Using SLINKS with reserves other than PD

[sundevil777 93]

Does anyone know if SLINKS will be approved for other reserves? Will each reserve have to be recertified? If the links are considered part of the TSO configuration-must be configured as tested by the mfg, then I would think that the reserve mfg would have to specify what size link must be used, including carbon steel or stainless. Apparently PD considers the link part of the reserve config, as opposed to the links considered part of the harness/container.

I think it would be nice to eliminate possible over/undertightening of the links and subsequent cracking/loosening of the nut as a possibility. Of course I would not knowingly choose a rigger so incompetent, but we don't always have the luxury of using our "favorite" rigger.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and info.

Cliff

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[NightJumper 0]

Contact the mfg. of the container. If there is a conflict between the canopy mag. and the container mfg. the container mfg. prevails.

[Kolla 0]

Hi Cliff!

The links/Slinks are shipped with the canopy (they don't come from the container manufacturer), and thus are a part of the TSO for that canopy.
To the best of my knowledge, the only reserves that are TSO'd with Slinks (or any form of "soft" links) are the PD reserves, but if you have canopy made by some other manufacturer, check in with them.
Or just get a PD reserve....

Blue ones,
Kolla

Blue Skies Magazine

[SkydiveMonkey 0]

Precision also

____________________
Say no to subliminal messages

[riggerrob 558]

Even though they are normally supplied by canopy manufacturers, connector links are in that grey area between being canopy components and container components.
P.D. Slinks are approved on P.D. and Precisions reserves.
Several container manufacturers - including Rigging Innovations and Wings - have approved P.D. Slinks for reserves.
Also remember that FAA MAster Riggers are allowed to substitute similar TSOed components.

[alan 1]

Seems odd to me that there are Slinks for your main and slinks for your reserve and that there is a considerable price difference, $25 as opposed to $30, since the labor costs would be equall and the heavier Spectra for the reserve Slink is only .10 (or less) per yard more expensive. Couldn't/shouldn't you just use the stronger Slink for both canopies? Couldn't they be sold for $25? I can make a set of 4 soft links, for my main, for less than $2.50 at Para Gear's retail prices and do it in about 15 minutes.

alan

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

P.D. Slinks are approved on P.D. and Precisions reserves

It still seems from their website that PD only approves their use with PD reserves (did PD accept/acknowledge Precisions approval?).

So if a master rigger installs them, I might later have another rigger object and refuse to pack the reserve without metal links.

Is this a realistic possibility, or does master rigger status prevent second-guessing on this kind of "grey-area" judgement call?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[skygod7777 0]

Seems odd to me that there are Slinks for your main and slinks for your reserve and that there is a considerable price difference, $25 as opposed to $30, since the labor costs would be equall and the heavier Spectra for the reserve Slink is only .10 (or less) per yard more expensive. Couldn't/shouldn't you just use the stronger Slink for both canopies? Couldn't they be sold for $25? I can make a set of 4 soft links, for my main, for less than $2.50 at Para Gear's retail prices and do it in about 15 minutes.
alan ***

they charge it because they can. there is no real reason that i can come up with. it's just because they can. people will buy em.

later

[hookitt 0]

Quote

<or is it a slide?
(name that song for 20 bonus points) >>

Face Up

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[skybytch 259]

Quote

they charge it because they can. there is no real reason that i can come up with.

I can come up with at least two. One - knowing PD, it's pretty likely they put some employee time into testing their version of soft links. And two - that terrible, nasty, bad word... "profit."

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Also remember that FAA MAster Riggers are allowed to substitute similar TSOed components.

A senior Rigger can assemble gear and has the responsibility to determine compabatility. Reserve Slinks are TSO'd and therefore can be used on any rig, as long as they will work. For the same reason I COULD put a Mirage reserve PC in my Micron, and it be legal.

Hook

[Tasadin 0]

Question for the riggers please:

I looked in the glossary and couldnt find the answer, what are SLINKS, 3.5 mini links, and #5 stainless links and how do they differ??

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."

[indyz 1]

Quote

Question for the riggers please:


I looked in the glossary and couldnt find the answer, what are SLINKS, 3.5 mini links, and #5 stainless links and how do they differ??

Links connect the lines on your canopy to your risers. #3.5 and #5 links are made out of metal, with the number indicating different sizes. Slinks are soft links, that is they are made out of a strong type of line instead of metal.

The attached file "links.jpg" is a picture of two #3.5 stainless links. "slinksmall.gif" shows a slink in the process of being attached.

[skygod7777 0]

Quote

I can come up with at least two. One - knowing PD, it's pretty likely they put some employee time into testing their version of soft links.

well, more than likely. but i still think 25 bucks for it is a bit steep. i will still pay it if i had to (i made my own once) and i think others will still pay also, and just bitch about the price

Quote

And two - that terrible, nasty, bad word... "profit."

ya, what the hell, like someone is trying to make a living off of building canopy's and other things


later

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

A senior Rigger can assemble gear and has the responsibility to determine compabatility.

I understand, but isn't it still possible that the next rigger to pack it may determine that PD doesn't allow SLINKS to be used for my brand of reserve, and refuse to pack it?

For instance, the Bomb Proof loft at Eloy will refuse to pack a reserve without slider bumpers, my reserve was first assembled without them. So how can I avoid the potential of riggers not agreeing with each other on such a "grey" subject.

Thanks for your help.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Tasadin 0]

TY Indyz I have learned yet another new thing today

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."

[jerm 0]

Quote

Reserve Slinks are TSO'd and therefore can be used on any rig, as long as they will work. For the same reason I COULD put a Mirage reserve PC in my Micron, and it be legal.

Are you sure about that? I thought that these things were TSOed as a system, and therefore aren't necessarily tranferrable between systems, as you would not longer be using the system as it was approved in the TSO.

Who is qualified do decide "as long as they will work"? Isn't that the whole point of the TSO?


-jerm

Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I understand, but isn't it still possible that the next rigger to pack it may determine that PD doesn't allow SLINKS to be used for my brand of reserve, and refuse to pack it?

Sure, a rigger could refuse to pack anything. There are a couple of containers I won't pack for different reasons. You would just have to ask around.

BTW- With Slinks, you don't need slider bumpers.

Hook

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Reserve Slinks are TSO'd and therefore can be used on any rig, as long as they will work. For the same reason I COULD put a Mirage reserve PC in my Micron, and it be legal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Are you sure about that? I thought that these things were TSOed as a system, and therefore aren't necessarily tranferrable between systems, as you would not longer be using the system as it was approved in the TSO.

Who is qualified do decide "as long as they will work"? Isn't that the whole point of the TSO?

That is what the FAR's say. Some of the Vectors out there have "Note: this approval is based on compatability with the FAA Approved Para-Flite Safety Flyer Reserve only" on the TSO label. Does this mean that only the Safety Flyer reserve can be put into Vector II's? No.

A rigger is qualified to decide compatability. What I meant by "as long as they will work", is that I wouldn't consider Slinks compatable for use as a replacement for seperable connector links, ("L"-bars, used on rounds), for example. But for most reserves they will work great.

I have them on my Javelin with a Glide Path reserve (which is now Flight Concepts). Will they work, sure. Why wouldn't they? They have less bulk, are stonger, easier to install and inspect. I wouldn't use anything else on my reserve.

Hook

[sundevil777 93]

Thanks for the feedback.

So I'll conclude that as long as I can get them installed the first time, that no rigger will be so anal retentive to complain about it.

I never had any doubt about whether SLINKS were safe for use on my rig, just wondered if I would face a hassle with some riggers.

Thanks again.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[jerm 0]

Oh i agree that why would work, i just meant in the broader sense.

I was going off of hunched and notions, with nothing to back up my assertions. Thanks for the clarification

Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time

[councilman24 36]

Quote

.

So I'll conclude that as long as I can get them installed the first time, that no rigger will be so anal retentive to complain about it.

I wouldn't go that far. One of the current compatibility problems is that toggles on risers without toggle hoods can be dislodged if there aren't hard links or bumpers to stop or slow down the slider. I assume this, along with alignment, may be the reason the one loft won't pack without bumpers. I haven't had to worry about it much since I don't have any customers with soft links on their reserves. I also think hook would get some disagreement from many of the manufacturers about mixing and matching components. Much of the FAR's are left over from military equipment with mil spec part numbers. Bridles, PC, kicker plates, links, etc. all had separate individual part numbers. And if you look in Poynter's manual you can see a list for each military container of which part number components are allowed. But, compatibility wasn't such an issue. I'm sure Sandy at Rigging Innovations and others would say that NO PC other than theirs is compatibile with their container. I'm not willing, as a rigger, to disagree with the manufacturer on something this basic. Especially in this country. Any many of these components ARE TSO'd as one assembly. The PIA Certification Standards committee is working on ADDING certification of individual components, and the required labeling. Also, being included in the draft standard is a requirement for the manufacturers to provide a method of determining compatility of canopies and h/c's.

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

[riggerrob 558]

Re: Slinks on non-P.D. reserves.
If Performance Designs were smart, they would sell Slinks to anyone with cash, publish installation instructions, then say "you are on your own."
Trying to control their use after sale is a hopeless legal nightmare that P.D. would be wise to avoid.

The main reason other reserve manufacturers have not approved Slinks is that they would have to repeat drop tests and at US$800 per drop, they are in no rush to repeat tests so they could add to P.D. profits.

Slinks are a graceful substitute for Maillon Rapide links.

Which gets us to the whole debate over who can determine substitution (the FAA term is "compatibility").
Substituting reserve pilotchutes is a more complex question and should only be answered by people who fully understand the variables, like container manufacturers or Master Riggers.
When I worked at Rigging Innovations, Sandy Reid turned a blind eye to the few original Talons that came through our loft with Vector 2 reserve pilotchutes. Since the Vector 2 pilotchute is similar to the pilotchute TSOed for the original Talon, this was no big deal. On the other hand, Sandy would have grounded any Talon coming through with a Vector 1 (weak spring) or Javelin (cap too wide) pilotchute.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

One of the current compatibility problems is that toggles on risers without toggle hoods can be dislodged if there aren't hard links or bumpers to stop or slow down the slider.

That is only an issue with mini-risers. I don't know of any modern reserve systems that use mini-risers (or any system for that matter).

Quote

I also think hook would get some disagreement from many of the manufacturers about mixing and matching components.

I think you are right. It is a gray area though, i.e. "Note: this approval is based on compatibility with the FAA Approved Para-Flite Safety Flyer Reserve only" Ever pack a PD reserve into a Vector II? Does this mean the TSO is void? Since it was TSO'd as an assembly? If so, then there are a lot of illegal Vector II's out there.

Quote

Much of the FAR's are left over from military equipment with mil spec part numbers. Bridles, PC, kicker plates, links, etc. all had separate individual part numbers.

From what I have seen, containers still have P/N's for each component.

Quote

And if you look in Poynter's manual you can see a list for each military container of which part number components are allowed.

I would change allowed to "already determined to be compatible". We are in a gray area and different interpretations aren't wrong.

Quote

But, compatibility wasn't such an issue.

Right, I agree. An A-3 PC (9" crown, 36" canopy, 20" spring, 25-30 lb spring compression would probably work better than the MA-1 (6" crown, 17" spring, 30 " canopy [actually measures 36"] ) in some assemblies, but not others.

Quote

I'm sure Sandy at Rigging Innovations and others would say that NO PC other than theirs is compatibile with their container.

I'll quote Riggerrob:

Quote

When I worked at Rigging Innovations, Sandy Reid turned a blind eye to the few original Talons that came through our loft with Vector 2 reserve pilotchutes. Since the Vector 2 pilotchute is similar to the pilotchute TSOed for the original Talon, this was no big deal. On the other hand, Sandy would have grounded any Talon coming through with a Vector 1 (weak spring) or Javelin (cap too wide) pilotchute.

It isn't something that should be taken lightly, and I wouldn't substitute a reserve PC on a customer's rig, but again, for my rig, I wouldn't have a problem putting a Mirage PC in my Micron.

Quote

I'm not willing, as a rigger, to disagree with the manufacturer on something this basic. Especially in this country.

I don't have a problem with that, like you said, especially in this country. I don't mean to give the impression that I would take a hodge-podge of components from different manufacturers, thrown them together into some thing that might resemble a reserve assembly, call it good, then stand (hide) behind the "The assembling rigger determines compatibility" statement.

Quote

Any many of these components ARE TSO'd as one assembly.

Such as the Vector II and the Safety Flyer? It is a gray area.

Quote

The PIA Certification Standards committee is working on ADDING certification of individual components, and the required labeling. Also, being included in the draft standard is a requirement for the manufacturers to provide a method of determining compatibility of canopies and h/c's.

That would be very nice information for rigger's to have. It would help to define and eliminate the gray area. I definitely agree the FAR's are out-dated, vague, and sometimes, conflicting. Parachutes and parachute rigging is VERY low on the FAA's priority list. I recently asked a question of the local FSDO, The question was routed to the best person to handle it and I got a 10-minute "I don't know". Best he could or me was to direct me to a MIDO.

As a final, open, question, what is the opinion of riggers out there? Will you only put Slinks on PD reserves? On only specific containers? Which containers will you and won't you use Slinks with? If you will use Slinks with other reserves besides PD's, are there any you won't use them with?

Hook

[Rdutch 0]

***they charge it because they can. there is no real reason that i can come up with. it's just because they can. people will buy em.

later