JerryBaumchen

Hi Mark, Yup; but I did not want anyone to think it is in the 'standard' category. Jerry Baumchen

Hi Mark, The Mirage is TSO'd as a C23(b) Low Speed Parachute; not to be used in aircraft over 150 MPH. Jerry Baumchen

Hi Gary, That is what I will always remember about Dave. A fun guy to be around, Jerry Baumchen

Hi Taha, I phrased that wrong. Bill Coe of Performance Designs & Manley Butler of Butler Parachute Systems. There might be more but that is all I can think of at this time. Jerry Baumchen

Hi Cliff, There are only two that come to mind; and they both are with the same company. Jerry Baumchen

Hi Spot, I'm thinking it should be a conventional rig, i.e., back pack w/gut pack. I don't think he ever built a piggyback rig. Do NOT count on this but I seem to remember that it was called Rod's Rebel. Jerry Baumchen PS) According to what an FAA Aircraft Certification Office employee told me back in the 70's, he was the first person to be able to convince that FAA that he could build a rig without also having to build a canopy because he could buy canopies & install them. Up to that time, the FAA position was that a mfr had to build an entire rig; container, harness, canopy, pilot chute, etc.

Hi Josef, It looks like you are in Israel. If so, contact this guy: https://www.dropzone.com/profile/19706-rigger/ Jerry Baumchen

Hi tribe, The canopy in question is made by Icarus World, not NZ Aerosports. Just so someone does not mistake these two companies. The last that I knew, NZ Aerosports does not make a reserve canopy. http://icarusworld.net/ Jerry Baumchen

Hi Peter, That is exactly it. For many, many years the FAA went all over the world inspecting mfg facilities. Now, to save money I would think, they 'sub' it out to the national aviation organization in whatever country the mfr is located. Jerry Baumchen

Hi Peter, Al did not give up the formal TSO certification, he still holds it. What he does not have is the annual inspection approval of his facilities by Transport Canada. Jerry Baumchen PS) I 'think' that the FAA's position is that a TSO-authorization is valid until surrendered or revoked.

Hi grigri, Over the last 10 yrs or so, I have shipped a number of rigs/gear to Europe using the US Postal Service. I have never had a real problem. One took about 6-8 weeks on the European end to get resolved. Yes, you can insure it; the limit is about $700 I think. On some gear, I had to break it down & ship separately. Yes, they do have tracking; it is much better now than a few years ago. Have your seller check with the USPS & get the details. Jerry Baumchen

Hi tribe, Yes, last year PARACHUTIST ran a small notice that Shoobie had bought the business back. I have not heard anything since; well, other than some unfounded rumors. Jerry Baumchen

Hi gb1, ^^^^^ This. As someone said to me a few years ago, 'If it weren't for people like XXX, we would all still be jumping gutter gear.' Jerry Baumchen

Hi Sheeks, Unless I am wrong, your OP was to address a domed slider, for a main canopy only, that had fairly acceptable opening shocks when everything went right. You ( I think ) are concerned with that out-of-nowhere slammer opening that could result in permanent damage and/or death to the jumper. Given that, you have gotten my mind working, as all of my efforts in the past, and what I have read, are for the use of a domed slider where the 'normal opening' was too much for the jumper. You do present an interesting take on this idea of reducing the probability and reducing the possibility of a slammer opening. Especially, where you talk about using a slightly smaller domed slider, that would result in the same opening forces that a 'factory' flat slider would provide when everything went normally. As you mentioned, the domed slider might have the potential to reduce the occurrence of the slammer opening. It would be very interesting to take two exact canopies, have one with a standard flat slider & one with a slightly smaller, domed slider & get some input from the users. If I were running such a study, I would have the two jumpers exchange canopies after each jump to increase probability of the consistency of the jumps & the jumper's input/response. Given what I have written above, I ( right now, as I sit at my computer ) do not see any particular advantages to a flat slider vs a smaller, domed slider. However, until some side-by-side jumps could be made, I'll reserve making any statement that would be more definitive. It is a damned interesting concept. If only I were 20 yrs younger; hmmm. I won't speak for Sheeks, but what about you other folks on here; what say you? Jerry Baumchen

Hi Bill, Hopefully, you or anyone else will never hear me say that I know it all about parachute equipment. I have built a fair number of flat sliders ( ~ 15 - 20 ) & a few domed sliders ( ~ 4 - 5 ). a. Depending upon the domed slider design ( they are not all the same design which means that the material costs & labor costs will vary ), I question whether they 'are harder to build.' As to 'wear out faster,' once I see some data supporting this, then I will believe it. At this time, I have doubts regarding this comment. b. As to 'there is a lot of force on those not-straight seams,' once there is some tension on those seams, they straighten out immediately. I think that any differentiation in forces would be neglible. And there is at least one domed slider design in which the seams are straight. c. As to 'Thus they'd be more expensive - and more likely to fail.' Having built both types, I doubt that they would be more expensive; again, it comes back to the design of the domed slider. The OP did say build it slightly smaller but domed. Smaller would be less fabric = less cost in materials which could offset any additional labor costs during mfr. As to 'more likely to fail,' I have never read or heard of anything that supports this comment. I am open to input from anyone on this. Just my $0.20 on these issues; others may disagree & that is OK with me. Jerry Baumchen