JerryBaumchen

Total repacks? Don't know as one logbook has been lost. A guess would be 200 - 300. Saves: Probably about 20+ with most being me; was trying to learn a proper packing method on a main canopy I had built for myself. After about 5-6 cutaways I figured it all out. Re: "I paid you when you packed it, didn't I?" I am thinking that there would be a surcharge on that dude the next time around.

Hi Sparky, That photo is the 2nd in a series of 3 that appeared in Skydiver sometime in '64. In the 1st photo (not shown here) he has his hand on the reserve ripcord. It definitely was an intentional deployment, for the camera.

Thanks Terry, I completely forgot about that section. I do not mind being corrected when I do something that dumb. Jerry PS) That req'ment that the same sample be used for all of the Strength Tests was my suggestion when I was on the committee. Dan Poynter was the chairman in those days.

Hi Mark, You're correct; I did not get caught. I became a Master Rigger in '71 and operated under the idea that a MR can change parachutes anyhow he wanted. I now feel that the regs are not definitive. Later I became concerned about being 'legal.' Now whenever I want to alter something (and it has been years because I find no need to do so today) I develop a procedure, run it over to my FSDO and get them to give me a field approval; I've never been turned down. I probably have a dozen or more of them; everything from cutting holes into rounds for steerability to installing a grommet in the top of a Mini-Grabber pilot chute. I do this because I want documentation, not a verbal 'thought' from the FAA. It is called CYA. It is how I do things and I will not condemn someone who takes a different approach to their rigging. So you want to get into the game, huh? Give me a call sometime. Jerry

Hi Derek, I did not use the word 'alteration.' What I am referring to is that which has FAA TSO-authorization. When I think about the current status of parachute equipment mfd in this country today (yup, I include Honduras in this definition) I see little need to 'alter' any of the equipment. Consider that Vector III that I mentioned in my rather long post. You can get with step-ins or with snaps, with a stainless steel reserve ripcord or a pud, with a main that is activated by throw-out, pull-out or ripcord, a reserve setup with no RSL, with an RSL or with a Skyhook, it comes setup for an electronic AAD but you choose to have the AAD or not, etc, etc. You can get a main canopy in many sizes and types (square - elliptical - accuracy - etc), and just about the same with your reserve canopy.\ What is there to alter? I do see a continuing need to maintain the equipment. I will not try to define what AC 105 says, that is for the federal gov't. to do; it is their document. I agree that an FAR trumps an AC any day. However, I do agree that you can get two different feds to give you completely different interpretations of an AC. AC = Advisory Confuser. I think that the PIA should take a much stronger stand and be a central voice for the rigging community when these 'interpretations' cause so much concern out in the field. I think it would be nice if a field rigger could submit his questions to the PIA and they would get a defining response from the FAA. I know it would be time consuming but at least some confusion would, hopefully, disappear. I feel very strongly that the vast majority of riggers in the field really only want to do what is correct and safe. They do not look for ways to reduce the reliability or airworthiness of the equipment. I also wish that the FAA could get out of business of regulating parachutes for sport use. But that's a totally different issue. This may or may not have answered your questions, but those are my thoughts. Jerry PS) I've lurking around this board for 6-8 months and I agree almost 100% with all of your posts on rigging, the regs, etc. Keep up the good work.

Hi Mick, A question for you because my experience with the FAA folks in Seattle was quite different: Are you sure you were working with the MIDO guys prior to receiving the actual TSO-authorization? During my process I only worked with the ACO guys as they are ones (in my case) who granted the TSO-authorization. It was after the TSO-authorization was granted that the MIDO guys came into the picture. MIDO) Manufacturing & Inspection Dist. Ofc. I may be slightly off on whether it 'manufacturing or manufacture.' ACO) Aircraft Certification Office. I'm just curious about your experience. Jerry

Hi Sparky, Yup, I'm dated. Just waiting for the undertaker to get his measurements. You got me way to curious on this one (however, it looks like you found your answer in AS 8015B) so I looked up NAS 804 (the one that I did my testing under and the one that still governs me). In Section 4.3.7 it reads: Live Drop Tests: Two live drop tests from an airplane with a man weighing approximately 170 pounds, including the weight of an additional certificated auxiliary parachute, from an altitude of 2000 feet on a coparatively still day. The rider must suffer no discomfort from the opening shock and must be able to disengage himself unaided from the harness after landing. For this test the standard harness may be altered to permit attachment of an auxiliary parachute provided that such alteration does not interfere with the normal operation of the parachute and harness equipment being tested. So the solution has been around since at least 1949. So now let me throw one at you. Our old buddies at Acme Parachute Co. want to get a TSO for their new WhizBanger reserve canopy. In my copy of the draft document that the PIA committee came up with under Functional Tests/Direct Drop Tests it mentions doing a minimum of 48 drops where the canopy must open with the allowed time. Well, it seems as though Acme is having some trouble with this new canopy. To get 48 drops in which it will open within 3.0 secs (lets assume that is their req'ment) they had to drop it 211 times. This is because on 163 of those drops it took 3.3 to 4.6 secs to open. Now, did they meet the req'ment of the TSO standard? If no, why not? If yes, why? If you read the standard it does NOT say 'consecutive' drop tests. Just a little food for thought and to 'rile the waters' so to speak. PS) Since you think I'm dated; just how many modern rigs currently on the market (the big boys is what I'm referring to here) are TSO'd under C23b (the 'dated' req'ment)? Please note that I take absolutely no offense to being considered dated.

This has been an interesting thread to follow. Seems to be another of those flame wars that are continually cropping up here on good old dz.com. Where's my asbestos suit when I need it. At first I did not want to have anything to do with this discussion (Did not want to stick my toes into those roiling waters.). But maybe I can offer some thoughts to all of you. And, maybe I cannot. Decide for yourselves. Please remember, these are my thoughts and have no force of law or regulation. For the most part, they are based upon my personal experience. I get to wear two hats; that of a rigger in the field (been one for over 40 yrs) and that of a TSO-authorization holder/mfr (been one of those since '79). I obtained my TSO-authorizations under C23b; since then C23c has come and gone and C23d is now in effect; with a new one on the horizon. All three are different in many respects, as will be the next version. The riggers hat) If I were to call up Sunpath and someone other than the cute, young receptionist were to tell me not to remove the RSL because that is not allowed, then that is what I would do. If the customer then went to the next rigger in line and he romoved it, I'm OK with that; I did not do it. I look at this just like the guy who says he will repack a pop-top rig, his choice. I also would not repack that Javelin once the RSL has been removed; my choice. Although, over the years I have done a whole lot of 'modifications' to a whole lot of parachute equipment. Heck, back in the Winter/Fall of '66-'67 I designed, built, tested and installed on my rig, what I believe was the world's first AAD for a piggyback reserve container. Now that was a very substantial modification to my X-BO reserve container. Did I go to the mfr or the fed's for approval; no, I just did it? However, in the attorney-laden world in which we live today, there is a lot of that old 'rigging' that I would not do again. The mfr's hat) Back in '79 when I applied for my TSO-authorizations, I had to submit a QA Manual (the only thing that the FAA really approves), Test Reports showing that my equipment/product/component(s) had met the req'ments of NAS 804 (the referenced document), and the 'specifications' (for most of us, that would be the drawings of just what we were seeking TSO-authorization for, the equipment/product/component). Now then, it is this 'specification' thing that is what we do not know much about. In my case, I consider my submittals to be proprietary information. I would think that most mfr's feel the same way. If you want to know what I submitted, then buy my business; it is for sale. Yup, shameless advertising plug here. I chose to go the 'minimalist' route on my ' specifications.' I submitted what I felt was the absolute minimum amount of information on the drawings that I thought that I could get passed the FAA people (do not give them anymore information than you have to is my thinking). They do not have the experience to know whether what you have submitted is sufficient or not. If you look at the TSO marking (that means label to most of us) on a Vector III reserve container it says something about 'Wonderhog' and 'TSO C23b' (I'm going from memory here because I do not have one handy to look at). Today, the V-III (I think) somes with a 'kinda different looking' reserve pilot chute, a reserve d-bag, a Skyhook, pockets-etc for an electronic AAD, a 3-Ring system, stainless steel hardware, and so on. Now think about the original Wonderhog; it did not come with a reserve pilot chute (most riggers just put MA-1's in the reserve container), it was set-up for a round reserve canopy (remember the bungee hesitator loop that the bridle folded into?), it was a 2-pin container, and it had Capewells. In the eyes of the FAA, the V-III is still just an original Wonderhog, with some 'minor changes.' Just from looking at an old Wonderhog reserve container I would guess that the original submittal was rather 'minimalist' also. There just wasn't much there to actually detail; a very simple, minimal container (Roger RamJet, where are you when we need you?). This evolvement of the configuration of parachute equipment comes under the Minor Change section of Part 21; in engineering we call 'creeping design changes.' There is almost no industry in which this is not a common occurrence. I once had a rather lengthy conversation with John Sherman of the Jump Shack and he is adamant that the only person who can determine just what is a Minor Change is the original designer. And not the FAA. I like that perspective. About now you're thinking 'Just where is this guy going with this?' Well, it has to do with those 'specifications' and what we do not know about them. I simply do not know if the Javelin RSL is included in those 'specifications' that have been submitted to the FAA or if it is not (there are numerous regional Aircraft Certification Offices [ACO's] around the country; I'm under the one located in Renton, Washington, mfrs in Florida come under the one located near Atlanta). If the RSL is not included in the 'specifications', then (IMO) it is not a part of the 'approved parachute' as referenced wherever. I can assure you (once again, IMO) that when push comes to shove, the only thing the FAA will be concerned about are the things that are included in those nasty old 'specifications.' I think that we can all agree, somewhat, that the FAA folks to not know or understand parachutes (in 26 yrs I've only had one ACO Mgr admit that and he was the best one I have ever worked with). However, they very much do understand documentation. They might not know what it means but they know what you have sent to them. If you deviate from that, they have a 'gotcha.' Most of them that I've met (but not all) like to find those 'gotchas.' Earlier versions of the TSO made no mention of an RSL. This leads me to believe that including it in the 'specifications' might not be required. I say 'might not be required' because, in my experience, the way each ACO sees things is quite different. Also, when I think about how the Javelin RSL is designed and installed, it seems to me that the only interaction of the RSL with anything that is part of the container and/or harness is the installation of the little RW-4 ring on the flap that the ripcord cable goes across & the Velcro that is added to the back of a reserve riser. I would think that they could easily argue that the ring around the ripcord has no effect on the manual operation of the system and therefore does not need to be included in the 'specifications.' However, again I do not know what all is detailed in their 'specifications.' I have a draft copy of the document that the PIA committee has come up with for TSO C23e (the one that is on the horizon) and it says 'If a reserve static line is part . . . ' This leads me to think that the RSL will have to be included and detailed in the 'specifications' being submitted under C23e when it comes into effect. Only time will tell. What I am trying to say is this, when any discussion of modifications/alterations to an 'approved parachute' are undertaken, then it is important to know just what is this 'approved parachute.' And for most riggers in the field, they really do not know. Considering that, I would go by what the mfr tells me. Now back to our Javelin RSL) If it is a part of the 'specifications' then altering it definitely (and once again, IMO) will come under the rules and regs of the FAA; however those rules and regs get interpreted. If it is not a part of the 'specifications' then I would think (yes, one more IMO) that a field rigger could remove it without concern (this is not a pro or con position on any safety aspect of an RSL; that's a completely different issue). The crux of the whole thing is that I simply do not know if the Javelin RSL is a part of their TSO-authorization or not. If Sunpath tells me not to remove it, then that is what I will do. I do not have enough information (those nasty old 'specifications') to do otherwise. So have I made you more confused? I hope not.

Mark, I'm having lots of fun with. Just a kid with a new toy. Jerry

Sparky Old Buddy, You just like to rile the waters don't you? A couple of things: 1. When I obtained my TSO-authorizations under C23b there was an allowance (maybe in Part 37) that stated that the harness could be modified to accept a back-up emergency parachute (my wording is only from memory). I remember seeing a photo many a moon ago of a prototype CrossBow rig with D-rings on the front of the harness. 2. The FAR's supersede any AC's IMO. I remember thinking at the time that I could regularly jump a rig without a reserve using the argument that I was peforming the Live Jumps as req'd by NAS 804. Fun to think about but stupid to do.

Hi Kanada, First, I am not trying to insult you regarding your English skills. I've spent way too much time in non-English-speaking countries to ever do that. I spent a weekend at the Kielce dz in 2000. If you contact Bartek Gasiorek, ul - Sloneczna 22/3, 25 - 731 Kielce or at his phone at 48 413661365 they might be able to assist with your inquiry. His daughter Sylvia and her husband both speak perfect English (they teach English at a private school). They might be able to help you better explain what the problem is. I'm sorry, I simply cannot understand your problem. Anyone out there who can help?

Hi Chuck, The craziest 'chop job' that I ever saw was sometime in the late '80's. About 5-6 yrs earlier I had built this rig for this young jumper (maybe 100 jumps or so). Soon after he got married and quit jumping. Then about the 5-6 yrs later his wife funds the $$$ for him to go jumping. After he comes down from about his 3rd jump that day he calls me over to see if 'this' was right. Someone (we never did find out who or under what circumstances) had taken a pair of sidecutters (at least the evidence looked like sidecutters had been used) and had cut one of his 3-rings cables about 1/2 inch from the loop. This thing was ready to release with just a slight bump/stretch/whatever. I grabbed the rig, took it home and built him a new release handle. He quit jumping. IMO, people do not need to be riggers but they do need/should know how to and inspect their gear before they go jumping.

Hi Neil, Try Para-Gear (1-800-323-0437) as they have Item # M6945 at $65.00. It appears to be the same thing that I use; I think mine was made in Sweden or something like that and mine is fantastic. I consider Para-Gear & DJ Associates the absolute best as far as companies that I have dealt with. Any jumper who wants to do what you are wanting to do should have a catalog from both of them. However, DJ's catalog is rather poor; you have to know how to find what you want. Both have websites.

Hi Sparky, That is exactly what I am talking about. Now, do not misunderstand, I think the snap-shackle and its options are a great idea. However, the thought that you can do it easily in the air under a HP malfunction because you want to get away from the crowd is simply wrong. And people are only fooling themselves if they believe it.

Hi Larry, I've been gone for a week so just now getting to things. I DO APPRECIATE YOUR POSTS. They bring info to people and (IMO) that is what this whole thing is about. Make that 'good' info.

Hi Mark, Some thoughts: 1. I think this is the zig-zag that Kelly F at Velocity uses and likes. 2. Not a lot of parts still available; at least so I've been told by those in the business. 3. The 438 is a better later version. But hard to find; I spent months looking and ended up with a Bernina 217.

Hi Scratch, That is exactly what I did. I took a length of 550 cord (lots of bridles on 1.1's where made of 550 cord in those days), died it red, tied an overhand knot in the 'pull' end and had that sticking out of one flap of my chest/belly mount. People would always ask about the little red thing and I'd have to explain. I always wondered if I would be calm enough to do things right if a malfunction came along; never had to find out. Kind of how I feel about the idea of disconnecting the RSL shackle under extreme conditions because you want to take a delay. Anyone think they'll really be cool and collected to do it? Anyone done it to prove me wrong? I'm Ok with being wrong, been wrong lots in life.

From what I've heard it a triangular shaped canopy. I do not know if it a Rogallo-type; Riggerrob??????

A little trivia for you: The Rogallo wing built by Irvin actually was TSO'd by Irvin.

Back in the '80's a local jumper (who also happened to be a single-parent of two young kids) decided he wanted a new PD170. So he got out the coloring pattern (on paper in those days) and let his kids color it. He told them they could make it anything that they wanted. Well, when the local dealer sent the order in to PD they responded that they wanted 100% of the sale up front; it was so damn ugly.

OK, I'm interested.

The primary difference in the ParaCommander and the CrossBow was that the X-BO had only flat panels in it, whereas the PC had louvered panels; longer at the rear than at the front giving it the forward drive. This because Pioneer had a license from the frenchman, M. Lemoigne, who designed a canopy with these type of panels in it. Interestingly, his early/original work was for a lifting canopy, not something to jump. Just like the late Mr. Jalbert and his Para-Foil (also originally designed as a lifting canopy), from which all of our modern canopies have descended. Just a little trivia for late nights in the bar.

Last that I heard, he was in the airplane buying/selling business; hanging around the Kapowsin area; got married; adopted a youngster; and was considering moving to Wyoming. Anything else?

For the Skydiver Discount at the Holiday Inn you have to contact them directly (386-738-5200) and not thru the Holiday Inn 800 number. $49/nite with skydiver ID.

Wendy, How much they paying someone to take it?