mark

The main canopy drogue release is not TSO'd in the sense that there are no performance standards for it, the same as there are no performance standards for the main canopy itself. So using a home-made drogue release would not invalidate the TSO. It would, however, be stupid. --Mark

Suppose the answer were "yes." What would be your next question? Also, supposed the answer were "no." What would be your next question? -Mark

The weak link in the hanger in a hybrid formation is not the 500-pound 70101-1 friction adapter. It is the hanger's shoulder, which is not designed for a 500-pound extension shock load. -Mark

It's posts like this that make me rethink my position. Strong 26' Type-2 diaper in a Super-Pro is not as easy as a T-10R. 24' flat in a Strong Pop-Top chest is not easy either. Too old school for you? Try a BaserX chest. As for seats, not all seats are the Strongs you describe. Some are Butlers (which pack like other Butler rigs), some are Nationals (which pack like other Nationals), some are Softies (which pack like other Softies), some are military surplus Navy seats with C-9s that pack like T10Rs. The trick for all is to do it with finesse, which is different than using brute force and swearing. -Mark

I agree, in part. Except I would suggest no ratings at all. Right now we do not distinguish between rounds and squares when issuing ratings, and we're not killing people. DPREs that choose not to train or test on rounds do not get to issue ratings restricted to squares only. Riggers that graduate from such courses are authorized to pack rounds and yet they don't, at least until they choose to get training they are not legally required to have. Why create restrictions where there were none before? -Mark

Using your reasoning, it's safer for wingsuiters to jump without a helmet (since there are no or very few wingsuit fatalities involving no-helmet jumpers), than it is to jump with a helmet (since nearly every wingsuit fatalitiy involves a jumper wearing a helmet). -Mark

This combination would allow forexample intentional cutaway. Anything is possible, and we advance only because some people are "out of the box" thinkers. Consider whether the harness could accept the load. Probably, but harnesses are not tested in this configuration. Also consider whether you want to land on your head. Please get video. -Mark

Emergency procedure for 3-canopy system with MARD on the first of the two reserves, total malfunction of the #1 (Main) canopy, MARD failure to disconnect when attempting to deploy the first of the two reserves: this results in a pilot chute in tow. Plan A: disconnect the RSL. In freefall. Maybe with gloves on. But this releases the towed pilot chute, hopefully in time. Plan B: deploy the #1 canopy, then cutaway the #1 canopy, hoping for an ordinary MARD deployment of the first reserve and not an entanglement. Except that you had a total on #1 in the first place. Plan C: deploy the second reserve, hoping for a good deployment. Except that the first reserve container is open, and is the first reserve still in the container or has it fallen out and started tangling on stuff? -Mark

This is the best explanation for what happened. -Mark

You don't need to get speeds that high. You just need to get cabin air pressure changes that would mimic speeds that high. For example, you could slip an open-door aircraft (like a Caravan), then straighten it out. You might do this if you were making an engine-out approach and needed to scrub off some altitude after arriving high on final. -Mark

Might be sketchy. Might not. The data panel on a 1990 VTC-II says the manufacturer is UPT (even though we all know it was really made by PD). They came without a bowling-score data panel, so knowing the number of packs and jumps depends on having accurate entries on the packing data cards and having all the cards. Since there's no requirement to retain old data cards, canopy history is frequently incomplete. Solution 1: don't worry about it. If a main canopy had just 7 jumps on it, we would call it new. Solution 2: send it to PD for evaluation. They'll add a new data panel, including boxes to score spares and strikes. In fact, this one may have already been back to PD and had a new data panel sewn on, in which case you'd like to know how many open boxes are left, not how many have been filled -- PD doesn't always recertify for a full 40 packs/25 jumps. -Mark

A good friend/rigging customer tried this. He settled on a Storm 230 that had been a PD demo canopy. He got a really good deal on it. But it wasn't popular as a demo -- it had only a handful of jumps on it. So it was still a handful to pack, not quite what he had in mind! -Mark

I never do this. Even with new canopies. -Mark

To see whether this strategy might work for you, try hanging on a chin-up bar for 4 minutes. -Mark

IIRC, the problem manifested when the closing loop did not go straight through the cutter. The blade would first strike the top (or bottom) side, causing it to tumble slightly, then jam on the opposite side because of misalignment. For Argus, the size of the hole compared to the diameter of the cutter body is not that different from Cypres and Vigil cutters. I do not recall a grommet strike being identified as an issue in any of the problematic incidents. -Mark

These two sentences do not go together. -Mark

Looks like a typical RSL activation to me. SOS would not be any faster. -Mark

Not sure if PD is using this exception, since the exception requires a note on the container, not the reserve itself. But the exception is saying the reserve glide ratio with brakes stowed is greater than 1.12, mark the container and set the max weight for descent rate alone. Do sport containers contain such text by default (I can't check mine right now)? Jerry was in ahead of me. (Thanks!) Your quote is indeed from TS-135v1.4, the standard for TSO-C23f. However, the FAA did not agree to Method 2. See page 5 of the attached cover letter. -Mark TSO-C23f.pdf

PD Optimums are certificated to the standards of TSO-C23d/AS 8015B. These documents are included in the appendices to the 2005 Parachute Rigger Handbook, I think still available online as a free download. TS-135 has the standards for TSO-C23f. -Mark

Full disclosure: I've been working with RI on its MARD. (Thanks, Mr. Shadeland, for the mention! RI plans for its MARD to be fully and easily retrofitable to its entire current sport product line, and, we hope, also be retrofitable to some other recent RI models.) Also, skydiving is not safe. Even with a MARD. The Collins Lanyard helps in those rare situations where the RSL-side riser breaks below the RSL attachment. The lanyard is intended to cut away the opposite-side riser, so neither main riser is attached if the RSL pulls the reserve pin because of a broken main riser. But how many broken RSL-side risers have you seen in the last 20 years (not counting the mis-assembled ones, of course)? In exchange for this feature, the Collins Lanyard introduces the possibility of a new malfunction mode: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3331658. The Collins Lanyard is a required, proprietary part of the Skyhook system. No other MARD incorporates a Collins Lanyard, including designs already on the market such as Wings Boost, Strong Sky Anchor, or Mirage Trap. Also, Collins Lanyards are not part of the Airborne Systems MARD design -- and Airborne Systems is the world's largest manufacturer of military freefall systems, a market that dwarfs the civilian market. There are many reasons why you might choose one rig or another, but I don't think the availability of a Collins Lanyard -- or even a MARD in general -- should be high on the list. Your reserve is designed to open in 3 seconds or 300 feet, depending on certification standards. In exchange for added complexity and new malfunction modes, a properly functioning MARD speeds up the opening by at most 100 feet. -Mark

In the US, this is allowed since it is not forbidden by regulation. It would be an alteration of the main canopy/container, which can be done by a master rigger without needing approval from the manufacturer or the FAA. -Mark

If you think it's a good idea to reach above the main container to help launch a main, yes. If you think you'll be able to hang on long enough after a main deploys to pull a cutaway handle, yes. -Mark

From my logbook: Sunpath Javelin J5 #515 DOM 6/1989. Has Velcro riser covers. -Mark

No, 19 passengers is the max before you need a flight attendant. -Mark

I do not know of any. Also, about a thousand years ago, we used to freestow the main canopy lines by coiling them in the container. Rubber bands were just for the bag locking stows. We quit freestowing the lines because sometimes they half-hitched around a container flap, but I don't recall any malfunctions resulting from lines entangling with themselves. Except maybe tension knots, and we have those with conventional bags and current line stow methods. -Mark