GGGGIO

I couldn't find anywhere that states ONLY, and that is probably what needs to be clarified by the FAA. ***MFF rigs are DEFINITELY not "high altitude only"

The MC-4 system comes in one, and one only configuration: freefall. The MC-5 system can be converted between static line and freefall configuration. Even though MC-4 and MC-5 in essence use the same canopy, while in use by the organizations that manage their configuration, they are used with one, and only one canopy, respectively the MC-4 (Army) and MC-5 (Navy). MC-5 canopy is main over main (used either as main or reserve). MC-4 canopies are either a main (11-1-3518-0) or a reserve (11-1-3518-1) and do not interchange. MT-1XX was an interim system prior to the MC-4 being adopted by the Army that uses MT-1X canopies MT-1SS is a system that uses MT-1S as canopies MT-1XS is a system that uses MT-1S as reserve and MT-1X as main Out of all of these canopies the MT-1S is the only with TSO (C23b) Claiming the MC-4/MC-5/MT-1XX are similar enough to the MT-1 canopy, their ancestor which was also certified by TSO, that you should have a warm and fuzzy feeling, IMHO, is misleading. I agree with those that claim that, under particular conditions that allow for increased opening altitude, using these demilitarized systems/canopies is safe. IMO "Under particular conditions of use" is enough to discourage me from deeming that parachute "generally" safe. Unfortunately the regulations are crystal clear in stating that "high-altitude, high-speed, or ejection kinds" are exceptions that disqualify Demilitarized or Military Surplus Parachutes as approved parachutes as defined in § 105.3, regardless whether they have a military drawing number. BENJAMIN.JOHNIS statement about reserve and main deployment systems being identical, using spring loaded PC thus increasing the risk of malfunction, leave me perplexed, unless I'm missing something, since all the systems discussed here use a free-bag in the reserve. ***The MC-4 can come in different configurations. The MT-1X is a 370 sq ft 7 cell and can be used as a main or a reserve. The MT-1S is a 270 sq ft 5 cell and can be used as both main and reserve. The MC-4 can be a MT-1SS, MT-1XS or MT-1XX.

No, none of the MT-1 series, MC-4 or MC-5 systems, or any individual component of the system, is TSO certified. Further, any of the above mentioned parachute systems, being designed to open at 25,000" MSL, fall under the high altitude category. In fact, as defined in § 105.3: (1) Parachutes Manufactured under TSO-C23. This TSO prescribes the minimum performance and QA standards for personnel parachutes that are carried aboard civil aircraft or by skydivers for emergency use, including reserve parachutes used for intentional jumps. The manufacturer must meet these standards before labeling its parachute or components as complying with the TSO. (2) Demilitarized or Military Surplus Parachutes. Military personnel-carrying parachutes (other than high-altitude, high-speed, or ejection kinds) identified by military drawing number, military order number, or any other military designation or specification. These parachutes are often referred to as demilitarized or military surplus parachutes. If you want to use the canopies as main, that's your call. Using the reserve in a sports environment is plain dangerous. The reserve is not designed to open with low altitude loss, like it would have to pass a TSO test, it's designed to withstand a deployment at high load and high altitude. Since there's no free lunch, that performance capability comes at a higher altitude loss when lightly loaded and at low altitude. Did I mention you probably have no history on the previous use and condition of use of this demilitarized equipment? Just saying.

I understand the "big boy" rationale that makes some people go down the decommissioned military RAM AIR avenue as, in their mind, it makes up for the lack of civilian reserves with TSO to suit their weight. Unfortunately that logic exposes a huge hole in the system as well as misinformation and misunderstanding on how these canopies were intended to be used. Specifically, the hole in the system is caused by the rules having been written when the round parachute was presumably the only game in town and, pretty much, the only available equipment that could be used for sports parachuting. Somehow the regulations were never updated to address the decline of rounds as reserves and allowed squares to fall under the same category as rounds. As a result sport parachutists, because the regulations say it's ok to use decommissioned military equipment for sport use, even if it does not have a TSO certificate, feel it's safe to use such equipment under sport conditions. That's how one could end up using an MC-4, MC-5 or any of the MT-1 series parachutes or decommissioned RAM-AIR parachute systems that were designed to safely open at full weight, at 25,000ft and 130KIAS, without blowing up, thinking that the reserve will be of any use if deployed at low altitude, say for argument sake after deploying the main at 2,000ft and experiencing a malfunction, scenario that's possible and legal if a D licence holder. Further, many of these canopies have no history when purchased on eBay and likely to have been decommissioned for exceeding their serviceability requirements: why would one think that's an ok canopy to use as a reserve? My point is simply to state that: 1. there's a gap in the system that allows some canopies to be used as reserves that should never be utilized so 2. many people are unaware that they should never use those canopies as reserves and/or why ...just saying

Know any? Maybe, they went on to build better canopies? If there is a bad reason why they stopped making Esprit, I definitely would like to know. BTW if you like your Esprit I have a very cheap Nova 150 for you there you go http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=39005;[url]

Rutgerson: 25SL, (super light) 6-8 Ton 25LD, (light duty) 11-13 Ton 25, 15 Ton

There you are

Which is a good thing compare to these new fangled things that malfunction for 800' before they open. We call that a streamer! ...unless you ask those that experienced a broken back as a consequence of such "swift" openings

It's actually T-11 and 150kias @ 400#

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/1a8b18fa46db168786257a830054d117/$FILE/TSO-C23f.pdf Edited by slotperfect - Sticky!

...actually that would be the T11R. The main is all 44378 T4.

+1

Do you have a picture of the data block on the canopy? That's what you should reference for details such as PN, SN, DOM and the likes, rather than the card if you want to be certain.

You're right

Your part number doesn’t jive. The Swift Plus PN break down is as follows: Swift Plus 145, PN 828100-0, SN prefix R8- Swift Plus 175, PN 827400-0, SN prefix R6- Swift Plus 225, PN 828000-0, SN prefix R7- By the Max Gross Weight one can presume it’s a 175. There was never a 200 sqft Swift Plus even if the earlier Swift Plus 175 models had the block stamp reading “Swift Plus 200”