I'm scared of my reserve

[councilman24 36]

I didn't realize they had reproduced all of those in the handbook. That interesting considering the current AS standard is still being sold. But not maintained.

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Ask yourself what WL reserve you'd want to land with if you're konked on the nord and taking a nap at landing time - or if your arms are disabled & you can only do harness turns & can't flare, or if you have to land in that little space between the dumpsters in some parking lot.

Oh, and ease up on the pork rinds.

[hackish 8]

Quote

180 lbs is not the Maximum operating weight limitation. It is the recommended weight limit either for that canopy or for that canopy at that experience level. I'd look it up but don't have a manual handy in person or online. It is certified to a maximum operating limitation of 254lbs.

Before writing my "irresponsible" suspicions I did pick up my poynter and read the section. I wasn't able to locate a more up to date reference. However if the reserve was certified under category A then the maximum deployment weight would be 90kg (198lbs) and 130kts. You can now see why I might go along with the original poster's 180lbs maximum. I don't know if there is anything out there still certified under C23a but there is more than one photo in poynter 1 showing 23a tags.

I also seem to recall that the 8015B standard called for using drop test dummies of different weights. I know that the TSO C23B called for them only to establish the shock rating. As a general rule I usually do some reading before stating any facts in a post but I can't find my copy of the C23d stuff which is why my comments were entitled "I suspect"

This entire discussion does bring up an important point. If the manufacturer states that use is not recommended above a certain weight then is it the responsibility of the rigger to certify it's airworthiness for the user or just for the equipment?

-Michael

[riggerrob 558]

First of all, exceeding manufacturer's recommendations on any reserve is dumb.
You will probably get away with slightly exceeding manufacturer's recommendations, but sooner or later, it will hurt you.
With luck it will only result in bruises.

Weigh limits on reserves are affected by two separate standards.
The first standard is opening shock.
Will the reserve canopy remain intact after opening shock?
Most TSO standards have a minimum 254 pounds suspended weight (jumper, jump suit, helmet, harness, container, reserve canopy, main canopy, cameras, three or more electronic altimeters, etc.) for testing opening shock. The FAA requires test dummies to exceed that weight by 1.2 - or more. Hint: I dropped an aweful lot of 340 pound test dummies during TSO C23C testing of Aviator systems.

The second standard is rate of descent under a fully-inflated reserve canopy. One old military specification was 21 feet per second under a round reserve.
IOW will your ankles survive landing a tiny reserve?

Remember that back when Ravens were designed (early 1980s) no-one was loading main canopies at more than one pound per square foot, so expecting a Raven to land gracefully when loaded at 1.5 is ... er ... wishful thinking.
Even the Precision factory admits that Ravens flare poorly when loaded at 1.4 pounds per square foot.

[ryoder 1,381]

Quote

All of those standards are in the back of FAA-H-8083-17 "Parachute Rigger Handbook", which was published in 2005:

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/media/FAA-H-8083-17.pdf

Relevant excerpts from this doc attached.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Canuck 0]

"Gear Fear" sucks, and takes a great deal of fun out of skydiving. You will enjoy your jumps a 100% more if you're not spending every plane ride wondering if your reserve is going to blow up, or break your legs on landing. Go get yourself a PD or a SMART or some other more modern reserve...

Canuck

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

It can be considered illegal. ***

I don't know about Illegal but not recommended, riggers built these canopies i had not seen one get charge for building or advertizing smaller reserves actually seems to be the trent, personally I like the optima reserve concept smaller pack volume to get a bigger reserve seems to be a bright idea.

Are you sure about that? I will bet my next retirement check that they were not built by riggers and there is a good chance they were not tested by riggers.

You should try using punctuation, makes it much easier to read what you post.

Attached is a response for PD on the subject.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[mjosparky 3]

You seem bent on not letting a little bit of knowledge get in the way of “facts”. Why do you continue to post as fact things you can’t back up with documentation? Have you ever been involved in a TSO test program? Do you have any idea what is involved in the test? Have you ever compared the difference between testing for TSO-C23b, TSO-C23c or TSO-23d?

It is just my opinion but maybe you should keep your advice to those areas that you have some expertise in.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[strop45 0]

Quote

It is just my opinion but maybe you should keep your advice to those areas that you have some expertise in.

That would be beer?

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein

[hackish 8]

When I say "I suspect something is X because of Y" then I consider that an invitation to discussion about a topic. I read the procedures out of personal interest some time ago - I just wasn't able to locate the document to prove or disprove my suspicions and I think I've been pretty up front about that.

-Michael

[mjosparky 3]

I just wasn't able to locate the document to prove or disprove my suspicions

Quote

If you check my history on these boards I think you will find that I can locate the “documents” and I have always been up front about that. My point is if you don’t have the facts don’t give the advice. No flame intended.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

The TSO process requires that the canopy be tested to 254 lbs, regardless of what the placard states. That said, it is generally a bad idea to exceed what the placard states... manufacturer's have good reasons for setting their limits.

I won't claim to know the specific reasons, but here are some likley possibilities: 1) raven is not a modern design, and thus the airfoil isn't capable of handling as much wingloading as more modern reserves. 2) When the original raven came out, people didn't typically load canopies (and especially reserves) nearly as high as they do today. Limits were set according to the knowledge of the time.

One point: the 185 limit is jumper + gear. Therefore your weight is actually more like 220, not 200.

Bottom line though... if you're scared, get a new reserve. You should NEVER be scared of your reserve! I don't care if you're 150 lbs and jumping a PDR-196... if you're not comfortable with it, sell it and buy a 218 (or whatever). It's your last shot, and you have have absolute, 100% confidence in it. You never want a voice in the back of your head saying "shit, can I land this thing?" while you're reaching for your cutaway.

"Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

[BETO74 0]

Without knowing the exact circumstances, it is difficult to know exactly what charges would be faced. However, for the FAA, they have two catch-all charges. Careless operation, and Reckless operation. Normally, they make both charges. With these two charges they do not have to directly site an FAR, but rather just state that safe operating procedures were not followed. Even though Advisory Circulars are supposedly just advisory in nature, or suggested procedures, the FAA takes the view point that deviation from them means that you are not operation in a safe manor and thus Careless operation. The same is true for operating any component outside of its certified range. The FAA certifies reserves and they consider it a serious safety issue when something is operated outside of the approved/placarded/certified range. Further if they can make a case that others could get hurt that expands to include reckless. If there are people on the ground anywhere near the point of exit, flight path or landing or other jumpers in the air near them, this is pretty easy for them to claim. Additionally, if there are injuries or fatalities the local DA will frequently use the FAA charges to support criminal charges.
-------

Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.

Best regards,

***

Thanks Sparky, I will definately use you punctuation advice next time right on the money! now.... I took the liberty to cut and paste your attachment, I must be reading or interpreting this wrong but I think it supports my previous statement.....That was my humble two cents

http://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html

[hajnalka 0]

Precision Ravens (Raven I, II, II and IV) were all tested and placarded under TSO C23c category B.

Limit: 254 lb at 150 kts.

Many manufacturers of c cat B reserves would add something to the placard to the effect of
"although we're required to state above limits, we don't recommend you exceed X (181 mph) weight at y speed (130 kts) to lower your risk of injury or death."

It's really not rocket science to find out what reserves are tested to what TSOs, and what those TSOs state as far as weight/speed.

In my 9 years of full-time rigging, I've never seen a canopy TSO'd under C23a. If I ever do, I'll call everyone over and take LOTS of pictures .

Good thread with lots of advice to the OP:
Bottom line, be comfortable with your reserve. If you're not, get something else and demo if possible.

Your Raven I was tested 20% above 254 lb @150 kts, and has saved MANY lives over the years. This is a time-tested reserve that doesn't seem to have exhibited any of the problems of the later raven -Ms, -MZs, SuperRaven or MicroRavens.

Whether you feel comfortable landing that square footage with your wingloading and experience level is your personal decision.

Best,
Dawn

[javelin1 0]

there is a reason why there are weight limitations on gear. HEED THEM

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

there is a reason why there are weight limitations on gear. HEED THEM

The max weight listed on the TSO placard is 80% of what the gear was tested to. The manufactures maximum weight has more to do with they believe the average jumper’s body will take on a less then wonderful landing.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals