ZigZag

One item I would like to agree with is stowage of lines. The years prior to becoming a rigger were spent packing main or tandem canopies, on various dropzones, and as such I was exposed to a variety of methods. Just about all of them worked well, provided the suspension lines were even, the slider was placed correctly, the stabilizers were oriented(flaked) outboards, the steering lines not pulled or placed in front of the nose!, clean even bights with good tension between the stows and an appropriate length of line left to prevent an uneven extraction of the d-bag. Basics!!! So much for convention. As a rigger one almost always stowes lines in the pocket provided (free stowing) on the free-bag, unless the system requires an alternate method, as with rounds, and I cannot remember a jumper complaining about an excessively hard opening, other than those that experienced asymmetrical deployments or excessive speeds during deployment.(Bless them) The locking stows on a freebag are quite secure, as the pull forces load them evenly, until the tension (load path) of the suspension lines reaches the first bight, initiating release from the stow. Some years ago, PARAFLIGHT conducted a study that addressed this issue with satisfactory results. So it can be interpolated, that the new method of freestowing the suspension lines in d-bags utilizing free stow methods is effective.(Provided the locking stows are done correctly). That said, we need to ask ourselves how much time and effort we have spent analyzing hard openings in relation to rubber bands, tube-stows and bungees (shock-cord), and the various configurations of d-bags and their attachment points for rubberbands! Pilot-chute size plays a significant role as well, in addition to the condition of the fabric of the p/c and the kill-line length. Too small a p/c for a large canopy may exhibit long delay times for openings due to reduced snatch forces.( Really nice soft openings). Too large a p/c for small canopies may result in increased snatch force. Shrunken kill-lines will adversely affect the p/c's effectiveness. Mfg's are aware of this and generally ship p/c's of appropriate size with their containers. But since p/c's and their associated parts (bridle & d-bag) are easily interchanged by jumpers, one might infer, that some hard openings could be attributed to mis-configurations of certain components. Maintenance is another issue, naturally! But to absolve all those that do their job correctly and pack their canopies with the utmost of attention: WARNING: Even a properly packed canopy may result in a malfunction, causing injury or even death! Do not ever forget the risk that you accept. The smallest molecule of air can have unintended results on your deployment, somewhat overstated, but you get my drift. Consistent hard openings do require an investigation by a rigger or the mfg. Just remember, that there are many factors that can cause a hard opening, and pin-pointing the cause is difficult. Free-fall body position may be another factor, or just plainly a bad design, which is rare these days. Lets keep this issue open, an ongoing investigation, from which mfg's can improve their designs, and let's keep an open mind.

Just for clarity, the 3rd quote you are referring to is not my statement. Ziggy

Capewell issued detailed instructions for performing Test #2, and even the FAA sent me the Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (note to riggers: you must maintain a current address on file with the FAA ). The required load for Test #2 is 11 lbs. I have since tested numerous pins with the aluminum block and a calibrated 11 lb weight, and none of them have failed or bent. The pins may flex a bit during the test but do not take a set. Most riggers are leary of Test #1, as it is quite easy to bend the pins at the 15 lb load specified for this test when performed incorrectly. Anyway, getting a block of aluminum, drilling a plumb hole of correct size and mounting the jig was not really that much of a hassle. In fact, it was kinda fun getting up to date with a new security issue. Now a rip cord pin-test ( #2 ) barely takes a minute, and I can sleep better, knowing that my customers' rip cord pins are compliant. The jig is not a hassle, but rather just another tool in a riggers arsenal in performing a vital airworthiness test. This is what riggers do!!!

Give me $25,000-$50,000 for the droptests, a freezer and oven, a good lawyer, a current copy of TSO C23d, and some good rigging skills(sewing), and you can become the proud owner of a mfg. co. that just might make it. The market is only screaming for new mfg's. Plagiarism and reverse engineering should do the trick. Ziggy LOL It isn't that hard, but will the public buy what you have to offer, especially when it's all that has been done before? Watch the "Rage", by Performance Variable, or the 'Nitro' and "Blade", the "Viper" and "Trident". you might just be surprised what is coming. When you become complacent, you get replaced!!!

The best thing that you can do is to test-jump the Nitro! Do keep in mind that the Nitro is not a beginners canopy, and that your profile does not allow for much of an evaluation of where you should be or what kind of qualifications you have, so it would not do much good to give you a recommendation as to what size you should try out first. I was jumping a 150 sq/ft Nitro @ 265 lbs exit weight with great results, quite safe with great openings and predictable flare. I even tried a 135', but nearly crashed, or actually I did crash, got up and said to myself that I needed more experience. If you are in Europe, or Poland as a matter of fact, then do get in touch with www.hipercanopies.de and discuss your options. The Nitro is a great canopy, the "Blade" has even better performance( if not even explosive), and you cannot go wrong with the positive performance that either one of these two canopies will give you for many years to come. You will find that the narrow margin of the production line in terms of sizes offered, will constrain you to your experience level, but that is exactly what HiPer.de offers: high performance canopies. Some of the safety aspects of these canopies need further elaboration: Non-cascaded lines, which provide a better distribution of load forces along the cord of the canopy The use of Technora non-cascaded lines allows for field re-placement of lines by a rigger or jumper(with proper knowledge) irrespective of symmetry consideration otherwise due to shrinkage of Spectra lines. Your canopy will be in trim, provided you replaced the line with a line of same dimensions!!! In case of a line breaking, you tend to loose only one attachment point, due to it being non-cascaded! The winglets provide exceptional directional feedback to the user, and have ( based on feedback from users) enhanced control of crosswind landings. Note that I am not a canopy guru, but I am biased, because I 've jumped a Nitro, amongst other good products on the market. Some of the negatives to the Nitro and Blade may be that they are constructed of Gelvenor Textiles fabric, which is a good thing, but means that packing volume is somewhat of an issue. On the bright side is the fact that these canopies have proven their good-naturedness in regards to high wingloadings, and I cannot stress the ability of these canopies to resist steep dives or spins in case of line-twists. In my experience the canopy tended to remain on heading and gave me ample time to kick out of any line-twist. Do not let this lull you into a false sense of not having to react to a malfunction. There is no such product on the market that can guarantee no malfunctions. Also, listen to your teachers, peers, and friends carefully, what I mean is, ask a lot of questions before you decide. Test jump a variety of products, and in the end you will get a good understanding of what is out there. If I where to give points, which I am doing right now, then on a scale of One to Ten, the "Nitro" gets a 9!!! Just remember, there are other "9" 's out there. The "Blade" naturally gets a "10", because it outperforms the Nitro, and in overall evaluation, I think it is a great canopy!!! Ziggy

I concur. Ziggy

For the benefit of all, yes, the loop does cinch and set itself around the knot, but it is also prone to loosening itself, unlikely, but nevertheless possible, much as in the case with finger-trapped lines. A fingertrap holds quite well under tension, as the loop does, but one has to be creative and think of possible scenarios were the loop "could" loosen just enough to give the knot a space advantage where it could slip past the loop!!! To elaborate a little further, current soft-links on the market rely on an interlocking action, quite different from the "cinch". So we know that soft-links as we know them, work. But who would have thought that the interaction of stowing excess brakelines in the overfold of the top end of risers could cause a malfunction. Well, our knowledge base is not that poor. We have, or some of us have, plenty of experiences with various configurations of excess brakeline stowage. Consider the reason for large plastic washers that where installed on some risers, actually slipped onto the rapide links, only to prevent the slider grommets from trapping thick dacron lines and the subsequent use of the control lines, which would have been pinched off. There is documentation of brake to toggle lines that have wrapped around the toggle and guide rings!!! There are good reasons for Velcro configurations, or other sane methods to stow the excess brakeline. None of them are perfect, but have withstood some testing over a time period. Much of the problems can be traced back to inadequate maintence, worn Velcro( or hook and pile fastener if one prefers), worn keepers, etc.etc. In the quest to reduce maintenace, we all to often come up with "innovative" solutions, that in the end might cost someones life. No, none of us can prevent all fatalities that are born out of innovation, or else the Space Shuttle would never have flown, but we do need to be somewhat more "patient" with our personal innovations and think things through!!! There may be good reason for some of the "old" school of thought yet. Ziggy