Optimum 113 DOM april 2008 maximum weight ?

[eric.fradet 17]

concerned in a fatality in which the weight of the victim is important, this Optimum 113 Reserve DOM 04/2008 shows in its warning label a maximum weight of 220 pounds (100 kilos) while all reserve packing manual since 2002 mention 254 pounds (115 kilos), who to trust ? knowing that under no circumstances should we believe the manufacturer

[gowlerk 2,095]

I'm sure you are well aware of what those numbers mean and where they come from. Who to trust? Hanging either 220 or 254 lbs under a 113 sq. ft. 7-cell non ZP means that if anyone uses it they will need to be fully capable of flying it and landing it. If they are incapacitated in any way, or untrained or inexperienced they are taking a large risk. The manufacturer is not lying. 

[louispaulcarrier 0]

you missunderstood, if the reserve packing manuals says "254" while the warning label says "220", something is wrong ! 

[pchapman 275]

The data panel photo's resolution is too poor to read well. But it looks like there are multiple discrepancies / errors / typos?  

There's the 220 maximum (vs. 254 in the manual). I would guess the manual is correct because that's been consistent over the years, as has the web site. (I used archive.org to check the website & manual for April 2008, the date of manufacture for that canopy.)

And the kg equivalent says 000?   Or can't I read that right?

And one of the other suggested weight levels don't match either the current manual or the one from April 2008 - the label I think says 149 lbs for Experts, while the 2008 and current manuals both say 169 lb. And the April 2008 website said 159. Of course, those are just recommendations, and not certification limits -- but still it shows some sloppiness in typing numbers in!

Shrug. Give PD a call and ask what's the real value. Wonder if they'll have some original TSO paperwork they would actually share, to prove which value is correct for actual certification, 220 or 254.

It would be interesting to see what a newer OP-113 says on its data panel...
Lawyers like to get picky about all this kind of stuff, even if it is all in the territory of "a heavily loaded reserve and the jumper chose to use either way". 

[SCS422 24]

What are the facts concerning this fatality?  Anybody jumping this size reserve at anywhere from 180lbs  to the max exit weight had better be sure of two things they do not come down under it unconscious and they better be damn good at landing  one!

[louispaulcarrier 0]

On 7/19/2024 at 5:32 PM, pchapman said:

The data panel photo's resolution is too poor to read well. But it looks like there are multiple discrepancies / errors / typos?  

There's the 220 maximum (vs. 254 in the manual). I would guess the manual is correct because that's been consistent over the years, as has the web site. (I used archive.org to check the website & manual for April 2008, the date of manufacture for that canopy.)

And the kg equivalent says 000?   Or can't I read that right?

And one of the other suggested weight levels don't match either the current manual or the one from April 2008 - the label I think says 149 lbs for Experts, while the 2008 and current manuals both say 169 lb. And the April 2008 website said 159. Of course, those are just recommendations, and not certification limits -- but still it shows some sloppiness in typing numbers in!

Shrug. Give PD a call and ask what's the real value. Wonder if they'll have some original TSO paperwork they would actually share, to prove which value is correct for actual certification, 220 or 254.

It would be interesting to see what a newer OP-113 says on its data panel...
Lawyers like to get picky about all this kind of stuff, even if it is all in the territory of "a heavily loaded reserve and the jumper chose to use either way". 

The kilo equivalent is written (100) but the resolution is not good.

I called and wrote wothout success to PD , as usual the manufacturer remains silent when its equipment is involved in a fatality.

As you can read it the attached file  (Optimum 113 DOM june 2018 warning label), 254 is written down, something is wrong and since I am in charge of the expert report of the fatality, I have no confidence in Performance Designs to help me to the manifestation of the truth... 

[eric.fradet 17]

This one from June 2008 shows something has been modified on Optimum 113 reserve  but not the reserve packing manual :

[eric.fradet 17]

also something important you should know : The maximum weight written down on PD reserve is UNTRUE, I have the proof it does not work since we tried , at the maximum operating limits (200 pounds) and 175 KEAS with the Optimum 113 reserve = it explodes , because PD has been cheating on certification tests

[eric.fradet 17]

it also eplodes at 220lbs/150 KEAS

[pchapman 275]

Quote

I called and wrote wothout success to PD , as usual the manufacturer remains silent when its equipment is involved in a fatality.

Sounds like they don't want to answer except through lawyers in an actual court case!  Good luck.

[riggerrob 598]

We should get Terry Urban's opinion on this matter since he sat on the PIA Technical Committee when the Optimum was certified. Terry and I have discussed this a couple of times.

The old FAA TSO standard was that all reserves had to structurally survive high-speed openings at 254 pounds.

The second problem was descent rate with 254 pounds suspended. The smallest reserves have a steady (brakes still set at opening configuration) rate of descent too fast to meet the FAA standard, so Performance Designs asked the FAA for an exemption.

[eric.fradet 17]

as you can see in the attached file, the maximum weight on Optimum 113 has been limited to 220 pounds for a while from 2008 up to 2010 at least, while the reserve packing manual from 2002 and 2009 says 254 pounds, something is wrong..

[JerryBaumchen 1,260]

1 hour ago, riggerrob said:

We should get Terry Urban's opinion on this matter since he sat on the PIA Technical Committee when the Optimum was certified. Terry and I have discussed this a couple of times.

The old FAA TSO standard was that all reserves had to structurally survive high-speed openings at 254 pounds.

The second problem was descent rate with 254 pounds suspended. The smallest reserves have a steady (brakes still set at opening configuration) rate of descent too fast to meet the FAA standard, so Performance Designs asked the FAA for an exemption.

Hi Rob,

Re:  The old FAA TSO standard was that all reserves had to structurally survive high-speed openings at 254 pounds.

There are now 4 versions of TSO C23x under which modern gear is being built.  The oldest being C23b.  For the Standard Category, the harness had to survive a 'load' of 5,000 lbs.  There is a weight vs speed chart in NAS 804 to achieve this.  I am of the opinion that the chart will not produce a load of 5,000 lbs.

Re:  The second problem was descent rate with 254 pounds suspended.

It is the 'total velocity' req'ment that is the problem.

Re:  The smallest reserves have a steady (brakes still set at opening configuration) rate of descent too fast to meet the FAA standard

At the 2005 Symposium, I had coffee with one of the 'important' people at PD.  He informed me that the PD reserves had an exemption for the 'total velocity' req'ment.  It was the first time that I even knew that it was possible to get an exemption.  Learn something every day.

IMO if you ever drop test a ram air canopy using a dummy, you will quickly learn that you do NOT want to land it without control of it.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  When I did the strength testing, I used a 400 lb weight & 200 MPH.

[SCS422 24]

IMO if you ever drop test a ram air canopy using a dummy, you will quickly learn that you do NOT want to land it without control of it.

 

That is definitely a  NO BRAINER 

[riggerrob 598]

21 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Rob,

Re:  The old FAA TSO standard was that all reserves had to structurally survive high-speed openings at 254 pounds.

There are now 4 versions of TSO C23x under which modern gear is being built.  The oldest being C23b.  For the Standard Category, the harness had to survive a 'load' of 5,000 lbs.  There is a weight vs speed chart in NAS 804 to achieve this.  I am of the opinion that the chart will not produce a load of 5,000 lbs.

Re:  The second problem was descent rate with 254 pounds suspended.

It is the 'total velocity' req'ment that is the problem.

Re:  The smallest reserves have a steady (brakes still set at opening configuration) rate of descent too fast to meet the FAA standard

At the 2005 Symposium, I had coffee with one of the 'important' people at PD.  He informed me that the PD reserves had an exemption for the 'total velocity' req'ment.  It was the first time that I even knew that it was possible to get an exemption.  Learn something every day.

IMO if you ever drop test a ram air canopy using a dummy, you will quickly learn that you do NOT want to land it without control of it.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  When I did the strength testing, I used a 400 lb weight & 200 MPH.

One rumour has it that the FAA issued that waiver ONCE. They later quietly admitted their error and will never issue another similar waiver.

[JerryBaumchen 1,260]

58 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

One rumour has it that the FAA issued that waiver ONCE. They later quietly admitted their error and will never issue another similar waiver.

Hi Rob,

And, another rumor is that they got a waiver for the Optimum series also; for the same req'ment.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) And for:  They later quietly admitted their error and will never issue another similar waiver.

Only good until some FAA-types retire.

Edited July 23 by JerryBaumchen