BrianM

Hi Terry,

councilman24

Don't quite understand what we're seeing. If ash from an out and cold smoke I wouldn't have expected it to go through. If it was hot I'd call it damage that needs repair. Even if it was cold I'd expect the residue to be caustic. I'd give up on the idea cleaning is enough.

Those are pretty much the same thoughts I had. I don't know how hot the canister was, though I'm pretty sure it was out. Probably not completely cold. I'll see how much I can find out from the owner, but I'm guessing he won't know.

Is it possible for heat to blacken nylon like that without melting it? I wouldn't think so, which is why I was thinking it's probably a residue deposit and not a burn.

The residue being caustic or acidic is my concern as well. If I am able to clean it off well and the fabric doesn't appear to have heat damage, would you consider it airworthy, or still be concerned about it?

I'm hoping to avoid patching this. There are several small spots close enough to that circle that they'd need to be included in the same patch, so the patch would be bigger than just the area in the photo. The same is true of some of the other areas. I'm looking at one stabilizer, at least two areas on the top skin, and at least one area on the bottom skin. I'll have to look closer to see how if any seams are involved. This is on a 90's MR-135 that's otherwise in really nice condition.

Attached is a photo of a reserve canopy that came in contact with a smoke canister after landing. The nylon does not appear to be melted or burned, but it has gone right through the fabric and looks almost the same on the other side.

As I don't know what chemicals are involved or what effect they may have on nylon, I don't want to pack this as is. I'm hoping it is possible to clean this off. Any suggestions on how? I tried a damp cloth, it had no effect at all. I'm wondering if naptha would be effective.

The area in the photo is a stabilizer. There are a couple much more minor spots on the top skin as well.

Unstable

Quote

So here is my feedback on FXC so far - they suck really badly in terms of any sort of follow up. I have left 3 voicemails with different mailboxes in their company over the last 2 weeks and no one will bother to call me back nor answer their phones when they are around. Their voice mail still reflects being out on leave from almost a week after when they were to be back. I'm hoping that they eventually decide to call me back for my customers issues.

Not really behavior you would expect from an established organization specializing in the development, manufacture, and service of life-saving equipment.

I had a similar experience a few years ago when a customer needed a replacement Astra cutter. I was never able to get a reply. Never did get a new cutter. My customer eventually gave up and bought a Vigil to replace the Astra, which is still sitting on my shelf.

Great, thanks everyone for the info. I wondered if that was the case, and googled for ZP.exe photos but couldn't find any that showed the bottom skin. It's nice to know for sure.

likestojump

Same reason Cobalts have double diamonds on the bottom skin.
MARKETING

Ok, so you can confirm that this is on other Chute Shop/Parachute Systems canopies too? This is not a popular make or model here, I'm not sure I've ever seen one before in person.

I gotta say I'm not impressed that the factory (or anyone else for that matter) would leave raw scissor cut edges sticking out like that. It's frayed pretty badly (I snipped off a bunch of frayed threads before I took that photo), to the point that a lot of the stitching is missing.

I did some container repairs and an I&R for a local jumper yesterday, and he asked me about something on his main that stumped me.

There is a large black triangle of ZP sewn on the bottom skin of the tail. I've attached a photo.

The triangle is centered spanwise on the canopy. The seam running down the middle of the triangle is the unloaded rib of the centre cell. I think it is the original stitching from the factory. It's one continuous seam all the way to the nose, so if someone opened that seam up and resewed it, they did the entire seam, nose to tail (there is no overlap anywhere on the seam). It also looks identical to the factory stitching on the rest of the canopy. This makes me think the triangle was put there when the canopy was manufactured.

I looked at the inside of the cell and there is no damage at all, so this does not appear to be a patch. Also, the edges of the triangle aren't even folded under - it was literally cut out, stuck flat on the bottom skin, and sewn on (which is why it is fraying).

This is a Chute Shop canopy. The info on the label is not legible but the owner says it is a ZP-185.

Does anyone have an idea what this is for?

pchapman

Hang on, does McMaster Carr now ship to Canada?

For years they didn't so Canadians hated them, especially when Americans talked about how good they were.

Or at least they didn't without a business account or business address or something. In any case there was some hassle involved and a really quick Google search hasn't clarified for me what the current situation is. Different people report different things.

Apparently they don't. I emailed them and asked, and got this:

Quote

Due to the complexity of U.S. export regulations, McMaster-Carr accepts international orders only from businesses. This decision also applies to orders shipping within the United States, because it is based on the final destination of the items. We are unable to provide a quotation or accept your orders.

K-mac's website says:

Quote

K-mac has a $50.00 minimum order, all orders under $50.00 are subject to a $20.00 small order fee.

and:

Quote

All International Orders must ship on a customers UPS, DHL or Fedex Account Number. All International Orders will be charged $40.00 for creation of a Custom's Invoice and Certificate of origin, required by US Customs.

Does anyone know of either a Canadian distributor, or a non-Canadian one who will ship small quantities to a non-business address in Canada?

topdocker

I don't think I'm ever gonna ask a question in this arena again.

Relax! I wasn't attacking you. I was simply relating my CRW experience, which didn't fit within the "state of the CRW world" you described. I asked about dragplanes because, while I couldn't think of how, I was curious if there was a way to do them without cross connectors. And from your response, I learned that there is! It didn't occur to me to do a dragplane while stacked, I've always done them while planed.

topdocker

There just aren't any competition formations that require them. Eight way is gone. Rotes you can't get your feet in and out of stirrups fast enough for rotes so no one uses them. Sequential hasn't had planed formations since the 80's. Two way is about kicking lines and pretending its a grip.

Big ways build diamonds mostly, maybe some other offset stuff, but not much is planed up.

That's really why I asked what someone was doing with them.... dile curiosity because they have been out of the norm for at least a decade. Maybe someone was gonna build a quadraplane diamond again!!

top

Not everything is competition or big way. I haven't done either, but I've done around 200 CRW jumps; mostly demo jumps but also some casual CRW just for fun. All small groups, 2 to 4 ways.

How about a dragplane without cross connectors?

Thanks everyone for the replies!

I see a couple options on McMaster-Carr's website:

Self-Lubricating MDS-Filled Nylon
Self-Lubricating MDS-Filled Cast Nylon

Which one do I want? I'm guessing the first one (not the cast one)?

Ok, lots of types of foam - what type do I want? The FAA rigging manual mentions Volara foam but that just seems to be a brand name. Polyethylene or cross linked polyethylene closed cell foam look suitable, but I'm not sure of the difference.

I'm looking for a source for relatively small quantities of MDS (the kind used in container flaps), as well as foam (the kind for legstrap padding, etc). I've searched old threads here but could only find threads that are several years old.

dpreguy

When you get the new needle bar see if you can get the new "squid" needle bar. It has buttons on the side which allows you to raise each needle up into a non sewing position. It is great for turning a 90 degree corner.

I didn't know that was available, thank you very much for sharing! I'll definitely look for one if I get this machine.

Is this something that's specific to this machine, or are they available for most other machines as well?

gowlerk

Here's an example of the parts you need:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CONSEW-339-339RB-2-NEEDLE-Walking-Foot-Gauge-Set-3-16-/280894536724?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item41669e7c14

Great! Thanks Ken! I googled for Consew 339 gauge sets but didn't find anything. Just tried the google search again and now I'm getting results - go figure!

That's not bad, I was expecting it to cost more than that.

gowlerk

Price of the machine is highly variable. A dealer would want at least $800 or so for a good one. I'd keep looking if it was more than $400. But I'm cheap, and I don't NEED one!

For just the head, or head/table/motor?

And I don't NEED one either, but I WANT one! I'm sure you know that the correct number of machines to own is n+1, where n is the number currently owned.

I'm looking for my first double needle to use mainly for binding. If it's something that will work ok as a single needle walking foot for stuff that my Bernina 217 won't do well, that would be even better (since I have limited space for machines).

gowlerk

You can probably do it yourself if you can set up the timing.

I've got a possible lead on a used Consew 399RB-1. It's currently set up with a 3/8" needle gauge. I would want to convert it to 3/16" for binding.

What parts do I need?
Where can I find them?
Roughly how much will they cost? (if it's a lot, it might factor into the decision to buy the machine or not).
Is this something I can do myself, or should I have it done professionally? I've done some basic adjustments on other machines, including setting the timing.


The seller hasn't decided on an asking price yet. What's a reasonable price range? I haven't seen it in person yet, but from the one picture I have seen, it looks like a newer machine and looks like it's in great shape. The seller says it's in excellent condition. I'm happy to pay what it's worth, I just want to have a rough idea so I'll know if he's asking way too much.

Thank you for the second opinions. I figured it was ok, but I wanted to be sure!

The attached photos are of a rear reserve riser on a Javelin. There is some damage to the selvage edge that was caused by the RSL velcro on the front riser (the previous rigger didn't mate the velcro properly, the RSL only covered half the hook velcro). It looks like it pulled out a few loops but didn't break the threads.

It looks fairly minor, but it is on the selvage edge. I'd like opinions from some of you riggers with more knowledge and experience than I have. Airworthy or not?

brbjumping

but if/when you start jumping with weight remember that it will have an affect on your canopy flight.

Not just the flight itself - if you stumble a bit on landing, it can make it harder to recover your balance.

Beatnik

Plus while it does state it is for UPT canopies, meaning Sigma canopies, I think it was overlooked. The bulletin doesn't apply if there are Icarus or Aerodyne mains used on the Sigma system.

I thought it was unclear whether it was referring only to UPT canopies, or to UPT rigs in general. The language is a little odd in a couple places:

"UPT does not approve the use of soft links of any kind on the tandem mains or reserves" (emphasis mine). If the italicized "the" had said "their" I would agree with you. It is an awkward phrase with "the" in it, and sounds like something that was poorly translated from another language, so I looked at the French version:

"UPT n’approuve pas l’utilisation des ‘soft links’ sur aucune voilure de réserve ou principale de ces équipements Tandem sigma et micro sigma."

which is much clearer! No soft links on any main or reserve on Sigma tandem equipment.


The other odd phrase was "Ensure all UPT tandem chutes and equipment are rigged IAW manufacturer’s instructions only". What does "and equipment" mean in this phrase? I suspect it's referring to the harness/container. This time the French version, while better written than the English, also doesn't make the distinction:

"S’assurer que tous les Tandem de UPT sont assemblés selon les normes du manufacturier."

Ok, follow manufacturers instructions, great - but the Sigma manual doesn't discuss links at all, nor do any UPT service bulletins.

If UPT has found damage to risers, not just lines, I could see them not approving soft links on rigs regardless of the canopy, and I think that was the intent of the TB. According to previous threads on dropzone.com, UPT doesn't allow them on their rigs at all - and after seeing photos of riser damage that have been posted, I think it would be wise to stick with metal links. It would be nice if UPT actually said that somewhere that riggers could find it.

Interesting timing to bring up this topic - shortly before I saw this, I received a Technical Bulletin from CSPA on the topic of soft links on tandems (as a CSPA rigger I'm guessing you have or will receive it too).

Here's the relevant excerpt:

Quote

UPT does not approve the use of soft links of any kind on the tandem mains or reserves.

UPT has found melted slinks and main risers due to heat development from friction between the slider and lines.
Also, the T4 slider bumpers are required on the Vectran line sets.

The CSPA T&SC also found damage to the slinks on tandems equipped with them, during the Rigger A1 course last year.

I haven't looked up the relevant info in the UPT manual yet but I'll take a look when I have a few minutes. I don't have any personal experience with the issue, my DZ has metal links on our tandem mains and reserves.

Thanks Peter. I'll let the discussion get back to teaching side slides - I don't want to hijack the thread. Looking forward to what others have to say on the topic.

pchapman

I keep forgetting that as I'm at a DZ that has always required them and diagonal slides for the A, possibly due to a misinterpretation of RW requirements many years ago, that never got changed.

It's great to teach more than the minimum requirements, but it sounds like your DZ is refusing to sign off on endorsements (and hence CoP applications) even though all the requirements have been met?

How many jumps does it take your students to get an A?

What do you do for the Group RW endorsement, since you've already pretty much covered its material in the 1:1 endorsement?

pchapman

Maybe it from when there was only one RW endorsement. So students get faced with pins, levels, turn & dock, sideslides & dock, and diagonals & dock in their minimum of 5 RW jumps for the A. Pretty tough, so the instructors go easy on the latter couple requirements.

The old RW endorsement didn't require any of that stuff either. It was pretty much identical to the current 1:1 RW endorsement (the biggest difference is it only required a minimum of 4 coached jumps vs the current 5).

pchapman

Sideslides are part of the RW instruction prior to the A license in Canada

Sideslides are part of the Group RW endorsement required for the B CoP. Not required prior to the A.

degeneration

***
I don't think it's "almost certain" at all. Multiple real-life misfires suggest the Vigil does not have such logic. For example, the two Vigils that misfired in a C206 when the door opened at 400 feet measured a brief pressure spike of less than a second duration that corresponded to about a 5g acceleration (according to the graphs released by AAD). Another one misfired in a Beech 18 when the pilot's window was opened at around 900 feet. Vigils have fired on the ground when the aircraft was pressurized. I recall reports of Vigils firing when car trunks were closed. We have plenty of examples that indicate that Vigils do *not* filter out brief rapid pressure changes.

Comments made directly by AAD suggest that a measured speed greater than the firing speed for 5/8 of a second is sufficient to fire, which agrees with the above.

Did those fires not happen with older Vigils, not Vigil II/2s?
Assumptions on logic controls for the Vigil I may not be valid assumptions for the Vigil II.

The two in the C206 door opening incident and the one in the Beech 18 window opening incident were all Vigil II's.

mxk

The reason I'm picking 3 seconds as the transition time is that Vigil almost certainly has logic in its software that would filter out an instantaneous speed of 475 mph if the transition happens over 0.5 seconds. However, if the transition takes longer, Vigil can no longer be sure whether the speed increase is real or a result of leaving the burble.

I don't think it's "almost certain" at all. Multiple real-life misfires suggest the Vigil does not have such logic. For example, the two Vigils that misfired in a C206 when the door opened at 400 feet measured a brief pressure spike of less than a second duration that corresponded to about a 5g acceleration (according to the graphs released by AAD). Another one misfired in a Beech 18 when the pilot's window was opened at around 900 feet. Vigils have fired on the ground when the aircraft was pressurized. I recall reports of Vigils firing when car trunks were closed. We have plenty of examples that indicate that Vigils do *not* filter out brief rapid pressure changes.

Comments made directly by AAD suggest that a measured speed greater than the firing speed for 5/8 of a second is sufficient to fire, which agrees with the above.

sundevil777

Pulling kinda sideways - pulling on the cable allows a bent pin to function like a curved pin.

Ah, ok, that makes sense.

Just how bent was this pin, BTW?