JerryBaumchen

The way I heard it (many a year ago) was that she was in the toilet in the rear of the aircraft. This section stayed intact right through impact. Others may have different versions of this tale.

Hey, Stratostar, I tried to reply to your email but I got something about a spam-blocker and then the link didn't get me anywhere. Call me on my cell 503-481-4714 and not before 10:00 AM West Coast Time. I can give you more info on the 'Eddie Brown Rig.'

Yes, in a way. Perry worked for Security in those days ('63-'64). He, Dan Abbott and Ludlow Clements created the Crossbow piggyback that came out in the Spring of '64. The RSL attached to the ripcord housing near the ripcord end and the other end was attached to the container with four snaps, as someone has mentioned. When you activated the One-shots the lanyard pulled the ripcord end away which pulls the pin. Everything departed with the main canopy. The elevated it in their facility in San Leandro and tested the system 100 times straight with only a reserve canopy in it to see how it would work. It worked as designed all 100 times. They then felt that it was ready for release.

Let's try that again; 'It never went anywhere,' Sorry for not proof-reading before submitting.

Some time in the early '70's (as I recall) Pioneer came out with a 'Jerry Bird' rig. It had a chest pack that closed ONLY with velcro. I always wondered how it would hold up over the years with usage. I never went anywhere, so the question never got answered.

I met him at Elsinore at '67 also. I expect that there will many similar posts as the years go by.

I'm working from memory here but I believe that the first baton pass in North America occured in '58 at Abbotsford. Later in '58, Steve Snyder & Charlie Hilliard made the first pass in the USA. I do not know who the guys were who did it at Abotsford in '58. Is your post for the first Canadian baton pass by Canadians?

TSO'd round canopies are still made by Free Flight (Gary Douris in Elsinore) and his Pre 5 uses a bag; I think that it is a free bag but am not sure. I've jumped 6 round reserves (3 because I had to and 3 because I wanted to) and I've jumped 5 or 6 square reserves (all because I had to). Some rounds got me back to the DZ, some didn't; some squares got me back to the DZ, some didn't (you're usually low when the reserve opens). One square was as a demo on the beach (Oregon coast), I was VERY glad to have had a square that day. Today, its a square because I can afford it, it's the latest technology and some DZ's require them. I have two of them.

I joined PCA in mid'64 and they only had Gold Wings at that time; no one (in USA) had made 2,000 jumps yet. They had a blue 'triangular' shaped patch that said 'PCA' on it. For information on real OLD stuff try contacting Jim Bates with Conneticut Parachutes Inc (????). Try sending and email to Kim Knor at [email protected] as she has a lot of info on the Pioneers of Parachuting.

There is a 3rd method of 'swaging' the pin to the cable that may be coming on the market soon. Paratec from Germany had a sample at the Symposium that had two dimples pressed into the pin. They said that with only one dimple there testing resulted in the cable braking before the pin slipped. This should be very interesting, seeing just how this develops.

This was the center photo in a 3-photo sequence of the deployment that appeared in Skydiver Magazine in the summer of '64; not sure exactly which month. The first photo is of Ken Rounds in freefall with nothing out and reaching for the reserve ripcord; the second photo is the one shown here; and the third photo is Ken at line stretch and with a substantial grimace on his face. Like I say, for trivia night down at the tavern.

Regarding reserve throw-out PC's: I seem to remember an Australian mfr who built a rig that had this set-up. I can't remember the name and the packing manual is in storage; I'm too lazy to dig it out.. Also a local guy (here in Oregon) back in the 80's built a home-built rig with a throw-out PC. He was a DZ-rat so he jumped it a lot. I never did know of him having to use it in an emergency. I talked with him once about it and he said he had made 3-4 jumps during the development and he was satisfied with it. Trivia for some evening over a beer.

Wow, I haven't seen that photo in years. As I remember, it is Ken Rounds and the photo by Ralph White over Lancaster, CA; yes???? Actually, the next photo in the sequence is even better with that look on his face.

I attended Dan Preston's seminar at the Symposium and the most interesting thing I thought was that the canopy body weighed less than the suspension lines.

Bought a used tandem rig at a Sheriff's auction for $30, sent it back to the factory for some repairs (cost $150) and sold it for $4,000. All in all, a pretty good deal.

In reality, this has been done. A jumper by the name of Cary 'Something' in the late '70's (I think it was, maybe early '80's) up at Issaquah built his own H/C and got the local FAA guys to give it the OK. Now what he had to go through, I do not know but it did NOT have a TSO. I've gotten a number of things OK'd by the locals that some folks would cringe at. It's all about schmoozing and realizing that anything can be done.

I sat in on one of John Sherman's seminars at the Symposium and he said ( I hope that I am remembering this correctly ) that he had some info that said a round canopy could load up to 60% on one side & 40% on the other side. He also had some info ( that came from Para-Flite, I think ) that said a square could load as much as 80% on one side and 20% on the other side. Since he ( John ) felt that the earlier versions of this rig were not built to withstand those types of loads ( 80% on one side ), they were restricting these rigs to round canopies only. HTH

And a guy by the name of Rich Johnston (a world record holder) of the Seattle Skydivers, back in the mid-60's, put two pilot chutes in his X-Bo reserve container. Yes, it had a Navy 26 ft conical, also.

Regarding the original photo: I am sure that it is Larry Warner on the left in blue and Hatley with the X-Bow rig. Ralph jumped a mirror-image X-Bow rig; reserve handle on the right web and main handle on the left web. Ted Mayfield was recently elected to the City Council in Sheridan, Oregon; not in jail but like most of us, getting old.

I remember Wally from the mid-60's (in fact I've jumped the very canopy that broke him up). He was a wild & crazy guy back then (as most of us were). I always felt sorry for Wally, mostly because he was so full of life before the crash. But for fate, there go many of us.

More Para-Foil trivia. Some time in the late '70's (I think; maybe early 80's) there were some tests being ran on very large Para-Foil canopies on the Oregon beaches (long, wide, flat and with steady winds). The canopy lines came down to a single, very long line that then attached to the test device/dummy that was to be lifted. The PhD-type who was in charge of the tests, a young fellow in his late 20's as I recall, was walking back towards the test device from the canopy when the canopy caught air and lifted off, very quickly and unexpectedly. This long, single line wrapped around and caught the legs of the young PhD-type and immediately lifted him up into the air. He quickly became untangled and fell to his death, probably from about 200-300 feet or so.

I'm going from memory here. At the '74 World Meet Jim Lowe jumped a 9-cell Foil that he built himself (yes, it was the Notre Dame design). After 6 rounds he was in 5th place; on the 7th round Lowe dead-centered and everyone in front of him had longer strikes putting Lowe in first place. They called the accuracy event before finishing the 7th round leaving Lowe with a 5th place finish. After he returned he said that he felt that the Eastern bloc judges simply would continue to use the the rules against him (at the '70 World Meet he would have been the Overall Champion except for a French judge on one style jump). The very first NAA Para-Foil (which I have jumped) was a Blue/White one with the serial number 'JIM LOWE'; it was built especially for him by Johnny Higgins.

Thank you. And I will agree with you that different FAA offices will interpret almost anything differently. In my opinion, therein lies the dilemna. I have felt for many years that if one makes his/her living or substantial part of his/her living in something governed by the federal gov't (in our case, the FAA) then you should make it a practice to donate to the campaigns of your local US Congressman and US Senator(s) from your state. I always do and I have had to use their help on more than one occasion in getting the 'interpretations' that I needed from the FAA. I've always called it 'greasing the skids.'

This is EXACTLY the argument that I make. When I first decided to go after a TSO-authorization I obtained a copy of FAR Part 37 (the governing document in effect in the 70's); I later acquired a copy of FAR Part 21 when that became the governing document. In my reading of Part 37 I could not find any FAA REQUIREMENT for any additional testing after successfully completing the testing as called for by the TSO (and its referenced document/test standard). I inquired to the FAA folks at the SACO and they confirmed what I understood. In reading the two responses, I do NOT find any conflict with my original posting. I have said for many years that I will bet $5 to a stale doughnut that no additional testing is REQUIRED by the FAA. Of course, most mfrs have QC programs with internal inspections/testing; but this is NOT a FAA req'ment. Only having an FAA-approved QC program is required and those are unique to each TSO-authorization holder. Please note that I also stated that you would be foolish not to continue testing. My argument was and is that no additional testing is an FAA REQUIREMENT. I simply have never found any FAA document that REQUIRES additional testing. And, as you state regarding ones brand new reserve canopy, do people actually believe that the very item that they have in their container has been drop-tested. I hope that they do not. This is the very gist of my argument and I stand by it as it would apply to ripcords. If any company tests 100% of their ripcords, good for them. However, not all do.

I do not agree that 'all' ripcord assemblies built in the US are tested. The test req'ment being discussed is a design/first article test for application for a TSO-authorization. IMO (as a holder of 6 TSO's), there is no FAA req'ment to continue with any testing once the TSO-authorization is granted. I think too many users feel that all of their equipment is being tested regularly. Now, having said that, I also think that it would be foolish to not to continue to do random testing of items in/after production. Thoughts??????