HPC

Looking at the gray bin with all the parts reminds me of opening up a plastic model ship or plane when I was a kid and looking at all the parts, wondering what it's going to look like once it's put together!

Hugh Hefner felt the same about Playmates - once a Playmate, always a Playmate. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

I'm looking for old manuals for Django canopies. Would prefer hard copies but links to a source or PDFs would work too. I've found the Pegasus and Firefly reserve manuals on this site but they made five canopies that I'm aware of. Pegasus (7-cell, 220 sq. ft.) Firefly (7-cell, 172 sq. ft.) Dragonfly (9-cell, 220 sq. ft.) LR-288 (9-cell, 288 sq. ft.) Bandit (9-cell, 168 sq. ft.) Firefly reserve (same as main?) If memory serves me correctly, the LR-288 was basically a Pegasus with two additional cells, the Dragonfly was a Firefly with two extra cells, and the Bandit was a new design not based on an existing canopy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks, Mike What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

If you made one tandem jump, you're not a skydiver. You're just someone who made a skydive. If you're currently jumping, even off and on due to family, job, or life just getting in the way, you're a skydiver. If you no longer jump nor intend to, you're a former skydiver. Not really all that complicated. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

That's the impression I got about John. Dual RSL (NOT to rehash that thread) is another example, maybe speedbag too? I could be wrong but it seems like even if an existing technology or system works fine and has for decades, he seems to want to change it if he gets an idea he feels is, at least I theory, better. I feel if it works and has an excellent track record then leave it alone. Sometimes when you change things that don't need fixing you end up creating something that does. I can't see not changing to a "sliding loop" design if it reduces pin count (and thus cutter count, followed by acquisition and maintenance costs). Someone else commented that Racer sales started to decline about the time Cypres came out. Personally, I love having options. Even if the Racer changed to a sliding loop type design I would love having the option of having a second pin so I could have a second cutter as backup. One cutter fails for whatever reason, the other one has your back (no pun intended). What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

Seems to me that this configuration could be designed so that the loop length could be adjusted at the anchored (I.e. tied-down) end. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

THANK YOU! This is exactly what I've been picturing in my mind but just didn't word adequately - a loop that slides out of a channel tied to the reserve top when either side is released (finally someone who gets what I've been talking about!). I didn't think of tying one end down and going with a single pin; a good idea but I'd prefer having two pins and two cutters for reasons stated earlier. Have you presented this info and testing to Jumpshack? What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

Very nice pics - thanks for taking time to post them. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

Well, at least a jumper can check and make certain his rigger didn't forget to route the loop through the cutters. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

Are you sure you didn't mean to say that truck drivers are never right and they always lie? What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

First, you should avoid saying "never" (and "always" as well). Second, I'm not sure what being a truck driver has to do with your believability. Unless you're just being facetious. Now, if you designed AADs for a living, then you'd be on to something. Finally, I'm not hung up on missing blades. That was just one example of what can and has, albeit on just one occasion, go wrong. I also mentioned a loop not being fully cut, a charge not fully igniting and thus not providing enough driving force on the blade, and a signal not making it to both cutter units from the controller, perhaps due to a broken or intermittent wire connection inside the cable that goes from the controller to the cutter. It's also possible that a cutter is installed, but it missed the sharpening process that puts a sharp edge on it. There are probably half a dozen failure scenarios that could occur once the controller fires and sends out a signal. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

Nancy, thanks for adding your knowledge to the thread. Yes, so long as the 2-pin requires both loops to be cut this is true. But what I've been asking is is it possible to re-engineer the RPC loop setup so that only one loop (at either end) need be cut to free the RPC? I've watched the multi-part video on packing the Racer and it doesn't look difficult; however, I couldn't get a clear enough look at the loop setup system to be able to answer my own question. Maybe I should just put my question on hold until I can see exactly how the system works, particularly with regard to the closing loop system. For example, I'm confused about the part where a metal "tongue-depressor" looking tool is used to tighten something. It looks like he pulls, something gets tightened, he releases his pressure but something is holding it in place and keeping it from slipping back. It would become clear once I could see it all in person and up close. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

I'm talking about the blade inside the cutter cylinder. Is that visible with the eye or is something else needed to see if it's there? What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

It would be interesting to see speed tests between the Racer, Reflex and Teardrop RPCs. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

I have complete confidence in my skills and abilities, add to that the fact the I don't take unnecessary chances and am conservative by nature. But when I hear that someone died because someone at an AAD factory forgot to install a cutter, or that a loop wasn't fully cut, then it warrants looking into the best product that has a better track record in order to increase the odds as best I can in the event I need to rely on an AAD. It's just like driving - I have COMPLETE confidence in my skills, it's the other idiots I have to share the road with that concern me. Same with skydiving - I can't control wreckless behavior on the part of others - I can only hope to identify those that exhibit it and stay clear of them. But in the unlikely event that I have to rely on an AAD then I want the most effective system possible. That's why I research everything I buy, which is the reason I posted the OP in the first place. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

It makes me apprehensive to have to worry about two cutters having to work properly instead of just one. I've heard reports of missing cutters and loops not being completely cut. Bad enough with just one loop, twice the odds of such failures with two loops. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

What doesn't make sense? It makes sense to myself and others who replied to it, including someone at P-Labs. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

No consideration given to a continuous closing loop requiring just one of the ends to be cut? What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

I'd love the data on the rigs and AADs involved in these 26 incidents. Do you have this data? This is why Bill Booth is an advocate for increasing the firing altitude from 750' to around 1K' or so. Personally, I think 750' is too low. I like 1000' because it's an easy number to remember and see on the altimeter, and it adds about 1.4 seconds to the reserve deployment time. How many of those 26 jumpers had reserve line stretch at impact? Another 1.4 seconds (250') would probably have been the difference for most of them. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

Thanks for your input and for ID'ing yourself as being with the manufacturer. I guess it's been established that both reserve closing loops must be cut by the AAD in order for the RPC to launch. But this would seem to double the chance of a reserve total in the event of a missing cutter, closing loop not completely cut, charge not igniting fully, or issue with the signal from the control unit to the cutting unit. Along with the higher initial AAD acquisition cost and replacement cost due to use or shelf life of cutter units, this puts the rig at a disadvantage in my opinion. However, this could be turned into an advantage if the reserve system could be re-engineered with a continuous loop that only requires one of the loops to be cut in order to deploy the RPC. Has P-Labs looked into the feasibility of making this change? If done successfully, it could be possible to certify the rig for just one cutter, with a second optional cutter to provide redundancy for those jumpers willing to pay for the second cutting unit. Personally, I would be willing. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

With AADs set to fire at 750' any delay negates even having an AAD. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

I talked to Suzie. Had it been Nancy, then I would have believed her as I'm well aware of her stature at P-Labs, and her accomplishments outside of work and in the sport. When I first spoke of a continuous loop, it was with the implication that being continuous it would only need one side cut to free the PC. I should have stipulated a "continuous loop in which only one side needs to be cut" from the get-go; my bad. A continuous loop in which both sides need to be cut has no advantage in being continuous that I can see. It may as well be two separate loops, each of which needs to be cut. Semantics. You stated "Just because the thing would eventually launch..." - does this mean that if only one side is cut, the PC could still launch, but perhaps take several seconds to do so? Or, is the loop set up such that it physically cannot launch unless both loops are cut? Just seeking clarification. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

Would it be possible to re-engineer for a single, continuous loop in which only one side would need to be cut in order for the PC to launch? What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

*** Another factor was the increase in RSL use. The Racer RSL has been beat to death in another thread..... *** I've read a lot of that thread some time ago, but my understanding is that a single-sided RSL can be used on a Racer just like any other rig, even though John Sherman still supports the dual RSL. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

Thanks for your input. I talked to someone at P-Labs who said both loops had to be cut, but she could have been misinformed. I wouldn't argue with someone who has packed a Racer reserve. Now I'm wondering if anyone, especially the manufacturer, has done deployment speed tests to see how much slower deployment takes in the event only one loop is cut or one pin clears its loop. If it's not appreciably slower then I wouldn't mind paying extra to have two cutters. Has anyone packed a Reflex reserve and if so how does it compare to the racer? I believe it's a single pin external PC. Supposedly P-Labs designed the single-pin system that they ultimately rejected by Fliteline decided to use. What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.