skytribe

Now I'm definitely not a pro-strong advocate but if you simply take a look at the manual for the Quasar on their website it actually is the Stellar and Quasar manual. "A low pack volume, 7-cell canopy manufactured with 1.1 oz/0-3 CFM ripstop Nylon. Spectra 725 lbs lines attached to stainless steel Rapide links are standard. The Stellar line of reserves was tested with the Quasar II harness/container assembly and is approved by the FAA to TSO C23c, Category B." So there is some of the information. The weights etc. that it was test dropped for and recommended are completely different anyway. I would hazard the guess that many are exceeding those limits anyway on Ravens, PDR, Tempos etc. But what the hell - people think a 150 is a 150 and pay little attention to the fact that their high performance main is very different from an older generation reserve.

Well your not collapsing and pulling the slider down so don't need it to go over the links. In fact quite the opposite - with aggressive slider docks the links act as stops preventing the slider from being pushed down onto the risers. The lines are typically dacron and non cascaded lines on center and end cells which also means a lot of bulk and standard slinks are a bit tight.

Remember if we are talking newer jumper I would consider the canopy models in the under 300 as suitable - at appropriate wing loadings/sizes. When you are talking above 300 - all bets are off but ellipticals may be applicable at appropriate wing loadings/sizes. Again everyone is different and some individuals may be able to handle a higher loading and others not. I'm sure we can both name some people that may apply. So any chart/list is really general guidelines. Nothing more, nothing less - people who have bad landings or erratic canopy behaviors may not be appropriate. When downsizing or changing canopy form factor the original poster should have a frank discussion with an local instructor who is personally aware of your performance for more appropriate advice.

Sam - I understand the list just detailed canopy models and nothing more. All the ones detailed above 300 jumps tend to be fully elliptical models which are generally loaded higher providing higher performance. All the ones below tend to be more standard or lightly taped planforms. Are there any above 300 that you think may be suitable for newer jumpers ? A Petra is not on the list at all so it doesn't really say that. If you wish to interpret it that because its not on the list so it would be ok that would be a really bad assumption as I could name a number of other canopies that aren't there either (No data does not mean OK). And of course, there are the loading and size factors you've detailed. The canopy policy and subsequent calculations are based upon canopy model (Shape), Size, Wing Loading, Total experience and experience within the last 12 months. Looking at the policy document - a Petra at 200 jumps irrespective of loading or size would be against the policy as its fully elliptical. If you had 300+ jumps and a Petra above a 150 and below a 1.3 loading and experience then you may be OK. But in reality who's buying a big Petra and jumping on a very low wing loading. If you on a sub 100 irrespective of loading /shape requires special clearance as do high wing loadings above 2.0. There are many subtleties in the calculation that Jordan (who created the formula) really thought through and when doing some coding for this had hundreds of test scenarios and all of them seemed pretty valid based upon the inputs and common sense. The information used to come up with the calculation was not pulled out of thin air but based upon what the manufacturers and very knowledgeable canopy people (like Brian Germain) had written about.

That list is really scary, I wouldnt use it at all... Or atleast it needs another category for most of the wings listed under +300 jumps right now... Why do you consider this list really scary ? The basis is that lower experience jumpers shouldn't be jumping fully elliptical canopies or canopies at higher wing loadings. This may be a conservative view but after having scrapped enough inexperienced jumpers off the DZ and off to hospital or the morgue the DZ decided to set a policy as to suitable canopies and wing loadings. Sure there may be some manufacturers/models not on there but I wouldn't consider it scary at all. In fact quite the opposite and consider it conservative.

That was my thought exactly - a device with a led and a button. So it technically is a real device and not just a carry case. But easy to remove and ship old one back.

And a lithium ion battery contained within a device really made those Galaxy Note 7 batteries so much safer.....

Take a look at for anti aircraft binoculars and you will find many older WW2 examples which in the UK were used at most DZ and I recall being used to judge style competitions.

Perhaps - I've seen other shoddy work come through that was on used gear purchased that the owner had no knowledge of prior work and hence did I really want to be the private investigator and trace all the prior work that had been done. Perhaps the idea that a single packing card is sufficient is out of date and we need more than just repacks logged.

Perhaps this is part of the problem. The rigger who did the repair or perhaps it was just someone with a sewing machine. As to who did the major repair - their is no record on the container. The only indication is who last packed the reserve. So the last rigger could just deny they did it - and simply say the missed the obvious bad repair on their inspection if, and then remove the page from their logbook. Yes they were operating outside of the privileges but its easy to remove any evidence. Other countries have separate documents for each component. The fact that you say the pack data card is simply to comply with 105.43 - I don't have documents for the main to show compliance and the amount of entries I've seen on card for AAD install / removal which is not required for 105.43 - but we still see them entered on the pack data card. So the next rigger, after such a shoddy repair ( which was immediately obvious by different color legstraps - which led to further investigation of incorrect stitches / materials and tolerances) with zero evidence of who carried out the work only who last repacked it. See the problem.... Who does the rigger go back discuss shitty repairs when there is no record ? And there is part of the problem.

But there is a problem in riggers doing stuff they are clearly not supposed to be doing and simply being ignored with them using excuses of ambiguity in documents. Even things that are clearly documented such as AAD install is ignored, despite being very clearly stated in AC105 and jumpers assembling mains which we often witness later thru incorrect assembly. But what to do ? Ignore, talking to them often achieves nothing and I wasn't aware of any formal reporting procedure to FAA. Who seem to be rather clueless with there own documentation.

I'd really like for the FAA to come up with a list of repairs and whether they are major minor. If the repair is on a main - minor, if its on a reserve its major. To avoid the ambiguities or riggers interpretation. This week I had two items - another rigger had opened my pack job put an AAD and then reclosed it and sealed it. When I came to do next pack job I looked at what was written on the card and when I opened it up it was in the same state I had put it in. No other packjob had been marked on the data panel. The second one was a shoddy legstrap replacement - legstrap not legpad that was done by a senior rigger. I know who it was, although it was not marked on the data card. I consulted with another rigger and both are of the opinion it was substandard- didnt meet the same tolerances as manufacturer or even the same stitch patterns. Being the nice guys - it will be repaired properly before returning it and I'll gladly record my repair work on card as I'm qualified to do it and am proud of my work.

Precisely - on a main that's acceptable. However PD seem to think that on a reserve its grounds for a reline. To think this is handling/deployments - in such a short amount of handling /usage sounds a bit of a reach. When I'm packing reserves I wouldn't think I applied a significant amount of force to stretch the lines, especially on one side. And if handling is the cause then I would think there are a lot of out of trim reserves out in the field. If its deployments then they should seriously re-evaluate the number of deployments before being returned for recertification. If its a change in the trim spec from when it was originally built to the latest standard or that the tolerances are now more stringent then why not just say so.

So 5 jumps and 40 pack jobs and its that out of trim requiring a reline. You could have done 24 jumps on this thing and less than 40 repacks and continue packing it without having to send it back. The fact the microline is used on mains, are we expecting that they are out of trim in such a short period of jumps. I could potentially see this as a manufacturing or material defect but I would not expect for the lines seriously out of trim requiring a reline with such limited deployments and pack jobs. Or perhaps they should re-evaluate the 25 deployments/40 repacks, materials if it can get so out of trim so easily.

I don't doubt PD's assessment of the reserve in question but it also brings up a couple of additional questions. What type of lines are on this reserve ? What is the history of the reserve ? (ie. deployments, date of manufacturer etc.) Most reserves don't get deployed much and for the most part are simple inspected and repacked. So I'm just curious as to how a canopy can get seriously out of trim in such a short time or whether there has been some change in the line trim since it was manufactured.

Anyone have good source for small quantities of raw materials that have reasonable shipping in the US. Paragear have the stuff but shipping cost always make me think there must be a cheaper source for such small quantities.

It will eventually cause the webbing to fuzz up much quicker and ultimately it will cause damage. This is the reason why the manufacturers send out new rigs with proper elastic keeps that will do the job and do not cause this fuzzing (or at least it takes much longer). Will an elastic band do the job - sure. I could show you numerous examples of various stages of wear but you can get new elastic retainers from local rigger for a couple of bucks.

If your not using the RSL then simply unhook it from the riser ring and connection it to the cutaway housing instead. As the DZ rigger to show you if you dont understand.

It should be done as the manufacturer has it configured. Thats how it was tested. I think the vast majority have the RSL on the inside of the riser so that the RSL does not need to go over or under the reserve risers. I can only think of one manufacturer that has the RSL ring on the outside of the main riser.

Thats a shame, I picked it up for 60 bucks as a backup unit for more heavy duty work but it sounds as though it may be cost prohibitive to switch it over. Sending it to Herbert Jaffe isn't really an option as shipping coast to coast ends up being costly as well.

Anyone ever done conversion of a 3334 bartacker from a 28 stitch to a 42 stitch pattern. Is it just changing out the Cam and foot.

BN islanders were popular jump aircraft in the UK in the 90's. Both the piston and turbine versions. I believe the issue is there are single engines aircraft that have the same lift capacity but are quicker and cheaper being a turbine.

There are a lot of reasons for people downsizing early. However every person is different and nobody thinks they are below average when it comes to flying a canopy. I would do the canopy course. Talk to you instructors who have watched a few of your landings and be open to the idea of jumping a larger canopy if that is what they are suggesting. All of those reasons are really weak for determining reasons to downsize. Once you are able to consistently land on your feet with accuracy in all conditions and would like a little bit more performance then you could consider downsizing. This will take a reasonable number of jumps to complete and in doing so you will gain a decent amount of experience. Doing this as before downsizing will reduce risks of a landing injury which are expensive.

Look at the strong Dual Hawk tandem reserve packing instructions as these detail a flat pack job.

Then do you not think it is only proper for 'the guy' to complain; since you, apparently, have no dog in the fight? Or perhaps the guy should just get a few references from the companies doing the engine mod and speak to them directly rather than soliciting advice in a public forum. They may get more real life experience responses that would be useful in determining a position on the matter.