Major reserve hesitation

[RiggerLee 61]

Let's take you're points one at a time.

- Get a new pilot chute?
Their is actually a statement in the manual forbidding you from doing that. There is no ambiguity at all. It gives a list of parts and states that only OEM parts may be used. Now how strong is that. We used to feel that we could swap out TSO'd parts. I started a thread on this in Gear and Rigging but no one seemed to have any interest in it. On the other hand there is a basic statement that all equipment must be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. In other words you have to follow the manual.

If the pilot chute is under performing then the obvious solution to this is for the manufacturer to do a service bulletin offering a replacement pilot chute with higher drag. This would be by far the easiest solution. I don't know. It might be in the works as speak. It might be a little tricky with the FAA I think they would actually have to do a round of heavy drop testing to demonstrate that the new PC will not blow up. I don't think they could call it a miner change.

This is why I was asking about getting a approval for an alteration through the FSDO to install another TSO'd PC from another manufacturer. I think that would bypass the statement in the manual, see other thread. As an example I think the stealth PC from RI would be a good fit. With small changes, two snaps and two pieces of tape, it would be compatible with their PC cap. It's about the same diameter of spring. It's a stiff spring and long. And it's way higher drag then the existing PC. So Sandy could do a miner change to his PC. He could get an approval through the FSDO. Or a Mirage PC in a Vector. What could be an easer swap then that? It can be granted as a general approval that any Master rigger can perform. Buttlers Dyper, or his four line come to mind. It might be far easier then Wings building a totally new PC of their own.

- Get a different container?
I just got a brand new fucking wings. It is setting right here beside me. All $2,000+ of it and that's with a 50% coupon. I'm looking right at it. It's really nice. The workmanship is out standing and that's coming from someone who builds shit for a living. I haven't put it together yet be cause I don't have the reserve yet. But it's so pretty and shiny! I don't know about you but even with the coupon that was a pretty big investment for me. That was not cheap. I am going to jump the fucking thing. And I'm not afraid to jump it. I've worked with all kinds of gear. All gear has it's limitations. We operate it accordingly. I will jump this rig but in doing so I will respect it's performance envelope. It seems that that performance may not measure up to the TSO standards that it's supposed to adhere to. Some people take issue with that and they probable should. It may one day kill some one. I have a slightly different perspective. I've worked with such a wide range of equipment that I am accustomed to bending my self around it rather then forcing it to my expectations. I can look at this and see what it is and know what I have to do to jump it. If you have the bones to swap out rigs because you changed jumpsuits and you want the colors to match, good for you. I don't have that kind of money.

- Get Wings' MARD option installed?
I actually did get the mard with this rig. Why, I never jump an RSL, too much CRW, I got it for resale value. I figured I can leave it unhooked. In this circumstance it could be a good thing. It could really help in the most vulnerable situation. It does not fix all the possible scenarios and some people might say that it's a cheat to cover up design issues but it's some thing that could save you're life in a low cutaway. You know if the TSO is ever challenged they might be able to make it standard and call it an alternate form of compliance. There is actually precedents for that in aviation with the FAA. The Mard might be a real option for you.

- Downsize my reserve?
There has been a lot of discussion about what part compatibility plays in this. It's an easy figure to point but I don't think that's the whole story. In fact it sounds like this canopy was in the middle of the approved range. I think it's a lot more complicated. I think there can be small things in the fundamental design of a container and the way it fits on the person that can affect it's deployment. This is not just a wings issue I see potential problems in a number of containers and I think that's one of the reasons why a lot of people are standing mum on this. It's just not an easy problem to track down. It's not as simple as one design or model or batch. So I'm not sure simple down sizing or going to an Optimum would solve the issue. I personally think a rig should be designed so that compatibility is not a issue with it's performance. And in the next generation of containers you may see that.

- All of the above?
What do you want me to say? What ever makes you feel warm and fuzzy when you're in the door.

So it's a wings in the video. I don't think this should be treated as a wings issue. In fact it is NOT a wings issue. A lot of rigs out there have the potential to fall short of the performance required by the TSO. If we have an issue with that then we need to address it. And I don't think there will be any easy solutions but there are things we can do if we choose to.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[pchapman 261]

I don't see any easy answer here.

In the classic Wings 'pulling the bridle over the shoulder' video from Quebec, the jumper was at least slightly over on his back. In this video, it seemed like the jumper was pretty much upright.

With the main already gone, the Wings doesn't seem to generally be a very restrictive rig for pulling the freebag out towards the jumpers head. Yet that's the direction that seems to have caused problems. "Try not to be too upright after a cutaway" is a silly conclusion but one those circumstances suggest.

Mind you, if one does chop from a more upright position, and have an RSL pulling, one won't have time to change body position, and a towed reserve pilot chute will have one upright anyway.

[RiggerLee 61]

Yes and no. Damn it, I don't want to talk smack about my brand new rig. It's so pretty and Shiny. I'm going to use my wings as an example. Please under stand that this isn't just about the wings containers. you can see similar problems in other rigs.

Now having said that I've got it setting in my lap. If you look at the upper corners of the reserve tray. The tray sews down in a U and then it sews along the top. But it's got these... horns that extend farther up and tack down to the edge of the yoke higher up. this allows the top of the flap to go up at a higher angle farther on the yoke. It insures that the flap completely covers the top of the free bag. Even though the top flap is very baud. It's mostly esthetic but it does tend to retain the top ears of the bag. It all depends on the angle of the yoke and where the bend over the shoulders occurs. It looks like it has the potential to curve over the shoulder and form a pocket retaining the top ears of the bag. I can hook my fingers and pick up the rig from there. It's a subtle little thing that depending on the geometry might or might not exist on any given rig depending on the relative length of the main lift web and shape of the jumper.

Let me contrast that with another rig which has less of this. The Icon, if I remember correctly has less extension of that flap along the yoke and the top of the tray is more open.


I'm not advocating one over the other. Notice I just bought a wings. I'm just pointing out were small decisions in the pattern set can potentially affect the performance of one particular rig.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[pchapman 261]

Thanks for that closer look. It isn't as apparent when a Wings is flat on the floor, and shows that the issue isn't just about, say, 6 flap reserve containers with extra large and stiff riser tuck tabs. Certainly in this whole issue, the devil is in the details.

In the old days, while rigs had plenty of issues of their own, the reserve container was more independent of the harness and main risers over the shoulders....

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

So it's a wings in the video. I don't think this should be treated as a wings issue. In fact it is NOT a wings issue.

Since it's not an isolated 'situation' (more than one video exists) - then it IS a Wings issue, granted this may not be only a Wings issue ~ but there IS video documentation showing that it's not a one time - one rig anomaly.

It's not playing with semantics to say that some Wings containers have recently had a documented reserve hesitation problem.

That's kind of a good thing to know...


Remember when a Quasar table totaled with the main still in the tray?

All the rigs were grounded until they were returned to the factory to remove the assist fingers and get a redesigned pilot chute...

It too was said 'that probably wouldn't happen in a dynamic real world situation' but Ted recalled & 'fixed' them ALL anyway!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[stratostar 5]

I wouldn't jump one. Have hated those rigs from day one for a number of reason, mostly rigging and a few design issues I don't care for... there all personal though. Had one total on the through loop on the free bag could pick it and swing it around the loft by the bridal and it had the main in the tray, so it had weight, even let all the other riggers take a swing or two... and that was moons ago. once I saw the hand deploy reserve and now this other long ass delay I think I will no longer be placing my seal on ANY of them, not worth the risk and legal hassle for a 50 buck repack.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

- Get a new pilot chute?
Their is actually a statement in the manual forbidding you from doing that. There is no ambiguity at all. It gives a list of parts and states that only OEM parts may be used. Now how strong is that.

I don't agree with your assessment about the strength of the statement in the manual.
I have written several owners manual for certificated gear in the past. In my original Harness and Container manual I made a statrment allowing both chest and back rated riggers be allowed to pack the SST piggy back. Piggy back were new at the time and most riggers had only a Chest ratting.
There wes legal president for this statment. However the FAA called me and said their regulation take presidnts over the manual. PIA wanted me to challenge them but I removed the statement from the manual.
This is a simular situation. The AC-105-2(x) allows the mixing of major components from different manufacturers. The manufacturer cannot prohibit that. For the manual to be definitive AC-105-2(x) would have to be recended.

[RiggerLee 61]

I'm not sure there is a conflict. AC-105 presumes that the parts in question are compatible. It does give some leeway to the rigger in determining that. I would say that that is the basis up on which we interchanged parts in the past.

What we have here is a statement from the manufacturer that they do not find other parts to be compatible. Part of it is very legitimate, equipment has become more specialized and if some thing radically different were used, like a larger diameter PC, then it could be compromised. I think another issue is the cypress and the fact that airtec had only tested it with the original PC. And if a weaker spring were used that could certainly be compromised.

Now don't get me wrong. I'd love to swap some of these out but with that statement in the manual I don't think a rigger could just on his own authority go against the manufacturers evaluation of compatibility. It's not about manual vs. 105 it's about the manufacturer making a statement in regards to compatibility. Since by their statement no other component is compatible then in accordance with 105 you may not substitute it. That's why I think some one might have to apply for an approved alteration.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

The AC-105-2(x) allows the mixing of major components from different manufacturers. The manufacturer cannot prohibit that. For the manual to be definitive AC-105-2(x) would have to be recended.

John,

Masterrigger1 states that “ACs are not regulatory”. But then he says alot of thing.

S;parky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[stratostar 5]

Quote

“ACs are not regulatory”

Fed's say that same shit to me to with airport access case when pointing to those as their own publications.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

Masterrigger1 states that “ACs are not regulatory”. But then he says alot of thing.

He is correct. But try to tell that to an Administrative Law Judge or a FSDO agent.
We all know that AC's have the effect of law.

[JohnSherman 1]

Wow, it was a Wings you got! That’s a good thing. So it is apparent that you feel a little conflicted over what you have learned about their pilot chute. Here’s what lets do. Test the dam thing. You know how. Lets have a race. First one to the ground looses. I am posting the process here for other people to do the same.

1. Find an old Military surplus pilot chute. MA-1 type or any PC which has a traditional parachute canopy. Little Grabber, Vector 1, Racer, A3 etc.
2. Weigh it and your Wings PC. Add weight to each to stabilize them but make the total weight of each PC and store equal. Record the weight.
3. Find a tall place and drop them off together. First on down looses.
4. If you want quantitative results then measure the height of the drop suite and time the descent.
5. Divide the distance by the time to find Feet/Second.
6. Apply the Formula for Dynamic Pressure (Q = ½ Rho V^2) V is from line 5.
7. Find “Effective Sq. Ft.” by dividing the weight from 2 by the Q from 6.
8. Effective Sq. Ft. is the physical size times the Drag Coefficient.
9. If you know “Effective Sq. Ft. you can calculate the drag for any situation of speed and altitude. (D=Cd*So*Q).

This low speed test is indicative of over all performance of any pilot chute, as we both know. I am not posting this here to give you instruction which you already know. I list them for the other guys who may want to do the same.
I would love it if you would do the test and post it here, show photos and give data. I am sure you can find a place to drop it from out there like the Space Needle. The highest thing we have here in Florida is a life guard tower.

[skydiverek 54]

airtwardo

Quote

So it's a wings in the video. I don't think this should be treated as a wings issue. In fact it is NOT a wings issue.

Since it's not an isolated 'situation' (more than one video exists) - then it IS a Wings issue, granted this may not be only a Wings issue ~ but there IS video documentation showing that it's not a one time - one rig anomaly.

It's not playing with semantics to say that some Wings containers have recently had a documented reserve hesitation problem.

I witnessed (from under my canopy) my friend's cutaway. He jumps Wings. After a cutaway from a lineover, he was in the perfectly upright position (like standing up). RSL activated the reserve. He towed the reserve PC (at full bridle stretch) for approximately two seconds...

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi John,

Bless your pea-picking heart. I have been waiting to ask you this question.

Quote

The AC-105-2(x) allows the mixing of major components from different manufacturers.

Are you OK with a rigger putting a Vector II pilot chute into a Racer?

[runs & hides]



JerryBaumchen

[dwhenline 0]

hey
I have a mirage G4, do I need to worry much about this ???
dwh

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

Are you OK with a rigger putting a Vector II pilot chute into a Racer?

The AC further states that if a question of performance arrizes it must be resolved through testing. Performance must not be degraded.

I certainly think it would not be advisable to put the world lowest dragging pilot chute in place of the worlds highest dragging pilot chute. This would certainly degrade performance. I can see it here on a form "Racer takes 4 seconds for a deployment after cutaway".

However, it would not be for me to say and the substitution would reduce my liability.

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Masterrigger1 states that “ACs are not regulatory”. But then he says alot of thing.

Yep!But mostly true things probably 90% of the time hopefully.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

He is correct. But try to tell that to an Administrative Law Judge or a FSDO agent.
We all know that AC's have the effect of law.

They can have that effect, but AFS-100 would set that straight for the twelve gray haired ladies in the witness stand.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[mjosparky 3]

masterrigger1

Quote

He is correct. But try to tell that to an Administrative Law Judge or a FSDO agent.
We all know that AC's have the effect of law.

They can have that effect, but AFS-100 would set that straight for the twelve gray haired ladies in the witness stand.

MEL

If you apply them a law you won't have to deal with little old ladies. Seems like the smart way to go. If they come after you, you will lose.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[RiggerLee 61]

Wasn't there a case where a person was charged with a violation of an AC as if it were a FAR? I don't recall the details. I think I read about it in the AOPA or EAA magazine. Must have been ten years back. It was notable at the time for being the first case of it's kind. There was great concern about it as a president. How did that eventually come out?

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[Maksimsf 0]

Wanna have tiny sexy looking overstuffed rig - be ready for this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYIUjKGxagI

[skydiverek 54]

Maksimsf

Wanna have tiny sexy looking overstuffed rig - be ready for this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYIUjKGxagI

Reason here:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2101957#2101957

[skydiverek 54]

JohnSherman

Here is a photo of a wings lifted from their web site.

Notice that 80% of the canopy is canopy cloth.
While the Vector 2 might not be of the same proportions it still has more than 50% canopy cloth as does the Infinity, or so I am told. Information which I have not personally verified.
The point is that, on all 3, the canopy cloth which extends beyond the equator of the canopy is deflecting air not grabbing it.

The BS about getting it into the air stream is just that, BS. Things don't go up when released in FF they continue to fall at the same rate at which they were released unless their mass density is different or they reach the end of the bridle and start dragging. If the mass density is less they will slow down, if more they will accelerate.
This is the baine for heavy springs and tops. As Bill noted, when he tested the Tear Drop, the PC accelerated away from the free falling body when released because of the heave metal hat. The same is now true for the big disk on some rigs which are combined with heave springs.
Pilot Chutes should be as lite as possible so they will allow you to fall away from them. But it is the canopy design which does the dragging and non traditional designs have proven not to be of adiquet drag capability.

The data has been out there for 25 years and the marketing has overcome it to the detriment of the sport.

John,

What about this reserve PC? (attached are two photos).

More:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=476690#476690

and

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1555332#1555332

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

What about this reserve PC? (attached are two photos).

Interesting design, but WHY?
What are they trying to accomplish?
I understand trying something just because it is different but it should accomplish something better.
If it ain't broke don't fix it. Change for the sake of change is dangerous.
I would not like to speculate on any design without testing. Testing is paramount.
Pilot chute testing is easy. Find a known good pilot chute and drop it from a good height along side the one in question. Make sure the total weight is equal. First one down looses.
See the instructions earlier in this thread.

[airtwardo 6]

Tried it off the roof with 10lbs. on an old Hotdog & a M-A1...think I killed the dog.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~