Microraven 150 @ 1.25 WL

[pchapman 261]

Quote

I was recently reading a PD reserve paper and noticed that it was actually illegal to jump over the limit.

I think that is still highly disputable -- because there are different kind of limits. "Maximum weight" ON ITS OWN seems to have no legal definition and no validity as a legal limit. For a Raven 150 there are two "maximum weights", 153 lbs or 254 lbs.

Companies have generally never tried to enforce those lower kind of maximum weights, in effect encouraging jumpers to exceed suggested values. PD in the 1990s may have tried to keep Stilettos out of the hands of newbies, but they sure didn't stop anyone weighing over 125 lbs without gear from buying a PD 126. (Max weight listed in that era was 151 lbs.)

For Precision, those low Maximum Exit Weights (such as 153 lbs for a Raven 150) are actually listed on the orange warning label, making it look like it is the true legal limit. But then the wording on the label mentions TSO C23c Cat B's 254 lbs and states that "to lower the risk of death, serious bodily injury, canopy damage & hard openings, never exceed the following limitations".. after which that low 153 lbs number is listed.

That confuses the issue -- It is certified to 254 lbs but the manufacturer wants you to load it lower. But is that a legal limit or not? "To lower the risk of death", you could also keep parachute gear in the closet and not jump.

Is anything a company says about the reserve's use binding on a user, other than the TSO'd limits? They can dictate how a rigger packs it, but can they dictate what a jumper does?

PD's Reserve Manual says:

Quote

Exceeding the recommended maximum suspended weight
may result in serious injury or death due to landing injuries. Exceeding the absolute maximum
suspended weight is illegal, a violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations

Note the difference in terminology from the quote you found!

So there's a difference between RECOMMENDED and ABSOLUTE maximum weight. And nowhere is there an official definition for all manufacturers about maximum weight terminology. PD doesn't even use the exact same terminology from above, in the actual tables of reserves specs -- there one sees "max suspended weight" and "max suspended weight (TSO)".

In another PD document online (for PD reserve flight characteristics), there are again other words being used:
Both types of weight are listed as "maximum exit weight" but with categories like Student, Intermediate, Expert -- and then "Max." for the actual TSO weight, without saying TSO.

So that shows ever for one of the top companies that puts out the most detailed info for users, there is no standardization of terminology, probably to some degree because there are no official FAA or PIA terms in use.

Conclusion:
Unless someone can show that manufacturers' recommendations are legally binding on users (and I'm willing to learn about that), any statement of "maximum weight" is not legally binding unless it is the TSO'd weight.

(I'm not talking about what is smart or not, just what is legal.)

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

Companies have generally never tried to enforce those lower kind of maximum weights, in effect encouraging jumpers to exceed suggested values.

That my friends, is what you call "a leap".

Manufacturers placard their equipment with limits they have determined to be safe and/or maximums for TSO purposes. Enforcement of individuals who choose to exceed those limits would be impossible given the number of parachutes in use and the uncontrolled and undocumented nature of distribution among private owners.

Saying that manufacturers failing to attempt to enforce the impossible is the same as encouraging the behavior is absurd.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

• Quote

[pchapman 261]

Oh yeah, it would indeed be a case of trying to ENFORCE the impossible.

But it doesn't seem like they ever tried to even COMMUNICATE the issue.

Otherwise we should have heard companies say that loading a PD 126 over 151 lbs or a Raven 150 over 153 lbs was ILLEGAL.

We've had canopies like that for two decades and they've said nothing.

That's evidence that they don't believe it is ILLEGAL in FAA-land.


I'll grant you that some companies suck at communicating in general. I can't even find a Raven manual that hasn't been scanned from paper, and no R-Max manual seems to exist online.

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Oh yeah, it would indeed be a case of trying to ENFORCE the impossible.

But it doesn't seem like they ever tried to even COMMUNICATE the issue.

Otherwise we should have heard companies say that loading a PD 126 over 151 lbs or a Raven 150 over 153 lbs was ILLEGAL.

We've had canopies like that for two decades and they've said nothing.

That's evidence that they don't believe it is ILLEGAL in FAA-land.


I'll grant you that some companies suck at communicating in general. I can't even find a Raven manual that hasn't been scanned from paper, and no R-Max manual seems to exist online.

They haven't said it's illegal because it's not. Stupid maybe, but not illegal.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[riggerrob 558]

Manufacturers have to word limits very carefully to avoid law suits ... which makes some of their statements incomprehensible to anyone without a law degree.

Try reading the Canadian Air Regulations!
Hah!
Hah!

[skydiverek 54]

Quote

Check these BRUTAL tests on "Speed 2000" reserve:

http://www.paratec.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Speed-2000-Drop-Tests.mov

And it packs a bit smaller than Optimum!

More of test drops!:

http://vimeo.com/45599119

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Check these BRUTAL tests on "Speed 2000" reserve:

http://www.paratec.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Speed-2000-Drop-Tests.mov

And it packs a bit smaller than Optimum!

One problem, none of those tests would meet minimum TSO requirements. The airspeed must be at least 180 NEAS with a weight of at least 264 lbs. You can’t substitute weight for airspeed like in some of the older TSO’s.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

EDIT* otherwise the WL does not worry me and i was aware of it when i bought it :)

At your experience level the wing loading should bother you. How many jumps do you have under a 7 cell made from lopo material?

---

phoenixlpr

Almost, but low porosity material has a porosity like ZP for a couple of jumps.

F-111 type material or lopo has a claimed cfm of 0-3 cfm. But in the real world it comes new at about 3-5+ cfm.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggerrob 558]

"Legal" and "safe" are two separate concepts.

I was seriously injured while crash-landing an air plane with "legal" seat-belts.

"Safe" refers to improving your chances of walking away from a landing.

All parachute manufacturers over-test reserves much heavier and faster than they expect them to be loaded during normal skydiving.

Then they de-rate the weights and airspeeds to those most likely to survive opening shock.

Then they further de-rate canopy placards to improve the chances of your ankles surviving the landing.

Performance Designs has two reasons to for placarding reserves. Their first motivation is to keep your ankles intact and the second is to cover-their-asses "legally" if you hurt yourself operating outside of placarded limits.
As an aside, early Sabres (circa 1990) were placarded for only about 1:1 because back then, few skydivers knew how to flare canopies loaded more than 1:1.

Returning to the original poster: different generations of reserves tolerate over-loading to different degrees. If you load a Raven more than 1:1 you are "legally" exceeding placard limits AND you vastly reduce your "safety" (e.g. chances of walking away from a landing).

[Decodiver 0]

Microravens are pieces of shit. Watched one of my packers auger in under a MR as he flared at shoulder level and it stalled. Sell it to your enemy it is a piece of shit.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Microravens are pieces of shit.

When overloaded, yes indeed. They fly and land like crap. When loaded at or below 1.0, like they were designed to be, they are just fine.

Don't exceed the limitations of a piece of gear and it will perform as designed. Exceed the limitations and and you may have issues.

Or in other words, it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I have landed a micro-Raven 150 loaded at ~1.25 a couple of times. Not great but certainly better than (for example) a Strong Master 425R within limits.

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Microravens are pieces of shit. Watched one of my packers auger in under a MR as he flared at shoulder level and it stalled. Sell it to your enemy it is a piece of shit.

.......................................................................

Hah!
Hah!
That reminds me of a youtube clip of an Israeli Defense Force soldier showing off PIAT. He should make training videos for Hezzbola!!!!
Hah!
Hah!

[joeltafe 0]

I jumped a microraven 170 or something when I was 16 weighing 60kg and it was fine. I thought that I was sweet yrs later when I saw microraven in a rig I had just bought... but no this one was 120 and I now weigh 74kg now the stall point was above my shoulder height 😳 I tried so hard not to stall it on landing but it just wouldn't pull up enough and I ended up on my ass hard. That's when I saw it's maximum exit weight at 76 kg on the warning label 😔 Unlike 126kg for a Pd126 for a comparison. I'm curious to see if I could land it again but only curious... I have a pd126 now and wouldn't sell the raven to anyone.

[hackish 8]

I hate having that discussion with customers. It is always my choice to not pack that micro raven 120 for a 200lb guy. Unfortunately they just go find a newbie rigger and off they go. Going against manufacturer recommendations is poor risk management.

I own 2 optimums and a PD-R. I know they test their reserves more than others and have the largest R&D budget. In addition, the gold standard for reserves makes them a lot more resalable when you eventually downsize. Another small side effect is that riggers are most comfortable with packing the most popular reserves. Get an oddball one, they may not be packed as neatly. Should we talk about flight concepts??? :(

-Michael

[keithbar 1]

So can anyone explain the difference between a regular raven . A super raven and a r- max reserve ?

i have on occasion been accused of pulling low . My response. Naw I wasn't low I'm just such a big guy I look closer than I really am .

[skytribe 16]

To quote a previous post from RiggerRob which really deals with this.

This was probably posted prior to the R-Max reserves were actually released.

Quote

In the beginning (circa 1984) there were only Raven 1 (181 square feet), 2 (218), 3 (249) and 4 (280). They had Dacron lines, bridle attachments and packing tabs, but no V-tapes. Early on most Raven A were retrofitted with bikini sliders, which made them Raven Bs.

In the late 1980s, Super Ravens (with Raven-D to Raven-G?) on the orange warning label) debuted with V-tapes and big labels on the end ribs. Super Ravens retained the bridle attachments and packing tabs so they could still be packed as mains. Most Super Ravens have Spectra suspension lines, though I have repacked a few (C or D) Ravens with kevlar lines.

Micro Ravens are just Super Ravens in 150, 135 and 120 square foot sizes. While they passed all the TSO tests at 254 pounds suspended weight, Micro Ravens are placarded for lighter suspended weights, based on what the manufacturer expects ankles to survive on landing. For a long time Micro Raven 120s were the smallest reserves on the market.

Raven Dash Ms are a major re-design without bridle attachments or packing tabs. Dash Ms are also the first Ravens with span-wise construction on the bottom skins. They standardized with Spectra suspension lines on Dash Ms.
Precision changed model designations when they introduced the Dash M series. Now they are labelled by size (109 - 282). While the Raven-M120 was still the smallest reserve on the market, they introduced the even-smaller Raven-M109.
Early Raven Dash Ms (labelled simply 150-M) had type 3 tape for line attachments, which don't hold up in overweight, overspeed, unstable deployments.
By the Raven Dash Mb series Precision reverted to Type1 herringbone weave line attachment tapes which are much stronger. Dash Ms are also certified under TSO-C23D which allow manufacturers the option of placarding them for weights and airspeeds higher than earlier TSOs. For example, the Raven 28-M is placarded for a maximum of 292 pounds suspended weight at sea level.

To further confuse the issue, Precision has promised to release the Raven Max series in the near future. Raven Maxs will introduce span-wise reinforcing tapes and other improvements. I believe that the extra tapes in Raven Maxs are not correcting any design deficiency in earlier models, rather they are a response to skydivers who overload their reserves.
For example, the only damaged Raven Dash M I have seen was shredded by a skydiver who exceeded the placarded weight naked (!), was jumping at an airfield above sea level, was going faster than normal and scared his Cypres. He is lucky to be alive!

[billvon 2,396]

I would also add that micro-Ravens are NOT like other reserves. For example, you regularly see jumpers with exit weights of 200+ pounds jumping PD126R's and doing OK under them. Trying the same thing with a Micro Raven 120 will often result in broken bones because they do not fly well at all under the heavier loadings. Very abrupt stalls on landing are common, followed by a rapid recovery on a different heading. They _can_ be landed without serious injury, but it takes a skill set most skydivers do not have nowadays.

[theplummeter 14]

stayhigh

just don't flair anymore than chest level, you'll be fine.

wait until you get to the ground, and very short stab, and plf.

Having landed two Micro Raven 150s at loadings between 1.3 and 1.4 (one in Longmont, CO at 90+ degrees and 5000’) I can verify that stayhigh is correct. They are still the only reserve that I have landed, and both could have been stood up, but neither could be taken past my stomach without starting to accordion and stall.

I have since lost weight and now have a larger Nano in my container. I don’t know how that lands and hope never to find out.

[riggerrob 558]

Yes, I wrote that old post before Precision introduced their R-Max series of reserves.
Since then I have jumped a tiny R-Maxonce. I forget the exact size, but I loaded it to the corner of the weight and experience chart. That was when I weighed 5kg lighter than today. That R-Max opened and turned fine, but stalled when I pulled toggles below my bottom ribs, so I flared slightly less than that and enjoyed a soft, one knee landing. Bottom line: R-Max fly fine when loaded more than 1/1 and are strong enough to survive opening at the corner of their loading chart.