accumack

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    170

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by accumack

  1. I have a story along these lines from when I worked at Para-Flite. Someone took a Strato-Star to Dave Dewolf to have some work done on it. Dave deemed it not airworthy when the owner didn't want to spend the money on it to fix it. Dave returned it with not airworthy tags on it.. The person jumped it unrepaired and broke his femur he sued Dave and Para-Flite. There was no doubt we would win the case the insurance company decided to settle as the case was picking jurors. Shortly there after insurance disappeared. The insurance company caused immense damage to all manufacturers.

  2. On 7/18/2022 at 8:46 PM, jmd said:

    Sure thing ... Some round reserve that I never heard last packed at Flying High in Alberta Canada has aleft hand side direct pull deployment canopy and lines next to new ... Main has no manufacturers tag on the tail ... not sure where else to look ... just plain can't see one ... Slider has been cut between the webbing for a blow hole ... bag is a split one and I'll get you the finer details for sure and thanks for taking the time! Might have shortened lines for a CRW Dog ... I donno ... no expert here ...

    Look in the left or right end cell for a stamp with the serial number and date of manufacture.

  3. · Edited by accumack

    2 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

    Well I bought it from Joe Crotwell who was the original owner. I think he worked at AASP and built it himself. So apparently he made it that way on his own preference.

     

    If I could repeat the question...

    I've been trying to find the answer to that for some time and nobody seems to know or agree.

     

    I'll shut up now.

    Dick Morgan at ParaFlite. He Built a bag for my Strato Cloud several years earlier with a stow pocket shortly before free packing.

     

    • Like 1

  4. 54 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

    Hi Jim,

    Can you tell us when the Safety Flyer came on the market?

    Also, when did the 5-cell Swift reserve come on the market?

    Curious minds want to know. ;P

    Jerry Baumchen

    If I remember correctly the Safety Flyer was released to the public in 1978 and the Swift 5 cell reserve was early 1980s maybe April 1981. It was when the first Space Shuttle was launched as I was in Deland putting the finishing touches on the Harness and container and I got to see the shuttle from 10,000 feet and couple of days later the Swift System was introduced at the Easter boogie at Z-Hillz! The Handbury rig I had a problem with was one of the first one he built for square reserves and I carried it back from the 1979 Nationals at Richmond IN.

  5. · Edited by accumack

    18 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

    The Handbury rig has a two-pin (and two-riser) reserve container and would not accommodate a free-bag, which it's my understanding was developed at PF with the Safety Star and Safety Flyer.

    It had 4 risers and was setup by Jim for the safety Flyer reserve. The loop did not come from the bottom of the container.

     

     

    • Like 1

  6. · Edited by accumack

    16 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

    I'm well familiar with the Handbury rig - I still have one in the closet. The reserve riser covers are kind of over the shoulders and, as you say, wrap over the risers and velcro under the harness. The main risers then route over the top of them, and I can see where if the main was still in place, they could impede the reserve risers from opening and clearing the covers.

    What kind of square reserve did you have in it and how was it packed?

    It was a Safety Flyer packed per Para-Flite instructions as I worked at PFI. The malfunction was Handbury used a bridge for the PC bridle of I believe was made of 1" Type 4 instead of running the on the horizontal backstrap. The handle somehow got between the bridge and backstrap. So it was a terminal opening.

     

  7. 5 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

    That's interesting. Most likely main risers tightly packed over the top caused the problem? And a round reserve wouldn't really spin and dive as a result.

    Side note trivia question - Has anyone else ever deployed a square reserve from a Handbury rig?

    The riser covers had velcro on the underside of the harness and this was with a square reserve. With the the main in the container the harness was tight and pinched the covers closed.

  8. On 2/17/2022 at 2:03 PM, eric.fradet said:

    not sure it is a non-issue to jump a rig, with riser cover not able to open when you pull the reserve only, whatever it is legal or not, Sandy Reid is dishonest and not qualified enough to certify a rig without even tested it, It is exclusively from France since there is no other country where people like me are paid only to find out the design flaws

    The fact that Mr. Fradet is not objective and he has not recused himself from investigating, his bosses need to know he is using his position to Slander one of the most knowledgeable trustworthy people on parachute equipment in public for private gain. I in fact had an issue with riser covers on a Handbury rig years ago that did not release on a totaled main it did not cause any injuries and was just a nuisance easily felt with. Mr. Fradet you have no credibility in this issue!

    • Like 1

  14. · Edited by accumack
    spelling

    What troubles me is canopy opening distances today are hundreds of feet longer than in the past and some are killing people. The shape of the deceleration is important. At Para-Flite we had firm but consistent openings. I don't believe any reserve currently manufactured really meet the opening requirement of the TSO! I believe every manufacturer fudges the numbers. The reason most likely is the canopy cannot with stand the openings without destruction on the high speed test thus slowing deployments on cutaways the most common type of malfunction. Some of the requirements for militaries of various countries mandated documented drop tests with openings from 400' with zero airspeed. I don't think there are many current canopies if any that can meet that spec. Also we drop tested and TSO'd every size canopy in a family as opening characteristics are different and I'll guarentee most manufacturers only test one size and claim it is a minor modification (it is not) some even are using a TSO from an earlier canopy and saying it is a small modification. If the FAA ever looked into it most reserves would be grounded (it was a dirty little secret)! We made zero P canopies and didn't have a problem. There quite a number of proprietary design concepts to control the openings that I can tell a lot of manufacturers have no Idea what is going on. Let me throw this out there. A major manufacturer swore that the nose angle is what made hard opening canopies. The nose angle has very little to do with it. At Para-Flite we did so much R&D work to understand what happens.

     

     

    • Like 1

  15. · Edited by accumack

    1 hour ago, Binary93 said:

    Could someone please add some reference/image/more details on this one, for us, young padawans? :)

    We used to roll pack the canopy and there was a strap sewn to the canopy on one of the Vee tapes for the B lines on the rib. You would roll the canopy then fold the lower portion and close the strap with one line stow and the rest of the lines were coiled in the container. It was important that the fold would open the strap after the line stow was released or you would have a streamer. I no longer have the instructions or I would post them. This was discontinued after a few people had lines grab one of the flaps. Using it with a d-bag would eliminate that problem. Dick Morgan invented the strap in the mid to late 1970's.

     

  16. Larger canopies have a larger volume than smaller canopies so fill time on a smaller canopy is less. Having worked in R&D at Para-Flite and done many test jumps and drops from small canopies to large the larger canopies opened softer. I think the hard opening problem is related to an out of sequence deployment. If that is the case the solution would be to use something like the free pack strap we used in the 1970s but still put it in a deployment bag. That would insure you are at line stretch before inflation starts and the slider is still in position.

     

    • Like 2

  18. You really need to document the the loads during opening. What I'm seeing here nobody has any Idea what they really are. At Para-Flite more than 40 years ago we used instrumentation on opening forces. You cannot use simple calculations as the opening characteristics are very complex. I can tell you from experience that a 3g opening can feel much harder than a 7g opening. The duration is a key point. I had several 14g plus openings documented.

     

  21. 1 hour ago, pchapman said:

    Interesting to see in that document some of the background to the situation. So a bunch of people in the industry were talking over the years-- Sandy Reid (RI) with Eric Fradet & Bill Gargano (Airborne Systems) & Henri P. (Sunrise) for example. Interesting that Sunrise Rigging licenced Eric's MARD. [Edit: took out half a sentence as I mixed two companies up.]

    CAVEAT: My take on this is just as someone skimming over everything, with a bit of time to spare, not any sort of lawyer understanding the patent system or going over every claim word by word.

    Eric's patent claim isn't at all what one would think from a quick look. We might think: "Hey, Eric's MARD uses a pin with a grommet or similar, in all sorts of possible variants as seen in his patent drawings." In casual discussion over the years, that's what you always hear, about "Eric Fradet's pin system MARD".

    Then we look at RI's system, with a metal device that hinges to let the RSL line release when pulled in a certain direction, not using bridle slack or grommets. Seems totally different, not obvious or like pin systems.

    But the actual claims in the detailed wording of the patent seem to be much broader, as presented in the lawyer's letter.

    The patent doesn't talk initially about pins, but just a connection between RSL system and reserve bridle! So it seems to claim ANY attachment mechanism between RSL and bridle.

    (Where the claim also includes other necessary background stuff -- of course it has to function as a MARD, staying attached or disconnecting depending on the situation.And the system has have the usual skydiving parts, like a main and reserve parachute and a way to stow the RSL.)

    It's almost like all those drawings of various pin & loop & grommet designs are just there as camouflage, and to show off some possibilities. Those are covered in 20 other claims, but are minor if the claim #1 covers any RSL to bridle connection.

    But if every connection is claimed, so how does Eric's patent not infringe on the Skyhook?

    Well, I have only skimmed the Skyhook patent, but its claims are all about the hook & slot thing.

    So is it a situation where Booth got the patent on hook & slot MARDs, while Eric basically then got a patent that covered everything else no matter how clever? (Except say the Mirage TRAP, because as packed, there is NO  connection between RSL and bridle. Weird but clever.)

    (Eric's patent does mention the Skyhook in the Background section, saying it isn't ideal because in the case of a total malfunction situation, the Skyhook doesn't disconnect as quickly as it should, potentially delaying the reserve opening.)

    If you have time Mr. Fradet, I sure would be interested to know the explanation. Patents can be very complex and opaque to the layman.

    Eric's patent: long patent URL for Eric Fradet's MARD
     

     

    Well that sounds like the old pilotchute assist from the 1960s on static lines so that would be prior art and void the patent!

    • Like 1

  22. 7 hours ago, eric.fradet said:

    it cannot be licensed from Airborne since it is already patented by me

    Again your beef should be with Airborne not Sandy!

  23. My understanding is it is licensed from Airborne so your fight is with Airborne and not Sandy. Since he licensed it from Airborne I would expect Sandy to be silent!

  24. I read the whole thread. Now  some questions for you. Have you asked for a refund of the money that went to the museum? If so what was the response? Do you ask for refunds of your tax dollars that go to things you don't agree with?

    USPA is the agency that is central for all things skydiving in the US so why shouldn't they support a very important part of the sport.

    The only narrow mindedness I see is someone seems to want to run the museum and is pissed he can't so is trying disrupt it. Good things take time.