shadeland

Update: I emailed Icarus, and they confirmed it was a labeling error. The OM-7 does not have a TSO. But this brings up the fact that they do a packing log on the data label (so does PD) and I love that. I wish the the others did that.

It doesn't matter when it's made, it matters which TSO it was approved under when the application process was done. If you buy a PD Reserve made today, it will have been built under the TSO c23c authorization. The UPT Vector 3 is still manufactured under c23b IIRC (from 1959). If a company wanted to update their TSO to c23f from any earlier TSO, they would have to re-do the process. Considering how expensive the process can be, it's unlikely anyone would. Consumers don't much care (and honestly I don't think they should, other factors are far more important), so there's no reason to update a TSO in most cases.

Their reserves are approved under c23d

The PD Reserve is c23b or c, I think depending on when it was made (3 seconds). The PD Optimum as well as the Aerodyne and Icarus reservers are c23d (3 seconds or 300 feet). c23f uses an equation, and I took the weights and speeds listed in the PD Reserve and PD Optimum and made some graphs on what the allowed altitude loss and opening time were if they were tested to c23f (which they're not). So the c23f is not too far off from c23d. (Keep in mind anything under 3 seconds or 300 feet would allowed to just be 3 seconds or 300 feet with c23f, so even though the smaller ones are less than 300/3, the standard specifies "or").

Ah yup, my mistake. 4.3.3 is the open pack, normal. 3 seconds. I found this older copy of the FAA parachute rigger handbook (from 2005) which has all the standards that had been used up until then (8015a/b, NAE). Parachute-Rigger-Handbook.pdf

The weird thing is their reserves and this main are made from different materials from what I can tell. The OM-7 is a hybrid (presumably some ZP, though I'm not sure) and their other reserves (regular and nano) are not. So is this a labeling error or did they also TSO a partly ZP canopy, too? Does material count in a TSO? I would assume it does. But maybe not?

That is weird. The OM-7 is a hybrid canopy (ZP and I assume F-111 style). Do they really have a TSO on that? Searching the TSO database, I see only: CIMSA Ingenieria de Sistemas, S.A. for the same city as Icarus... and the model number doesn't really tell us anything. What the heck is going on here?

Hi MEL, I know this is a very old thread, but I was curious about this doing research for Optimums so I did some digging. All of the PD Optimums are authorized under TSO c23d. The testing standards is of course SAE 8015b, which states opening should take no more than 300 seconds or 3 seconds. It's also the same TSO that the Aerodyne Smart reserves (regular and LPV) as well as Icarus World reserves (regular and nano). The PD Reserves are certified under c23b, c23c, or c23d, depending on when they're made I believe. c23f: Covered in PIA 135v1.4, section 4.3.8. It's an equation that takes maximum opening weight and maximum opening speed as inputs. The PD Optimums and PD Reserve aren't covered by this. Plugging in the various vendor weights and speeds, they're mostly in line with c23d. c23d: Covered in SAE 8015 rev b, section 4.3.6: Max 3 seconds or 300 feet. Exception is for over 250 lb, it can take a little longer (.01 seconds per pound). c23c: Covered in SAE 8015 rev a, section 4.3.6: Specifies only 3 seconds fully open from pack release. c23b: Covered in NAS 804, second 4.3.4: Open within four seconds. So from what I can tell, the optimums are required to open in the same amount of time as two of the other major vendors (Aerodyne and Icarus), and it's pretty much in line with the older TSOs as well.

I've not flown the LPV version, although those that I know have haven't mentioned anything about being different than the regular version, which I've over 1,000 jumps on in various sizes. 168, 150, 132, and a few smaller sizes here and there. The pilot has one of the best, consistent openings of any canopy. It's easy to pack (and the attachment point coloring makes flaking much easier for a beginner). It's very forgiving of beginner technique as long as you get the basics right (slider, brakes stowed, pilot chute cocked). It also has a long glide. The flare is not the best compared to some other canopies. If your brake lines are a bit too long, you'll miss out on some of that flare power. Pilots (and Safire 2s) are more sensitive to that than other canopies, generally speaking. Don't get me wrong, the flare is powerful enough to get the job done, but it's not as strong as say a Sabre 2's flare (though the Pilot has much better openings overall compared to a Sabre 2). Everything in this sport is a tradeoff.

In almost all cases, I would defer to the manufacturer. But to maybe get a finer point on it: What's the container and what's the main?

Also correcting myself: Apparently Paratec does have an FAA TSO approval: https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FA5FE432E878C07385256E5900556FEB.0001 In my defense, the FAA search function is... awful. Edit: Case in point, the "copy URL" button doesn't work. To search FAA TSO Approvals, to here: https://drs.faa.gov/browse Under "Design and Production Approvals", select "Technical Standard Order Authorizations/Letter's Of Approval". The quickest way in the search window is to select Paratec under "TSOA Holder".

Thought I do agree that legal or not, loading up a reserve, especially higher than 1.3, gets to be in the "maybe not a great idea" realm.

I keep hearing about that FAA waiver, but I've never seen it or found it. Both the Optimum and the PD Reserve must have it based on their weight limits. (PDR mentions 1.5 as the expert range, for instance). And Aerodyne must have it too, as they list a maximum weight of well over 1.3 (though the recommended weight maxes out at 1.3). There was part of the PIA TS-135 test document which would have allowed more than 1.3 for everyone (landing by flaring) but the C23f specifically forbade that part of the testing standard as someone here (I don't remember who) pointed it out to me. Of those three, only Icarus specifically forbids more than 1.3 and that might be their interpretation while Aerodyne (and PD) use the maximum load tested part. I've got an older PDR and it's maximum weight is much lower than a new PDR.

I don't think that's the case. The EASA doesn't do approvals for sport reserves and containers, only bailout (some might have been considered in the past). I also checked the EASA approval database and it only lists their bailout parachutes from what I can tell: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/136636/en Looking at their manual, it says tested to the standard, but doesn't say anything about approved.

There are three available to US markets that I'm aware of: * PD Optimum * Aerodyne SmartLPV * Icarus Nano As someone mentioned, Icarus has a prohibition beyond 1.3 WL. So many of us are limited to PD Optimum and Aerodyne SmartLPV. Both my rigs have Optimums in them and both my cutaways were with Optimums. It was a 143 at about 1.3 WL, and both landings were one stage flares to a standup landing with little wind. I had a SmartLPV briefly before I was a rigger but never deployed or packed it. Someone mentioned the Speed 2000, but I don't think they can manufacture under a USA TSO anymore. The EASA doesn't ETSO sport reserves, so reciprocity doesn't work there usually (they might have been grandfathered). I talked to someone that said they were going to re-enter the US market, but I haven't heard anything. So if you're in the US, those three (and really two if you're above 1.3) are the only ones I'm aware of.