alan

Quote

Curiousity... some have it.

Agreed, me included, that is why I am curious why more use isn't made of the General Skydiving Discussions Forum for pointless "Gear" discussions.

Quote

Course: $995
Written test: $80
Oral/ Practical exam:$100
Books: $140

Total: $1350

I splurged on a Holiday Inn when I was there which added about another $700 to the bill.

Assuming $50 per repack, that comes to 41 just to recover those costs. Add in the tools, which will vary, and possibly a sewing machine for a serious rigger, varies as well, it could take perhaps as many as 100 repacks to recover the investment. Just something to consider. It is impossible to put a price on the knowledge and skill gained.........oh wait, that would be $995. A better investment than a CYPRES IMO.

Quote

Point is, I might want to upgrade to a 1986 Container to replace my 85

I'm not sure how knowing the DOM of strangers gear, including the main and reserve will give you relevant information on upgrading an '85 container to an '86. We really don't need a seperate forum for Gear and one for Rigging, just use the General Skydiving Discussions Forum, plenty of people will let you know what they are using gear wise.

In this forum, asking a question like: I have a 1985 XXXX container which I am thinking of replacing with a 1986 YYYY container for $$. I can trade in/sell my old one for $$/keep my old one. What do you think?

And of course the answer is, without inspecting either of them, we can't really tell you much. We can offer opinions on whatever perceived strengths and weaknesses may exist between the two containers. And of course refer you to your local riggers. A worthless string of DOM's is pointless in this forum. JMO.

Great info Rob, I was one of those guys with the stylishly loose chest straps before the fully articulated harness came out.

As I recall RI was one of the first and actually marketed the VooDoo as the first rig designed to be freefly friendly from the ground up. They used a new flat #8 Style Ring as one feature and the manual had instructions for proper adjustment. Not the most complete, but they do say tight for the chest strap. Photos MLW above the chest ring being parallel and angled below it to the hip ring.

So, did Sandy engineer this rig for load paths that could better withstand the loads that may be encountered with freeflying? Do you think a rig configured like the VooDoo may have saved the fatality mentioned in this thread? No way to tell for sure, lots of other variables I guess.

I'm getting the impression that the RI type fully articulated harness is actually better, even if overtightened, for withstanding the loads of a head down premie.

Quote

Are you done yet?

Please, you'll have to be more specific. I'll be happy to address your questions and issues as always with quotes from the best available sources.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just curious, whats the DOM of you container? Main? Reserve?

Mine
Container 1985
Main 1997
Reserve 1994

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And your your point is????????????????

Mick.

I agree Mick, seems we can't discuss webbing, load paths, hardware, harness failures here anymore without pointless and endless threads of "mine is" "what is yours", or "post your pics of.....". Some where there is a rule on Bandwidth and Performance Saving. Seems as if we need to wait for 1000 posts.

I know, I waste bandwidth with childish debates.....filled mostly with quotes from PPM, the SIM, John LeBlanc and the CFR's, etc.,.....those we gotta lock up. Geez, I'm doing it again.

Sparky, you contradict yourself so often, how can anyone take anything you say seriously?

Quote

If you have read it, then you should know that if the chest strap is loaded during deployment there is a real good chance it will fail. You MLW is designed to take the load during deployment that is why it is called MAIN LIFT WEB.

Try reading PPM on harness design.

Door, I gone.

Sparky

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree with you and JP that there is very little chance of the failure with the lateral loading. But when you say Type 17 is 2,500 lbs. the friction adapter used with it is rated at 500 lbs.

Ain't fashion a wonderful thing?

Sparky

Please accept my apology for confusing "high risk" with "real good chance." I assure you I will be more careful in the future.

And BTW, Bill has been kind enough to share with us that Ty 17 webbing rated at 2500# IS compatible with the friction adaptor it is used with since it distorts at 2000# and doesn't fail until 2500#. Slippage of the adaptor is a more common occurance, but not with the MS70701. As a rigger, I am appreciative of the information shared in this thread by Bill and Rob and Mick. You however, have jumped in and added nothing. Aren't you supposed to be standing in your corner?

Thanks Rob. Very good info and much more appropriate for this forum than the post a pic of your new rig threads. It may be a little dry reading, but a serious rigger or anyone serious about knowing their gear can appreciate it.

Quote

Executive summary: is it really broke?

No, I have just been trying to get that point across to to Sparky. The other thread is locked.

Quote

If an MS 70701-1 is side loaded or loaded at an oblique angle the 500 lb rating comes in to play, it doesn't take a whole lot of preassure to pop the slide bar out under a dynamic load when the bar is lodad in direction other than inline. This configuration, while not impossible to to attain is for all practical purposes not easy to attain either. Hence the need for the 500 rating and it's proven reliability over the years.

As far as harness adjustments in different configurations during drop tests, no. There are no requirements for this during TSO testing plus it would drive the cost of the whole process up even further than it already is, which is pretty expensive.

Thanks. Another poster in a different thread, which has been locked, seemed to be leaving readers with the impression that an overly tightened chest strap on a rig with chest rings created a high risk of failure. My silly debates have been aimed at getting factual information on the issue. I would hate to be childish and argue an untenable position.

Bottom line is it seems to be a non-issue as no one has come forth with incident reports of properly routed chest strap failures in the field due to overloading. If there were, I would suspect there would have been some sort of industry wide response.

Thanks for the reply. I'll pass on being the test drop dummy. So, am I correct in surmising, the reason that owner's manuals are not very specific on rig adjustment (including chest straps), fully articulated harness or not, is that it just isn't a real issue?

Quote

The MS-70101 may have a "rating" 500 lbs., but luckily it is "good for" well over 2,000 lbs.

Just a point to clarify for me, the Stainless Steel adaptor is rated to 500#, the info I have says the MS-70701 is light weight and similar to the MS22019 but is a light weight stamping and should only be used where a small amount of tensile strength is required. So, is it actually the MS-70701 that is good for over 2000# or are we confusing different adaptors?

Also, if I understand you correctly, tensile load strength has little to do with chest strap webbing choice, but rathter shear strength properties, hence you double it?

Quick question...or two. When you do drop testing for TSO, do you do it with the chest strap in various configurations of too tight, too loose, and properly adjusted? I wonder how much this would affect the failure of the harness, since there is very little in any owner's manuals I have concerning how tight the chest strap should be, RI says in their manual that all straps should be very tight. Would an overtightened chest strap on a rig with chest rings actually present a high risk of failure? I'm under the impression that rigs with articulated harnesses are designed for proper load distribution and that they pass TSO drop testing.

One last thought to share along this line, wouldn't a chest strap and quick fit adaptor that is attached to the MLW via a ring, that allows it to float with the load help to mitigate the risk of the adaptor shearing the webbing on an asymmetrical shock load as well as to the anchoring stitching failing?

Quote

Humor alert: There are a couple of sarcastic points in the following post. So before you get your shorts all in a knot, try to see my dry sense of humor.

Getting a little gun shy around me? Not to worry, I actually have a sense of humor.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, these people that are all concerned about Ty 17 webbing being foolish and all that is really just nonsense. The hardare is the limiting factor and it has more to do with slippage. Bill's post mentions the hardware cutting the chest strap, so it seems the hardware strenth also is not the real issue, or the webbing breaking, it seems that the hardware cuts it.

My impression now is there is a ceratin amount of marketing or "puffery" going on with rigs. Javelin for example since you mentioned them. That chest strap isn't really needed for strength and it is misleading when people associate it with better built. It is needed to make up for poor hardware, which is pretty much the same throughout the industry. Am I on track here or missing something?

Can anyone tell me why some manufacturers use single Ty 17 webbing, others use doubled Ty 17 webbing, still others use single Ty 8, and even others use doubled Ty 8, and then some even mix in Ty 7 with Ty 8 webbing on the chest strap and then use a quick fit adaptor that is rated for a proof load of 500 lbs. or less? Look at your hardware, is it stamped MS 70101 - 1? Check out what it says about that adaptor in the Para-Gear Catalog, item #H337 and H336. Unless you have the SS (stainless stell), they are not even rated to 500#.

Quote

If a balloon is tethered to the ground, is it considered an aircraft for that TSO rig/reserve thingy that some people are worried about? Or can I jump my fixed object equipment?

Well, you are looking for a loophole and the FAA has't looked closely at ballooning for quite some time. For the most part, they won't get involved unless you draw attention to yourself. For example, when operating an aircraft with the door removed or open, there has to be an emegency bailout rig for all on board. A balloon has no doors, so does the pilot need a bailout rig? My guess is if you ask 10 different FSDO's, you'd get 10 different answers. I've never seen a bailout rig for the pilot on a balloon.

A tethered (moored) balloon cannot be operated more than 500 feet above the ground. CFR 101.13 (a) - (2). I've seen several BASE jumpers exit balloons using BASE gear. Does that make it legal? No. Does the FAA care? Not unless one of them bounces or causes damage or injury to persons or property on the ground. CFR 105.14 discusses radio equipment and use requiremnents. Few, if any balloon pilots comply with this. CFR 105.43 (a) answers your question. A balloon is an aircraft and if you plan to intentionally jump from it, you are required to have a TSO'd reserve.

Now, on to reality. A balloon is a big sail. Any wind will cause it to move and that will will put a load on the entire balloon, tether rope, and anchor. No responsible balloon pilot is going to risk putting excessive loads on his aircraft. You just ain't gonna winch a balloon that can carry 3 or 4 jumpers up and down 500' or more, especially if there is any wind at all.

Quote

Sound familiar?

Yes, it does. I posted that to Rob in a different thread. You have copped that same attitude since CReWLL posted a rather correct interpretation of your sketches and then went on to state:
"The other one shows a chest strap that is too tight and allows the load to be transferred to the chest strap. The chest strap is not designed to be load bearing during deployment."

Ever since I replied to the bold faced statement, your replies have been condescending and you have circumvented what I have been trying to tell you.

If my comments in the exchange below seem condescending to you then so be it. I apologize for that. However, condescending or not, it does not change the fact that you were in error when you stated that the chest strap is not load bearing....as evidenced by Jerry and now Mick, among others. If all of this was really about my attitude in my initial post, then perhaps you could have saved everyone some frustration by doing simply as I did in response to Rob. That one was put to rest rather quickly.

Quote

Re: [alan] Harness question [In reply to] Quote | Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The chest strap is not designed to be load bearing during deployment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell that to the family and friends of the young woman that fell out of her harness during deployment after forgetting to fasten her chest strap.

There is such a thing as load distribution. There is a reason for having a chest strap and it is load bearing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think that would be called containment of load. Forgetting to fasten it does not make it load bearing.

If it was load bearing why is the rest of the rig not be made of Type 17 webbing and 500 lb. hardware?

Sparky

Quote

gentelmen, What you are argueing is is assinine.

I agree, but yet now you feel the need to jump in as well.

Quote

Chest straps are load bearing albiet in conjunctin within their applicable load recuirements. they are NOT considerd primary load path's but secondary load paths, that is what they they do. Period! End of story!

You tell me I'm assinine and then restate what I have said in several posts now in reply to Sparky stating: ""The chest strap is not designed to be load bearing during deployment." Perhaps if you posted a reply to Sparky that went something like this:

Sparky, What you are argueing is is assinine.Let it go. Chest straps are load bearing albiet in conjunctin within their applicable load recuirements. they are NOT considerd primary load path's but secondary load paths, that is what they they do. Period! End of story!

then I would be more inclined to let it go. Until then, what is really assinine is you and others jumping in to lend your support to Sparky but then subtly restating what I have been trying to get him to acknowledge.

Quote

Folks, apologize if my condescending tone sparked a feud amongst you all.
I was really trying to make a dig at R.I. and Sun Path for not illustrating their manuals in a manner that a junior jumper could understand. .......

Thanks Rob, this comes across much better. In all likelyhood I'm probably the only one that took offense at your dry humor. I'll apologize for being overly sensitive and harsh and using Sparky as my foil.

Quote

Hey! This ain't English class....

Ahhhh, a sense of humor. I like it.

Quote

I believe he was working for RI when they came out with soft housings.

Hence my comment: "or someone at RI to show him how."

Quote

How many rigs have you actually build yourself?

None, but that wasn't the issue.

Quote

Rob has built quite a few.

I don't think that gives him the right to insult most skydivers by saying they aren't bright enough to figure out how to route the cables in a soft housing. I believe" the average skydiver" was how he put it. Say, I'll bet your an average skydiver....what ever that means.

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I seem to be with you on this one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks Jerry, I respect your opinion.

Sparky

I respect his opinion as well.

Quote

In my opinion (and it is my opinion only), the chest strap does take some loading (how much, I do not know) during normal deployment attitudes.

It would seem that he is seeming to be with you on this one to the point of circling the wagons against me and not agreeing with this statement of yours: "The chest strap is not designed to be load bearing during deployment."

Don't let that door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Quote

Agreed.

With what? This: "The chest strap is not designed to be load bearing during deployment." Sparky said that.

Quote

And I've always thought type 17 chest straps to be foolish.

If you agree they are not designed to be load bearing, then what difference would it make what you use?

Well, it has to hold you in the harness, but that would make it load bearing. Your body does place a load directly on the chest strap, plus it has to hold the MLW from separating off your shoulders....that would be a tensile load.

I don't think the Ty 17 in itself is foolish. The hardware could be beefed up and the method of attachment to the MLW could be improved, see item 20 on page 335 of PPM Vol ll.

Quote

And the debate about load bearing vs non load bearing is really silly.

Yes, and yet you jump in.

Quote

The chest strap is load bearing for the loads it was designed to bear (the body rotating forward in the harness), not a component of the loads on the MLWs.

Almost right. It also takes a component of the MLW, same as the back straps do. Please refer to PPM Vol ll page 243. The problem as Jerry has already pointed out is the vectoring of the load. PPM is in agreement as well (page 335, item 20). Hell, Sparky was even in agreement until he started contradicting himself. I think his diagram was correct, it was later when he flat out stated: "The chest strap is not designed to be load bearing during deployment." that he got off track.

Quote

But it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Yes, kinda like when Sparky was stating that deployment doesn't start until the canopy is out of the bag. What he meant was inflation doesn't start until the canopy is out of the bag. Then he was lecturing someone about opening shock theory.

Quote

If you have read it, then you should know that if the chest strap is loaded during deployment there is a real good chance it will fail.

If the chest strap is overloaded during deployment, there is a chance it will fail. But then that is true of the entire system. I don't recall the report saying anything about chest rings or improper harness adjustment. Did the webbing fail or was it the harware? Maybe it was the stitching. Maybe the stitching had been worn or broken, maybe the selvage edge of the webbing had been damaged or was defective? Do you have info that isn't on that report? What is a "real good chance"? How many properly routed chest straps have failed?

I do know that the chest strap is loaded during deployment, even your buddies Jerry and Zigzg admit that.....whose opions you have stated you respect BTW.

Quote

You MLW is designed to take the load during deployment that is why it is called MAIN LIFT WEB.

It is called the MAIN LIFT WEB because it takes the MAIN load, not the entire load.

Quote

Try reading PPM on harness design.

I have, please see my latest response to Zigzag, you may learn something you missed.

Quote

Door, I gone.

Good riddance.

Jerry, you say this:

Quote

Hi Sparky,
I seem to be with you on this one.

knowing that Sparky has said this:
""The chest strap is not designed to be load bearing during deployment."

then you say this:

Quote

the chest strap does take some loading (how much, I do not know) during normal deployment attitudes.

Which is it, load bearing or not?

Quote

As I look at different photos of ringed harnesses, I have reached the conclusion (no actual proof of this) that a fully ringed harness imposes more load onto the chest strap that would a non-ringed or hip-ringed only harness configuration.

If a fully ringed harness imposes more load onto the chest strap that (sic) would a non-ringed or hip-ringed only harness configuration, would it not then follow that it would be designed to bear that load, i.e. be designed to be load bearing?

I realize that what you agree with is when Sparky said this: "With chest rings it is easy to pull the MLW out of alignment and transfer the opening loads to the chest strap which is not designed to take that kind of load." Which he later contradicted. But who cares, what the hell, it's Saprky. Hell, he confuses deployment with inflation. At least that time he was man enough to admit he could still learn a few things here.