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. 

4 hours ago, Deyan said:

Yes. Because they were designed, tested and certified before Sept 2012. OM-7 is 4 years old canopy. If it was TSO tested it would have been C23f. The label says C23d which makes me believe it was a labeling error rather than the canopy actually being TSO certified.

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. 

4 hours ago, Deyan said:

My money is on labeling error. If it was TSO'd, would have been C23f and not "d"

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"). 

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi shade,

Without going thru a bunch of old documents [ some, I no longer have ], I believe that the 300 ft req'ment is an optional test; yes/no?

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Re:  c23b: Covered in NAS 804, second 4.3.4: Open within four seconds.

That is a Twisted Lines test, not a Functional test.

 

TSO C23b NAS 804.pdf 1.25 MB · 0 downloads

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

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi nico,

The first canopy that I know of that was both a main & a reserve was the ParaCommander.  Pioneer did not initially plan on getting it certificated, but some European countries req'd that ALL canopies used there had to be certificated.  So, Pioneer went thru the testing to obtain the certification.  They had to use a longer bridle line to get it to pass the tests.

The first canopy that I know of that did this from the get-go was the Raven series of canopies.

I'm thinking that they might all go down the same production line and then get determined as a main or reserve near the end of the production line.

Anyone else?

Jerry Baumchen

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? 

On 1/15/2014 at 2:45 PM, masterrigger1 said:

 

The TSO requirements have been changed to allow canopies to snivel or have longer deployments. These same reserves, although they may have met the TSO requirements, may not actually meet the TSO requirements of another older TSO like in some of the H/Cs still have.

 

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". 

On 1/19/2023 at 12:49 PM, riggerrob said:

PD Optimum was certified under a one-time FAA waiver for a hands-off descent rate of "more than X feet per second." PD talked the FAA into accepting a flared landing as an alternative way to reduce rate-of-descent.

A member of the PIA standards committee told me that will never happen again. PIA worries that an AAD will save the jumpers' life, but then he will be badly injured during an unconscious un-flared landing.

So you might "legally" load a PD Optimum reserve more than 1.3 pounds per square foot, but the laws of man must bow to the laws of physics. 

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. 

On 1/19/2023 at 12:49 PM, riggerrob said:

PD Optimum was certified under a one-time FAA waiver for a hands-off descent rate of "more than X feet per second." PD talked the FAA into accepting a flared landing as an alternative way to reduce rate-of-descent.

A member of the PIA standards committee told me that will never happen again. PIA worries that an AAD will save the jumpers' life, but then he will be badly injured during an unconscious un-flared landing.

So you might "legally" load a PD Optimum reserve more than 1.3 pounds per square foot, but the laws of man must bow to the laws of physics. 

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. 
 

On 3/14/2016 at 11:32 PM, mjosparky said:

Mars does hold approval under ETSO-C23d for several canopies. I am not sure if the FAA recognizes it or not. (see attachment)
 

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. 

 

On 1/11/2023 at 8:07 AM, gnasher70 said:

I like chips, pies and skydiving and in an effort to keep my wing loading at a safeish  level considering that im not jumping as much as I used too, what are the pro's and cons for low volume reserves and how much of a size might I be able to upsize to with a low volume reserve. My  Tempo 150 reserve sits pretty tight in my Vector might I be able to get a 170 low pack volume in the same reserve tray ? How many low pack reserves exist on the market these days are there any more than the Icarus Nano ? 

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.  

I hadn't heard of it until now. It doesn't have an FAA TSO from the looks of it. 

1 hour ago, mark said:

No.  The descent rates are measured at the maximum operating weight.  See AS8015B para 4.3.7.

Ah. Both PD Optimums and PD Reserves (after a certain date) have, on their data panels, maximum operating weights well above 1.3 WL. I just saw a photo of one for a PD-R 106 with a maximum weight of 220 lbs, which would be over 2.0 (I would not want a reserve loaded the high, personally). 

5 hours ago, mark said:

This is unlikely to be true.

As a consumer, I rely on a company's representations as to the performance of their products.  If there is a secret waiver, it might allow a company to produce a product, but it will not shield them from liability for failure to meet published standards.

PD and others are free to placard their canopies at less than the TSO-limited weight, but this is no different than publishing maximum weights based on experience.

I've "heard" that there are waivers, but never seen them. 

Perhaps it's an interpretation of the rules. There's the maximum weight the gear has been rated at, and then there's the maximum weight that will put a canopy faster than 24 feet per second descent rate, 36 feet per second total speed (usually around 1.3 WL) which would be significantly below the tested load weight (i.e 254 lbs). 

As an example, the PD Reserve 143 size has a maximum weight of 254 lbs, which would put it at about 1.8 WL. An Icarus Reserve 149 reserve has a maximum suspended weight listed of 199 lbs, which is about 1.3 WL. 

Is a waiver required by PD to list a maximum weight above 1.3 WL? I don't know. 

That's the regulatory part of it, so what of the actual performance? 

I don't think there's a significant difference in descent rate between the PDR, PD Optimum, Aerodyne Smart/SmartLPV, etc. with the same wing loading and canopy size, so I don't think that's a relevant factor in choosing between them. I think that there was the idea that there was, based on Optimums having some time of waiver, and PDRs not. But I don't believe that's actually the case. 

And of course what's the safe thing? 

Most, if not all of the C23 testing standards (NAS, SAE, PIA) list a maximum 24 ft/s descent rate and 36 ft/s total velocity for a deployment configured (i.e., brakes stowed and no flare) landing, and that roughly translates to 1.3 WL. Does that mean you're safe below 1.3 and dead above 1.3 if you land unconscious with no flare? Of course not. The higher the WL you are, the more danger there is. There's also the issue of canopies getting aggressive, regardless of the design, when loading them highly. But in choosing between the various reserves, I don't think descent rate variability given the same size and wing loading is an issue. 

That would be interesting to test. 

 

 

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi shadeland,

Re:  Both the PDR and PD Optimum both have waivers

My post, which you quoted above your post, was based upon a discussion held in 2005.  I was told in that discussion that the PDR line of canopies had no such waiver.

I have nothing factual to present on this matter.

Jerry Baumchen

I think there was a misconception that PD Optimums descended faster than the PD Reserves, which is why I brought it up. I don't believe that's the case. I believe that there's no real difference in descent rate given the same size and wing loading. 

The only difference (again, as far as I can tell) is some companies have maximum recommended weights well above 1.3 (Aerodyne, PD) and some don't (Icarus World). Whether that involves an FAA waiver, I don't know. I've never seen it. And I've never gotten a firm answer from anyone on it. 

 

On 5/2/2014 at 9:15 AM, JerryBaumchen said:

These canopies have a higher total velocity than what is in the TSO standard.

The standard PDR reserve canopies were certificated in accordance with the TSO standard; no exceptions.
 

I know this is an old post, but in doing some research on the subject, I believe this to be incorrect based on the information I've obtained. 

Both the PDR and PD Optimum both have waivers (though I've never been able to find a copy of the waivers). Same for Aerodyne Smart and Smart LPV. Anything over 1.3 WL is going to exceed the maximum descent rate as specified in the various TSO standards (C23b/c/d/f). If you look at the maximum recommended weights of the PD and Aerodynes, they clearly go over this. 

Icarus World, however, you'll note that their maximum weights for the Icarus Reserve or Icarus Nano are pretty much exactly at 1.3. They don't have a waiver and specifically mention the ~1.3 WL limit in the reserve manual. I talked to an Icarus representative at the 2019 PIA regarding this.

I don't know what other reserves have or do not have them, other than the 3 listed above. 

 

A couple people I know have Dacron lines on their canopies. Another benefit seems to be, even in tough environments like Perris, they last longer than the canopy. 

One guy had Dacron lines on a Pilot 96, close to 2.0 WL. Another on his Spectre (much larger). Neither seemed to have any complaint on how the canopy opened or flew (one is a camera flyer) or wear on the gear. 

When my Pilot 150 comes up for a re-line, I'm probably going to put Dacron on it. 

 

 

I put a video together for people looking for their first canopy: 

 

 

Question is the topic. Getting some details for a video. 

What year was PISA purchased by Aerodyne? 

One thing that I find that trips people up (myself included) is the terms "tested to TSO specifications" such as "TSO C23D tested" and "receiving FAA TSO authorization", the latter being required for being legal in the US and the former being useless as far as US legality is concerned. 

Unless there's a treaty with another country regarding foreign authorizations translating to an effective TSO authorization. 

It appears the Airforce Reserve does not have a US TSO authorization from the database search (though the model numbers in the database are... weird.) Whether its Australian certification translates to an effective TSO, I don't know. But I would assume at least at this point that it's not legal for a US citizen or foreign resident to jump in the US unless a treaty document can be verified (I couldn't find anything with a quick search). 

Westerly

***No, they're both NexGen.

And I've seen their pre-Nexgen charts, they make more sense from what I've seen with both my NexGens.

hmmm, according to their site they seem to imply the NexGen did not come out until May 2017. They have two manuals differentiating between the two. The first says "Icon Manual May 2017 (neXgen)"

https://www.flyaerodyne.com/support/

Anyway, I have an I5 Nex Gen (2018) and I have a 175 Smart LPV in there. It fits well and the rigger said that there would be room to go up one size if I wanted, which is what the manual also says.

You said your Optimum 160 was a medium-tight fit and implied a 176 would be too large. Well my 175 Smart LPV fits fine in my I5. It's not overstuffed at all. A 160 LPV would probably be a bit lose.

2017 was when the NexGen manual was updated. As pchappman pointed out, they came out in 2013.

They did start with their A and V recently, but as far as I know they're just updates of the Nexgen model and aren't considered a different rig.

I wonder if my i5 is built more like i4s. It seems everything fits that way.

At Perris they have several i3s for the load organizers, and they all have LPV 135s in them. Optimum 143s fit better I think.