergency parachute harness/container.

Since the back-mounted reserve could extend the full length of the spine, it could also be made very thin. For comparison, long-back pilot emergency parachutes are routinely only an inch or two thick.

[sfzombie13 307]

19 hours ago, riggerrob said:

That reminds me of a discussion ... er ... drunken bull-session ... many years ago.

Given that scared students instinctively curl up in a fetal position and military paratroopers are taught a modified fetal position for static-line jumps, I opined that skydiving students would cheerfully sit-fly if that was what we taught from the start. That led to sketches of a front-mounted main container and a back-mounted reserve.

When sketching the front-mounted main container, I added an "apron" to simplify donning. The apron also helped conceal the harness, risers, etc. that might clutter up a cockpit.

This apron came in handy when I sewed together a lap-type pilot emergency parachute harness/container.

Since the back-mounted reserve could extend the full length of the spine, it could also be made very thin. For comparison, long-back pilot emergency parachutes are routinely only an inch or two thick.

sounds like it may be time for the next innovation in skydiving container design.  know any container manufacturers willing to change the industry?

[riggerrob 558]

On 1/13/2023 at 5:10 AM, sfzombie13 said:

sounds like it may be time for the next innovation in skydiving container design.  know any container manufacturers willing to change the industry?

I am willing to do sketches, patterns and prototypes, but I lack an attention span long enough for full-scale development.

[sfzombie13 307]

6 hours ago, riggerrob said:

I am willing to do sketches, patterns and prototypes, but I lack an attention span long enough for full-scale development.

hell, we'd make the perfect pair then.  i have the attention span, and skills to manage the work, just not any of the technical knowledge. 

[shadeland 5]

On 1/11/2023 at 8:07 AM, gnasher70 said:

I like chips, pies and skydiving and in an effort to keep my wing loading at a safeish  level considering that im not jumping as much as I used too, what are the pro's and cons for low volume reserves and how much of a size might I be able to upsize to with a low volume reserve. My  Tempo 150 reserve sits pretty tight in my Vector might I be able to get a 170 low pack volume in the same reserve tray ? How many low pack reserves exist on the market these days are there any more than the Icarus Nano ? 

There are three available to US markets that I'm aware of: 

* PD Optimum

* Aerodyne SmartLPV

* Icarus Nano

As someone mentioned, Icarus has a prohibition beyond 1.3 WL. So many of us are limited to PD Optimum and Aerodyne SmartLPV. Both my rigs have Optimums in them and both my cutaways were with Optimums. It was a 143 at about 1.3 WL, and both landings were one stage flares to a standup landing with little wind. I had a SmartLPV briefly before I was a rigger but never deployed or packed it. 

Someone mentioned the Speed 2000, but I don't think they can manufacture under a USA TSO anymore. The EASA doesn't ETSO sport reserves, so reciprocity doesn't work there usually (they might have been grandfathered). I talked to someone that said they were going to re-enter the US market, but I haven't heard anything. 

So if you're in the US, those three (and really two if you're above 1.3) are the only ones I'm aware of.  

Edited January 17, 2023 by shadeland

[riggerrob 558]

PD Optimum was certified under a one-time FAA waiver for a hands-off descent rate of "more than X feet per second." PD talked the FAA into accepting a flared landing as an alternative way to reduce rate-of-descent.

A member of the PIA standards committee told me that will never happen again. PIA worries that an AAD will save the jumpers' life, but then he will be badly injured during an unconscious un-flared landing.

So you might "legally" load a PD Optimum reserve more than 1.3 pounds per square foot, but the laws of man must bow to the laws of physics. 

[shadeland 5]

On 1/19/2023 at 12:49 PM, riggerrob said:

PD Optimum was certified under a one-time FAA waiver for a hands-off descent rate of "more than X feet per second." PD talked the FAA into accepting a flared landing as an alternative way to reduce rate-of-descent.

A member of the PIA standards committee told me that will never happen again. PIA worries that an AAD will save the jumpers' life, but then he will be badly injured during an unconscious un-flared landing.

So you might "legally" load a PD Optimum reserve more than 1.3 pounds per square foot, but the laws of man must bow to the laws of physics. 

I keep hearing about that FAA waiver, but I've never seen it or found it. Both the Optimum and the PD Reserve must have it based on their weight limits. (PDR mentions 1.5 as the expert range, for instance). 

And Aerodyne must have it too, as they list a maximum weight of well over 1.3 (though the recommended weight maxes out at 1.3). 

There was part of the PIA TS-135 test document which would have allowed more than 1.3 for everyone (landing by flaring) but the C23f specifically forbade that part of the testing standard as someone here (I don't remember who) pointed it out to me. 

Of those three, only Icarus specifically forbids more than 1.3 and that might be their interpretation while Aerodyne (and PD) use the maximum load tested part. 

I've got an older PDR and it's maximum weight is much lower than a new PDR. 
 

[shadeland 5]

On 1/19/2023 at 12:49 PM, riggerrob said:

PD Optimum was certified under a one-time FAA waiver for a hands-off descent rate of "more than X feet per second." PD talked the FAA into accepting a flared landing as an alternative way to reduce rate-of-descent.

A member of the PIA standards committee told me that will never happen again. PIA worries that an AAD will save the jumpers' life, but then he will be badly injured during an unconscious un-flared landing.

So you might "legally" load a PD Optimum reserve more than 1.3 pounds per square foot, but the laws of man must bow to the laws of physics. 

Thought I do agree that legal or not, loading up a reserve, especially higher than 1.3, gets to be in the "maybe not a great idea" realm. 

[shadeland 5]

Also correcting myself: Apparently Paratec does have an FAA TSO approval: https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FA5FE432E878C07385256E5900556FEB.0001

In my defense, the FAA search function is... awful. 

Edit: Case in point, the "copy URL" button doesn't work. 

To search FAA TSO Approvals, to here: https://drs.faa.gov/browse

Under "Design and Production Approvals", select "Technical Standard Order Authorizations/Letter's Of Approval". 

The quickest way in the search window is to select Paratec under "TSOA Holder". 

Edited January 21, 2023 by shadeland

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

7 hours ago, shadeland said:

I keep hearing about that FAA waiver, but I've never seen it or found it. Both the Optimum and the PD Reserve must have it based on their weight limits. (PDR mentions 1.5 as the expert range, for instance). 

And Aerodyne must have it too, as they list a maximum weight of well over 1.3 (though the recommended weight maxes out at 1.3). 

There was part of the PIA TS-135 test document which would have allowed more than 1.3 for everyone (landing by flaring) but the C23f specifically forbade that part of the testing standard as someone here (I don't remember who) pointed it out to me. 

Of those three, only Icarus specifically forbids more than 1.3 and that might be their interpretation while Aerodyne (and PD) use the maximum load tested part. 

I've got an older PDR and it's maximum weight is much lower than a new PDR. 
 

Hi shade,

I have posted about this waiver a number of times.  I, also, have never seen it.

At the 2005 PIA Symposium, I was sitting in the coffee shop talking to one of the major  players from PD.  He is the one who told me that they had to get a waiver to get their Optimum canopies certificated.

That's my story & I'm sticking to it.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  All of your other recent posts are spot on.

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

6 hours ago, shadeland said:

Also correcting myself: Apparently Paratec does have an FAA TSO approval: https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FA5FE432E878C07385256E5900556FEB.0001

In my defense, the FAA search function is... awful. 

Edit: Case in point, the "copy URL" button doesn't work. 

To search FAA TSO Approvals, to here: https://drs.faa.gov/browse

Under "Design and Production Approvals", select "Technical Standard Order Authorizations/Letter's Of Approval". 

The quickest way in the search window is to select Paratec under "TSOA Holder". 

Hi shade,

Welcome to the club.

Jerry Baumchen