dpreguy

C-9 canopy. Presumeably not steerable. Assuming you do find a harness/continer; check the manual for Butler. They state that if you put a non- steerable parachute in one of their containers, they WILL file a FAA violation- as being forbidden by the mfg..(them) They have a good point. If you call the other manufacturers, you will probaly find they don't want one non-steerable either. In my opinion, any rigger who is intending to put a C-9 into a modern manufacturer's continer should consult with the manufacterer of the H/C prior to doing so. Also, the C-9 is in the "standard" category,and most modern harness continer systems are in the "low speed" category. This compatibility issue also ought to be addressed with the harness/continer manfacturer. In these modern times, most riggers will refuse to pack a pilot emergancy parachute that is not steerable anyway. They should refuse. (my opinion). The C-9 ought to be made steerable, or not used at all, (my opinion again) with a 4 line release conversion modification. This conversion requires a master rigger and elevates the cheap C-9 from cheap, to an expensive choice. If done, it must be done with a conversion kit that is TSO'd, not just cobbled. My advice is to question your committment to a C-9, military surplus non steerable canopy as your first choice for a canopy for a pilot emergency rig. C-9's are bulky, and heavy. They are great for many in the warbird community, as most military planes have a deep seat pan for the bulky C-9, and it nestles in and provides a stable seat. I think all of the 4 mfg's offer a TSO'd seat version for C-9's, but I have not seen a modern back C-9, and doubt Butler, National, Strong or ParaPher make a back version. Aslo, unless your pilot is short and has a lot of head room, the 9 or 10 inches of seat would elevate the pilot, and be like sitting on a basketball, unless there is s seat pan to steady it. If you want to have a cheap option, my suggestion is to go to dealer or a parachute shop that will sell you a complete, modern TSO'd used system, instead of cobbling up a rig from pieces. Might be cheaper, or nearly as cheap as putting one together. And the system is a compatible one. Once again, this is my opinion

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. A quote attributed to many, the latest of which was Colin Powell. Negligence, defined, is failing to abide by some sort of standard. Medical malpractice/ civil,cases, and indeed, professional malpractice of any sort, (accountants, lawyers, riggers, or just about any practice or profession subject to licensing), is covered by jury instructions to the effect that "doctor X failed to perorm his medical duties up to the standard of similarly situated physicians...or up to the standards of recognized texts covering the procedure, or the instructions of the manufacturer of a medical device,"...etc yadda yadda. This standard is the same for all practitioners licensed by a governmental entity, whether the case is civil or criminal. Negligence has only "recently" been transferred to our criminal laws. Negligent manslaughter is used when you are a DWI driver(realize that the DWI is the criminal act which is required to be proven first) and a passenger is killed, child abuse, locking the door of your factory in violation of a fire code regulation and your employees are burned to death because they can't get out, etc etc.. Lawmakers have, and continue to pass criminal laws which use a negligence standard of some kind, and, in my opinon, have gone quite overboard. If a 16 year old child tips over his dad's tractor and is killed, a parent leaves a child in a car on a hot day, oil company executives possbly charged for oil rig fires caused by inadequate oversight, etc; all now bring a review by a prosecutor for the possible filing of manslaughter/criminal charges, based upon the shifting definition of negligence. Manslsughter, by definition, is the unintended causing of another's death. Unintended causation of death is the defintion in every manslughter case. There is gross negligence, reckless conduct, wanton conduct, willful conduct, criminal negligence(begs the question of it's own definition), the list goes on, all used to justify the bringing of charges. Some are entirely justified, and are necessary for the regulation of citizen conduct, as are all criminal laws. A jury or a judge is then called to decide whther such negligent conduct is so eggregious(define eggregious as criminal, whch sometimes relates in juror's minds to the severity or not so severe=numbr of deaths or suffering or something) results) as to fit the definition of "gross" "criminal" "wanton disregard" etc. (read -crimal negligence) to warrant a conviction. Careful in hoping errors and negligence applies to skydiving/aviation etc. The guy who fixes your brakes and the brakes fail, the guy who prepares your food at a restaurant, (I know they aren't licensed by a governmental entity , but neither is a jumpmaster or a coach)and you get sick, or die or something, (remember, in some sates, it doesn't always have to cause a death to warrant a conviction for resultant injury for the application of negligent conduct,) you may be included. (Injuries are enough in some jurisdictions) An incident may easily move from civil negligence to the criminal arena, so easily and so often that the distinction between civil and criminal is blurred. Application of the defintion should not be influenced on a case by case basis, by the number of deaths or the suffering or any other aggravating factor. Just because it is a tradgedy, should not alter the standard. The same standards should be applied to all cases. I suppose that engineers who designed a bridge in a negigent manner, reulting in dozens of deaths could be cimially charged 25 years later? (Assume the negligence was only recently discovered bythe investigation.) A stretch? For example, in skydiving: If a mfg says a Service Bulletin is "mandatory" "recommended" "advisory" or some other term used to describe the SB, then the failure to comply with the SB could be grounds for prosecution? Hmnn... only if it is Mandatory? If a jumper says to the rigger, "It is my decsion not to comply with a SB, so pack it anyway", and the rig is then sold to an unsuspecting buyer and .....well, one could debate whether a manslaughter accusation should or could be made. Removal of an RSL from a rig that comes fron the factory with one, simply removing the RSL lanyard from a rig at the owner's request, ("I do camera, I do CRW"), rigging errors of any type, packing a reserve w/o the battery replacement acc to the mfg. (old Cypres'), failing to hook up a static line , or hooking it up to an inadequate anchor point, (old school) and a hundred other examples in skydiving and aviation alone, can and shoud bring hesitation and worry , lest every mistake, and judgement call be criminalized. OK I realize the brake mechanic, the mother, and the cook at the restaurant aren't licensed), A&P's, rigger's and pilots are, and the list goes on. Overusing the standard of negligence in your own state,"Gross" "Criminal" "Wanton disregard" or what ever wordsmith term is used, might bring a lot more persons prosecuted than you could imagine, for behavior one may agree was just a mistake, but with a death consquence. I am aware the term "overuse' will vary from reader to reader, so this is couched as a comment, expressing my opinon. My opinion: Maintain and limit the manslaughter accusations to the 'DWI resulting in death' and other causes of deaths which we all probaly would agree with, as representing the most necessary applicaion of negligent manslaughter charges to regulate citizens' behavior, and not encourage or push the charging standard to the areas of A&P errors, rigging errors, pilot erros, farm accicents, etc.. This is my opinion, as a former elected District Attorney, who had the respnsibility of determining wheter charges should be brought. Tjis is not a comment to the effect that all, and all forms of negligence be immune from manslaughter charges. There are many that should be maintained and prosecuted. I prosecuted them myself. It is just a comment to the effect that classifying too many forms of mistakes as conduct waranting criminal conduct could result in way too many unjustified manslsughter accusations. This entire post is my opinion. You may repectfully disagree. When I use the term "you" I am not referring to the poster. I appreciate the poster's bringing this issue to light.

Although an AAD would have not prevented this tragic accident, an IUD may have. (OK old joke)

Arizonastone, "newbie" with 30 some jumps: Rig selection: If you used gear in your jump training that was equipped with an RSL, and want to continue jumping a harness/container setup with an RSL, you need to avoid Racer. Their RSL setup is a goofy-afterthought construct, and virtually does not exist on any Racer I have seen. I have been jumping for a million years, and have yet to see a Racer with equipped with one. There is a reason for that. Also,ask just about any rigger what they think of the Racer RSL setup, and whether they believe it would reliably work when needed. You would be well-advised to focus your search on rigs that have proven RSL systems.

To all, I guess I could just call Eric Campbell at SSK and ask; but...what is the defining difference between the Cypres cutter and Vigil's and Argus's? Or, for that matter, the differences between all of the cutters? (Or are they even different? Maybe just a better quality machined product? Just fishing here) Just searching for knowledge. The Italian" partially cut" photos were sooo scary, especially for those rigs with the cutter above the pilot chute=Most rigs nowadays, except the Sunpaths. Trapping the loop above the pilot chute means nothing gets out, even if you manually pull the ripcord!

Long long before any of this cutter failure "era", I just used common sense and combined it with the difficulty in cutting Cypres loop material (have to have a very good par of scissors to cut it) and wondered about the loop being trapped in the cutting piston after a fire. Seemed like a problem to me, simply because the loop material is so tough and tenacious. OK, then came the wave of repositioning requirements from many-most of the rig mfgs. to put the cutter ABOVE the pilot chute. When this came about I still had the same nagging thoughts about the cutting piston not cutting the loop, but just jamming it in the mechanism and trapping it; and of course in that case, even if you pull the ripcord pin, nothing can ever get out! I jump a H/C with the cutter below everything. (Sunpath). In any trapping/uncut loop scenario, I reasoned I could at least I could manually pull the ripcord and it would deploy, without regard to what was happening with the cutter. My choice of H/C years ago was made based on this. I have heard all of the arguments for placing the cutter on the last flaps, and have never agreed with any of these arguments. In my opinion, the cutter of every (non pop top) rig should be under everything in the pack tray.

Oops yes I did mean .025

Dear The Show. My email addres is [email protected]. Since you are working very hard to be a good rigger applicant, I'd like to offer you a list of projects to complete . It isn't a computer generated list, so if you'd email me I'll send it to whatever address you want. It specifically includes all of the tasks in areas of operation I VI of the PTS tasks and a lot more. It's purpose is to acquaint you with the common rigger tasks. It's kinda neat, as it covers just about everything you'll commonly encounter. Also, I have trained and certified one female rigger and she was great and encountered no bias - ever. Walt Green

I have two models, which have evolved from years of inventing copying, refinement, etc. They both have been used-probably hundreds of times, without incident. I manufacture them. Please email me at [email protected] I have personally used smoke in freefall, which continues to burn while under canopy, several hundred times. I have heard and seen of a few incidents, which would have presented a danger to persons on the ground, as well as the skydiver. Please email me and I'll fill you in in detail

You can start with the prices for common rigging services found in the Para Gear catalog. It is hard to find in there, and doesn't cover very many things, but it is current and available. It changes each year, of course. The price list in the catalog is usually in the middle and can only be found by looking and looking-but it is there.

Hmmnn...piano wire-guitar string-picture wire...none of these are good. Go to a Radio Controlled (RC) model airplane store, and you will find the only wire that actually works. .125 is the size (diameter)and works for all applications: Cyrpes closing loop to the big stuff. Make it about 10 inches long, more or less. My handle construction: I put the handle end of the two wires in a vice with the shaft part of a big screwdriver and take a full turn around the screwdriver shaft, then cut off the excess with dykes. This results in two circles at the "handle" end. Then take a couple of pieces of something 'grip-ey' and make washers about the size of quarters. I use leather and just use a big hole punch to make the big diameter and a small O punch to make a hole in the middle of the leather "washer". Make two washers. Now get a bright pull up tape and punch a size-O- hole in the end . Use a brass grommet you can get at any hardware store. I've never tried to use a parachute grade spur grommet, but that may work. I use the cheapo brass hardware store kit that comes with a dozen brass grommets and a tool and a die used with hammer setting. Put the ferrrule part of the brass grommet on the die, and then shove the first leather washer onto it. then the two wire circles, followed by the brightly colored pull up tape, and finally followed by the second leather washer and finally, the brass washer. Set the grommet by hammering in the usual manner to set a grommet and you nave a beautiful wire threader to use for any finger trapping use. I have used these for about 10 years, and have made and given away dozens of them. They work. If you want to experiment with bigger wire sizes, that's your call, but I've never had any trouble with one size for all lines

Has anyone seen, or know how to see, or find, the 2008 German movie: The Red Baron?

I'm replying to my own post. Guess I should have read the manuals before wasting electrons. Sorry. I don't have internet at my loft. Had to go there to get the manuals. Question1, Was the Catapult pilot chute installation mandatory? Answer: (For the first Reflex models) quoting form the Reflex Owner's Manual, 1st edition, July 1995, page 29. "The CATAPULT secondary pilot chute system must (underlined) not be removed at any time. Removal of this system will void the TSO" Answer: for Relex II: Reflex II owner's manual, Feb 2002. Page 21 "Removal of the CATAPULT secondary pilot chute is allowed, but not recommended. Removal shold be performed by a Rigger". I guess that's it. No need to belabor with Q 2.=Self explanatory. Also: Another quote, from page 21, Reflex II Manual, identical in both manuals. Title of paragraph: The CATAPULT Horseshoe Malfunction Extraction System. "The CATAPULT System was designed and developed as a more reliable and consistent method of reserve extraction during a 'Horeshoe' type malfunction of the primary reserve pilot chute......" END

Ken Bader is a Master Rigger in Omaha. Look him up in the LSPC website. He's good.

Reading these comments was great, as it made me recall the discussions attending the introduction of this device years ago. Thanks to all of you for updating the info and contributing current insights and opinions. However, my two questions are not related to any of those discussions. Your commment, "... Catapult ...standard configuration for Reflexes", prompts me to ask question 1. Question 1: Was the Catapult feature an OPTION to be selected, or omitted when the assembly was purchased? If it was an option, Question 2 need not be answered. However, If it was a (pick one; "standard configuration/requirement/factory assembly not to be tampered with", whatever,) then I'd like an answer to question2. - I am not at my loft to reread the Reflex manuals, so the answer may be right there) Question 2: If a rigger is presented with a Reflex for an I&R, and the Catapult pilot chute is NOT on the bridle, should he pack it as is, or insist the owner have one put on? Or is it the owner's choice?

Patworks, Yup. My first jump, August 1961. White "Derry slot" surplus 28 footer. For those of you who never heard of Derry slots; they were just that. Slots to turn the canopy. No forward speed. Just a different view. Dropzone near Air Force SAC headquarters, (Oops, forgot, some of you never heard of that either=Strategic Air Command)-Omaha,NE, where there was a surplus store. Pick up a surplus B-4, 4 pin back rig, complete with 28 foot flat circular for about $30. Took rig to Master rigger in Lincoln NE to add the big D rings on the front lift webs, to hang the belly mount reserve. Most of us just borrowed the belly reserves from the guy who just jumped, because we didn't have one for ourselves. Main canopy modifications? We looked at a picture from somewhere, to get an idea, and we then just cut out the "mod' with a soldering iron. Melted the edges-good for a few jumps before fraying too much. Only after we had a few jumps on our creative "mods", to see if we like the effect, did we send the rig to the rigger to put edge tapes around the holes. By then the edges were frayed, sometimes ripped to the French Fell seam of the panel, so the rigger would have to repair the rips before putting the folded edge tape on. You were considered a sissy if you had egde tapes sewed on right away. Your bravado was kinda measured by the amount of loose fabric edges. The more the better. We thought we were so cool. Pulled whenver we felt like it. Not actually that low, but ...whenever. Actually, the common practice was to pull very high, until you were "experienced"=about 20 jumps. Then stop watches were introduced. Wore them because they were cool, but we actually didn't even look at them that much. Just wore them because they looked sexy on the ground. Big old half pound airplane altimeters, about 3 inches in diameter and about 5 inches long-with spinning big hands for the hundreds. Once again, we didn't really refer to them that much, because the hundreds hand spun around so fast, and it was hard to focus on the thousands needle, which was smaller anyway. Once again, wore them because we wanted to look good on the ground. One guy took the face off to break off the hundreds needle. Broke the glass face. Bent the long needle off by bending it back and forth, and jumped it. Of course, on the first jump the other needle got broken off too. Someone got wise and altimeters became available with only one needle for thousands! Wow! What a concept! Then we started to actually look at them. Of course we switched the ripcord pocket from cross pull to the right side. We all did that by ourselves. And...of course, detached the hand tacking from the end of the ripcord housing, and re tacked it about 6 or 7 inches higher up the housing, so near pull time, we could slip the ripord out of the pocket and hold on to it, and have the ricpcord handle in our right hand, and still "fly'. It was called a floating ripcord, because it did just that. Floated. (actually it was just loose) so if you stupidly dropped it, it would fly wherever. Probably under your armpit. Wherever it was, it was out of sight, so to get it, you'd have to strip the housing down to get the wildly flinging damn thing, or just give up and pull your belly reserve. For those who didn't retack the housing so well, the housing, along with the flinging handle just flew behind you about 18 inches. It was, of course, then totally out of reach, because it was, by then attatched only at the mounting plate which was in the back of your neck area. Even if you rolled over on your back, it was still flying in front of you, just out of reach, or waving aound so wildly you couldn't get it. If you DID get a hold of the housing, and work your way to grasp the ripcord, (think about it) you still couldn't pull the pins, because no one's arm is long enough. Yes, we heard about jumpers trying to get it and die because they ran out of time. So, someone decided to sew a webbing band around the housing and the FLW on the right side, so the housing wasn't just attached by the hand tacking. After all, we didn't have actual tack cord, we used whatever thead we had. I seem to remember going to a shoe repair shop to get linen cord. That's how the so called "mudflaps" we have on all of our rigs today was invented. One was added to the left side, just for looks. (And oh yeah, some guy was left handed, so he sewed the pocket on the the left FLW, keeping in mind it was "wrong facing". So, his rig was a left hand pull. That made sense to him anyway. ) Now the function of the covers are more to cosmetically hide the hardware and the sewing there, and be a place for logos and pretty designs. The good old days weren't so good. People died. And considering how few of us were actually jumping back then (PCA era), and how few jumps per year we made back then a really large percentage just didn't make it.

Called SSK talked with Eric C. He has not received any position statement form Airtecgmbl. I asked him to get his company to make a definitive statement. It would help if they would. Then called my FAA FSDOand he opined it was the airman's/parachutist's responsibility if a governmental rule change causes something to "time out". Not the rigger's reposibility, when it was properly legal/in compliance when the work was performed. This is one FAA official's position, and, makes sense to me. (I haven't figured out where to do a resume, guess I'll get busy and figure it out. Master rigger, dpre for Colorado, not touting any elaborate background)

I don't think anyone could claim to be surprised by this rule change. It is a new rule. Live with it. It doesn't make any difference whether one "supports" it or not. Game over. I didn't see the implementation date of Dec 19th, but will take that as correct. (Yes I read the part that it becomes effective 30 days after the ...notice date). This is all pretty simple: Until Dec 19th, the existing rule is in effect. After Dec 19th, the new rule is in effect, and since it states,"...approved parachute...blah blah..must have been packed within 180 days of use...blah blah...", then that's what it means. Yes, unless there is some quick interim advisory, it means that it is "retroactive." So what? What's the problem? I don't see any legal or practical problem, except the Cpres battery in Cypres 1's will be timed out in many instances. (Or in rare instances , a Cypres 1 unit could time out) Opinion: I predict CypresGimbl/SSK will readily accommodate this transition period, with certain logical instructions or cautions. I have no information or authority to say that they will, it's just my guess, as these folks are extremely astute, and were not surprised at all by this rule change. I'll call Eric C. tomorrow and see if the company has taken a position on batteries or units that time out in Cypres 1's becuase of this rule change. If they have, (or haven't) I'll post. Since Cypres 2's have a + 6 month window, they aren't affected in any way.

Johan, Tell me about this bridle extension. How long? etc? only have one jumper I know who psycho packs and she doesn't have an extension. Iam not knowlegeable about this method, altohough I have obvviously heard about it for 20 years.

Correct on that. Give the designer his due. The Irvin versionl apparantly never got anywhere. (not that parawings were very widely used either.) I never understood why parawings needed the opening inhibitors in the first place. Obviously they did, otherwise the inhibitors wouldn't have been deemed necessary. But; why would a parawing open any harder than a round? It is one surface, and "kinda" the same as a round - cups air and has long lines. Obviously it must have had a dangerously hard opening shock, necessiating crative minds to invent something to slow it down. Not that I really care much, but I was always curious as to why they would open so hard, just because it was kinda triangular instead of round. I saw and handled, kinda in disbelief, Quotethe old velcro wraps and decided to leave that one to the experimentors. Thankfully, the ram air parachutes came on the scene.

Whatever it is, it is not a Rogallo Para Wing. Only took one glance to tell me that. The Rogallo had fewer, (hence larger) panels throughout, and looked "puffier" than the one pictured. Also, every picture of a Rogallo I've ever seen had a checkerboard pattern. OK, I realize that you can't go by colors, but... I was around when they were being jumped, but can't remember actually seeing one in the air. I am not at the loft where my Poynter 1 is located. There is probably a picture of it there. Apparantly the one in the picture has been correctly ID'd, so no need.

The dished up/dented grommet where the bridle goes through is pretty common. It's part of my main inspection rigger check when the canopy is hung on the bar, prior to reattatching to the risers to the container. I disassemble the bag from the bridle and re set with the correct grommet tool and die. If the grommet is too bad, it needs to be replaced. If the fabric is not still good around the grommet, it should be patched with an overlay patch, and then a new grommet installed. (If a D bag is that dogged out, just get a new one). Whatever you do don't let that dished up/dented/ halfway loose grommet out of your shop. It is not airworthy.

Para Gear It's been in their catalog for the last 10 years. $ About $15. Yikes - pretty old gear - or old jumper who still needs this mod. Did about a dozen, but not for about 5 years. Is that oldQuote gear airwothy?