JerryBaumchen

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??????

Jim Lowe was one of my best friends; both in jumping and in life. He was never a world champion; he got the classical shaft at the '70 World Meet by a French style judge or he would have been the Overall Champion and he came in 5th in Accuracy at the '74 World Meet (his last major competition) when they called the meet as he had moved up to first place at the time; another shaft Also, it was 'Sunny Jim' and not Sonny Jim. I think of him almost every couple of weeks or so; a great guy.

In my opinion you should use a larger needle. I feel that this is a common problem when a needle that is too small is being used. A #22 is usually quite good for 'E' thread.

Contact CALL RALPH. He advertises in most US magazines. Quote