Beatnik

You can get it everything you need from Alti-2 directly.

There really wasn't a joke because it wasn't a training exercise and because of what I stated previously. It really didn't make any sense for those people that deal with stuff like this regularly. Which is what I was getting at. No matter how many or what emoticons you could have used, it still didn't make sense.

Not trying to harp on your comment. But military training rarely get exclusions for most things. The value of training doesn't supersede rules or safety. Operational requirements and missions can be sometimes left up to certain people's discretion. These operational do still have limits but for mission success can have a little more flexibility. Plus I think you missed joke.

I have a tertiary setup that I built a while ago based off a friends design that doesn't fit into any of your versions. It is a deployable container design that doesn't require you or anyone else to hold onto it. it is mounted on your chest and it still allows you to get at all your regular handles while you are wearing it. The risers are self contained and there are very little exposed parts. I use separable rings so that the risers are not on the same set and then I can also transfer it to any harness and am not limited to one specific rig. The other bonus with this setup is that it is very minimal and doesn't have a lot of extras on a harness. I had some fun with another modified version of it this past weekend. I am reluctant to pass a lot of additional information on a public forum about this particular setup. As much as a tertiary setup can be great for a lot of things it adds a lot of complexity to a rig and some people don't need any more fuel to get them into trouble. Plus I also don't feel like giving out design information on systems that I have developed for free.

I have both a Strong Pop-Top reserve and an SST Racer. How long would you need it for? I still actively use both of them.

Paracommanders were block constructed. In the 1970's, the last version of the parachute, the RW Paracommander was made out of ripstop and had dacron lines. I have never jumped an RW PC so I can't comment on the opening characteristics. It was a copy of the Mark I so I imagine that the flight characteristics would be similar but it would pack a lot smaller with the newer materials.

I think you may have got me a little wrong Jerry. I was commenting on the drawing that was posted in the link from the OP not on the actual system. I just clicked on the last person in the thread when I posted. The pictures you posted are pretty small and I have trouble making out what you are trying to post. It doesn't matter, the sketch in the link looks just like the Interlock and nothing from any photos of your RAX system. I don't know what other information I needed to base my statement on. Edited to add the sketch I am referring to.

It really looks like the drawing in Eric's Patent even if it is a version of the RAX.

Its been a while since I have logged into dz.com and to find what this Jumbo PC went for blew my mind. I was given a complete system and a few other things with a Jumbo PC a little over a year ago. I was even given the guys logbook and original bill of sale for the Jumbo. It only has a couple dozen jumps on it. I am happy to see that my collection of gear is gaining value. Not that it will ever be sold as long as I am alive.

Constructed to a standard is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the materials and I don't see them listed in the certifications that I am looking at. The testing I am looking at is requiring a 10 - 15 KN load. Which is much below a 35G test. I don't think buying random webbing is a good idea. I would have personally never built that. All I am saying is for ground launch or towing it probably okay.

Pretty much every climbing harness out there is made with needle woven webbing which is not critical use. This includes most of the big players. Many of the paragliding harnesses are the same. I would look at the webbing again at your climbing and paraglider gear.

The same with most climbing harnesses and paragliding harnesses out there. Which could be classified as lifesaving in certain situations. For what he is doing with it, I don't see it as any more of a problem than those two.

Yes you can but a round will not get the glide or maneuverability that a square will. Also, you can use a smaller square parachute. Pack volume could be a variable in the design. Teaching the computer to flare a square is something that has been taught. Look at the many JPADS' out there that use squares. I have videos of JPADS doing some pretty cool things. This is a similar setup I imagine.

During the parachute descent there is not much load on it. But P3H mentioned during opening where there can be a load put on it depending on how high the forces are, There have been cases of the cutaway cable being pulled through the grommet or kinked, which would later result in a hard cutaway. With reverse risers you should have a rig designed to use them. That is why they can hang up. Typically your main rings in your cutaway system should be around your collar bone. WIth reverse risers they are a little higher because the rings flip towards you when releasing. Putting them on a standard harness can result in hangups. The main reason that reverse risers aren't seen as much is because there is no standards for them. Everyone makes them slightly different. Where there are a set of construction standards for standard risers. Additionally to my understanding why they are used in BASE is because of the large amount of container dragging during packing. Having reverse risers for a system that is traditionally not cutaway unless you are on the ground protects the locking loop from damage. That was what was explained to me.

You can check like the others said by seeing if it inflates which I personally like and feel is better since you get real confirmation from the pilot chute. I you really want a visual you can also colour the kill line where it comes out of the bridle and up to the apex of the pilot chute. This way when you cock it you can see it is done fully. Once it is packed it would be a little harder to see but real confirmation is better than a window in my opinion.

Not yet. Been working on the loft and other things at the moment. It will probably be in the spring now maybe sooner. Will post pictures when it is jumped. I also have a Sierra that needs jumping and I need to see if anyone has photos of me jumping my Pioneer Hornet. Let me say that Hornet really stung!

I have one of those systems. Even made for a tall guy like me. Quite comfortable.

I don't understand the argument that you are making here regarding safety with skydiving gear. There is a lot of technology that is here to improve safety but it doesn't mean it that it should be adopted. I had one tandem mal and the skyhook didn't do its job and was pretty much like it wasn't there. I doubt that many on the ground would have been able to tell the difference between that and a normal rsl deployment. Your association/argument is completely invalid in regards to this. I understand that it is a form of advancement in technology but as far as I know iPods aren't considered a safety device. It regards to airbags. There is somewhat of a more valid argument. They are safety devices but there is also a lot more information and research that goes into car crashes. Regarding kids/babies getting hurt. They are outside the operating procedures of that device. That is why they are not to be subjected to them. While there seems to be a lot here it is a relatively small sample size and some of the numbers aren't as useful to people that analyze data. I have seen the argument be made that there are X many rigs with X equipment out there and they have done X many jumps. Well if the piece of equipment isn't used in any of those jumps than what does it matter? That is like having a home made camera mount that has huge snag points but since it never snagged anything it must be safe right? I still don't see the huge amounts of safety that this device brings. You are making the system more complicated which leads to more issues that can arise. Having a canopy above your head doesn't necessarily mean that you will not be subject to injury but that is all that people think of. Look at the incident reports. People are dying under canopies. Further more if you were ever in a situation where you absolutely needed a MARD to get a canopy out above your head before impact with the ground. Do you think you would have the reaction skills and time to avoid any obstacles, find a suitable landing area, flare, etc.? You mentioned that bad decisions are the main cause of incidents in sports. Do you think that most people out there would be able to do all that is necessary and make the right decisions in a case were a MARD would give you the greater chance of survival (for example below 500 feet)? There are a lot more to this than just having a canopy above you quickly. Just my $0.02.

The N3 doesn't have the screw holes that the N2 had. It is held on by a strap going through the silicon armour or in the pocket of neptune glove. Nothing mounts to it.

Fixed it http://wnyheritagepress.org/photos_week_2008/irving_air_chutes/irving_air_chutes.htm

I would gladly get it for the collection. But it is severely overpriced for what is there IMO.

Most zp canopies will stay together if packed for a long period of time. I have pulled apart many of them and jumped one that was like that. The opening of a parachute is a pretty violent process and subject to a lot of force. The canopy opened fine but took a little longer.

I have been doing this method for quite some time without any hiccups. I go on the theory just like you stated and look at it as the same way a free bag works. I done this with lightly loadings of 1.2 to higher of 2.3. My bag has balanced stows, meaning that the stows are more centralized on top of the bag and they are designed to payout without a lot of rotation. I am quite happy with the results and don't plan on changing it anytime in the near future. But the 1000 or so jumps I have done like this is a really small sample size in the grand scheme of things and is really statistically insignificant to whether or not this is a good way to go.

Niagara Parachutes was a Canadian gear manufacturer that went out of business some time ago because the died in a plane crash. The nick name for the owner was Captain Xerox as he made more than a few copies of gear. That gear would not have been made under a TSO. While it wouldn't be allowed for use in the US, he may be able to sell it to someone in a country that doesn't require TSO's like Canada.