dpreguy

For me, everything has to occur by 1000 feet

Sorry to get pushy about the term. We have these discussions and they always end up with the person just describing what they really mean. The SIM uses 'decision altitude', etc. Whatever works that cannot be misinterpreted or misunderstood is best.

I don't have a term for the 1000 foot decision. It is just that.

I think Jeff Johnston get the credit for actually inventing the over the shoulder "pro pack" method; but as to the naming of it as "Pro Pack"... I defer to the other posters, although I suspect that was Jeff Johnston too.

Before that we all 'flat packed'.

The term"hard deck" has no universal meaning. It is a cutesy term used in the movie Top Gun and people think it makes them seem cool when they use the term. Please do not use the term at all. It has no meaning beyond the user's use of it.

I have heard the term used to define:
. The breakoff altitude
. The pitch/pack open altitude
. The decision altitude as it is correctly defined in the SIM
. The lowest altitude you should cut away after fighting
a mal main (1000 feet?)
. I have even heard it used to describe a low cloud ceiling.

Point is: It has no meaning.

Please ditch the use of this movie term altogether, as it
will be understood in many different ways. It doesn't make you look cool. It makes you look like you want to impress people. At it's worst, it will cause confusion and make you end up by describing what you really meant in the first place.

Visited a a DZ a few times many years ago. They had a (it was described as a 205 and a half?) Actually I think it was just a 206 with the front door instead of the cargo door.
To the point: The step was very "long" forward to aft.
Not long before we showed up one time, they said a tandem instr, not used to the long step, stepped off backwards, and because the step was so unusually long, smashed his student's face on the step. Smashed it very badly.
It WAS very big. We jokingly called it "as big as a front porch". Seemed like the wing strut was at the front of the step, just like a 182 step/strut setup, but it continued aft a long long long ways because the wheel strut was much further back. If you wanted to face forward, You had to step back a step after you let go of the strut. If you didn't the back end would hit you. Especially if the plane came up when the weight was off of it. Of course, when you got used to it, no problem, but the first time you used it, it came so close it scared you.

Tandem instructors just turned/pivoted and went off the back edge of the step. We learned to do that too.

Lame and pathetic story line (It actually really didn't have a story line) WAY TOO LOUD. Not even the ending, which was only kinda an ending. This was a colossal dud. Don't bother.

Now Fury....there's a movie.
MockingJay was pretty good too, but open ended. Intentionally.

I seems like you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Before you change the design of a component of a parachute container, don't you think you should run it by the manufacturer? Experimenting with a newly
designed component, (designed by you), is a recipe to create danger for yourself.

If it has a net around it (an anti inversion net) it is likely to be parabolic - not flat circular. Not good for a dome or a tent, as the bottom 1/4 will be floppy baggy. If it is, better find a flat circular one, and not deal with a dome that sags inside.

It's easy to tell: lay it on the floor. If it lays flat, it is flat circular. If it won't lay flat, probably ought to get a different canopy.

When I started skydiving, it wasn't "cool" to have an
"A" license; and even kinda an embarrassment to even to let anyone know you had one. Just about everyone skipped that one.

All it took was 10 jumps. That's it. Nothing else. It just wasn't cool back then.

If you want to know it's dimensions, just put a tape measure on it from the apex(top) to the lower lateral band (bottom). Because it is a round canopy, the circumference, the length, the area: actually, everything you would want to know by simply using geometry.

If it is a 'flat circular' then it will be just fine for a tent/"geodome". If it is parabolic, it won't work at all, as the bottom 1/4 will be baggy.

You just get a center pole, and about a dozen ordinary steel posts and lightly drive them in the ground, evenly spaced along the circumference. Hook the "skirt" to the top of each post and you can walk under the edge and have a nice tent. If you want a "geodome, then I guess you'd just stake the skirt down all around. But then - how do get into it? You'll figure it out and have fun doing it!

The opening video didn't show anything but the device in action. All show and cutesy music, but no mechanics of it. Nothing on how it works.

Thanks SDderek for posting the video that shows the actual device mechanism, the net the loop, etc ec.

How about a picture (series of pictures) of it. Just a go pro of it in action-that's all? How about a series of pictures of the device on the packing table?
Better yet, a video of it while on the table showing the trap gizmo working. Just words so far

What leads you to believe the FAA is 'increasingly reluctant'?

Actually, it is I think, an individual FSDO- Flight Standards District Office decision, if I am correct, it is done on a district by district basis. Not as an FAA decision as a whole.

Usually when owners go for a 337 mod, such as camera person steps and external handles, they just copy others already approved in their respective districts; and there is no particular problem if it is a proven and safe mod.. Steps for Cessnas have been approved for probably over 50 years.

Wondering why you think there is increasing reluctance. You may be right, maybe things are changing.

You have not addressed Koppel's or freefly matt's concerns.

Your explanation is that it touched the table, and that is why it took over a hundred pounds to extract the reserve from the bag. To me that is a 'Rarified Air Molecules explanation'. I'm not buying it. Please address how freefly matt's reserve freebag could hold the reserve in, if over a hundred pounds of force was necessary.

Davelpa wondered if the freebag would somehow rub up against a balled up main... Are you saying that if it did, the extraction force would then go up to 100+ pounds? Just because it touched something? Nah.

I looked at the "walking away" video of a reserve extraction, and, from the captions I gather this: You believe that it isn't important if the last rectangle/hole of the flap hangs up, because the canopy finds a way to squirt out of the opposite corner. Path of least resistance. I get that.
If that is true, then why not put a hard action snap on the flap there. After all, if you don't care if the whole flap opens, then why not nail it to the bag there and have every canopy extraction be a "squirt out of the corner?" Apparently the last corner of the flap does not always open, and you are OK with that, At least that is what the video says to me.

The design I would be looking for would be the design that allows the whole flap to open, every time, and not make an excuse about the flap corner's hang up, not take the position that it doesn't matter if the whole flap opens.

The design looks good, and apparently works, despite the flap hang ups. Why not complete the process and design it so the whole flap opens every time? Take this good idea and fix the last "bug" in it, instead of making excuses about why the flap doesn't open in some conditions; or say it doesn't matter if it does.

Possibly. Actually, probably, there are Service Bulletins which will apply to your 1991 h/c. I am not at my loft to look, or check the dates of them, but from memory:
. An inspection, maybe a corrective sewing of the reserve container's lower corners.
. Service bulletin on the reserve pilot chute recommending replacement if it is a Skyhook pilot chute. (weak spring)
. If no RSL must get a retrofit kit that is VERY difficult to install nicely. Master rigger work. (I'd recommend it be done by factory actually).
. Reserve D bag has been updated too. If I recall correctly, it is recommended you buy a newer model.

These are 4 SB's I remember that may apply to your h/c. If they all apply, you'll be spending a lot to have these SB's complied with. A whole lot. These are just the ones from memory. Better get a complete list of SB's that apply. Most are just "Recommended", but when the mfg. recommends, well...it's your choice.

I'd inquire about all of these before you buy an expensive repair project. If all apply you could buy a used modern SB compliant h/c for less. Pretty sure you can get a list of SB's online. If they all apply I'd run from this one.

"...What everyone is missing is the fact that the table or floor acts as a holding hand during a run out of a bag and canopy deployment on the ground...Observation can only be made if the bag hits nothing but air..."

I've heard a lot of "Swoop Kirwin" (famous rarified air molecules video) type wordsmithing excuses, but I'm not buying this one. If it doesn't work on a table. It doesn't work.

We went away from rubber bands on reserves for good reason. Those reasons still exist.

3 twin Otters? Seems unlikely.

Being towed isn't for me. I simply compare water skiing to snow skiing. There isn't even a comparison...at least not for me.
Not only would I not do it, I wouldn't even watch it. Sort of fake, boring and limited. Pushing too hard to try to compare to the real thing. At least that's how I'd look at it.

Oops. I read it wrong. 3 second rule is still in effect.

Although I'm not signing up to do the tests, if the human body can only handle a certain limit of lbs of opening shock, then couldn't harnesses be mfg to handle that limit, and let the canopies be designed for whatever loads the mfg chooses, and then drop the requirement that the harness be stronger than the canopy? If the canopy is designed for more, then that's OK, but not necessary.

Also, I am trying to find, as one poster said, that the part of the testing that says the 3 second deployment requirement is abandoned? ( If it is, then is there no standard now? Or is there a new one (say 4 seconds...)? How many seconds is too many? Or is this simply not a true statement.

Derek,
Finally. A discussion of this topic.

Average a series of measured peak forces. Got it.

Can someone explain an "Average" peak force, as distinguished from a a "Measured" peak force?

I haven't visited TSO D for a while, so could someone post the paragraph or two (not the whole thing) where "average" peak force is discussed?

Average and peak are contradictory terms. (Unless what is being done is to simply average the 'measured peak forces' tests as observed.) I get that. Guess I need to figure out the SAE or FAA definition of an "average peak force".

Jerry ..."started jumping in 1964" hah, you junior jumper you..

Oh forgot to mention, no Cessna had any kind of door then. Just removed and open. Summer and Winter. Flip up doors weren't invented yet. Although I don't remember, I'm guessing half the tree was sticking out.

As I recall, when the 'flip up' door was invented, years later, it must have been in Snohomish Washington, as it was called the "Snohomish Door' for a while.