RiggerLee

I just happen to have an unpacked wings sitting in my lap right now. I don't think it's the bottom corners of the reserve tray so much as the upper corners. If you look at how it's constructed, the reserve tray is sewn into the main tray. The U shaped sew line is a good half inch inside edge of the back pad. The main tray is then sewn to the back pad 1/2 inch out side that. The top edge of the tray has an ear at the corner that comes up higher allowing a more diagonal cut to the top edge of the flap. This allows the top edge of the side flap to better cover the top corner of the free bag, makes it pretty. The wings free bag is designed with a lot of volume in the upper ear. It's pleated in the top of the free bag and has more volume there ten any rig I can think of. The make that extended ear, corner of the side flap, wrap over that greater bulk at the top corner of the free bag they tacked it down to the outer edge of the main tray/yoke/riser cover. It's on that outer sew line 1/2 inch beyond the sew line of the tray. They also left some slack, a pleat in it between the tray and that zigzag tack to give room for that ear. So the objective was to make the top corner of the side reserve flap wrap over that corner and then pull it down so that it cupped over it and did not pooch up. Make it pretty. Well they did that. It forms a very nice cup over the corner of the bag. Depending on the shape of the shoulder and where the yoke rides over the shoulder it can bee a really good pocket. Pick the rig up by it. Or in the case above, tow the PC from it. You'll see things like the above in many rigs. Just not to the same extent or all together. They basically built little box corner at the top of both corners of there side flaps. I can hook my fingers into the corners and pick the rig up by them. Doesn't have to be this way. Let's look an another rig at the opposite end of the spectrum. The Icon has hardly any ear on the top of there side flap as I recall. Not only does it not extend over beyond the bag but the top edges of the bag tend to extend out. I think it's the icon that I'm thinking of. This is fixable. Wings just needs to do some work on their pattern sets. PC isn't that bad. But the cap on it could be smaller. You don't need that big of a cap. It's just holding the spring back. It has less advantage to lever open that top and bottom flap. And the bottom flap doesn't need to be so stiff and heavy and complex. Do we really need all those stripes and piping and shit? Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

So what your saying is that you have a very nice soft opening canopy. And you're complaining about that? Would you like to trade for one of the canopies I've jumped? Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

As the the Javelin thing. Even when done properly It still leaves a stiffened lip for a line to sench bellow. When yo pull on it the tong would squeeze in below that lip giving it a good place to catch on and lock down around. Pull and you start breaking those stitches and stripping the tape upwards. I think you're looking at the after math of a horseshoe tearing that stitching. I never thought much of that retrofit mod. I don't think they had a lot of faith in it ether. They went 10,000 rigs and 10,000,000 jumps before it happened the first time. I think it was propaganda so they could say that they fixed some thing. They figured they could go another 10,000 rigs and another 10,000,000 jumps before it happened again to one of their "Modded" rigs. And I'd say those guesses turned out to be just about right. Actuaries rock! Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

How about retacking the ripcord housing? Repairing, shortening, replacing or just retacking broken zigzag stitches of leg pads? How about replacing dinged, burred grommets? Replacing broken had tacking on reserve PC's. Replacing loops in pop top PC's Like strong PEP. Tacking risers, ripcord pockets. Most manufactures allow sen riggers to do repairs on their canopies. They generally give some kind of guide line as to what constitutes minor and major, Size, distance from seam, location on canopy, etc. Point is we work on TSO'd components all the time. Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

Botched? or just what happens when you do the mod? Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

Unless the art work is awesome, like some of the old racer pop tops. So to the question of SB and who the manufacturer can authorize to perform them. If the manufacturer is making a change to the system. Establishing a new approved design, possible discarding the old one, then is performing the SB, bringing the rig into compliance with this current approved configuration, an alteration to the design and who can they authorize to perform it? Examples: SB on the old Reflex containers where they pulled the grommet and slipped in a peace of tape and reset it upside down. Could they authorize a senior rigger to perform this SB? Let's take a bigger example. The Mirage cypres cutter mod. Moving the Cutter from one flap to another and sewing that channel on. Bigger job but I should point out that the very argument for being able to include the AAD in the design at all is that it in no way affects the normal function and airworthiness of the rig. That was the argument for it not affecting the TSO. So whether it works or not, whether the wires are under stress and break or not. None of it theory affects the normal function or the TSO. So if it's irrelevant to airworthiness, the argument for it's inclusion in the first place, could they authorize a senior rigger to perform that SB. If this is not an "Alteration" and the function of the AAD can not affect airworthiness is this a minor repair or a major one. Some of this is stretching the point a bit but bringing it back around to the original question. What are the boundaries of what a manufacturer can authorize a senior rigger to do in a SB. By the definition of any action that brings a rig in to compliance with an approved configuration being a repair not an alteration, and if the manufacturer has a lot of leeway in determining what they call a minor or major repair, then they could in theory authorize many SB to be performed by senior riggers. I don't really see any of this as a problem. Generally I think SB are well written and do not stretch the pribbledges or capabilities of the rigger that are authorized to perform them. But the Masterrigger1 guy brought up the question and all else follows from it. Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

In theory, if you did it a lot or if it was a big bend. Remember the pin is like formed by a hammer extrusion process. It's pretty tough and ductile/malleable not sure the correct word in this context. We've been straightening minor bends in pins forever. So in a properly made pin, excluding the capewell fiasco, straightening a small bend is no big deal. Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

Ok, so if a harness is approved in multiple configurations, or in this case lets say over a range of lengths. And you are calling this change from the original construction length, with in that range, a repair because they manufacture other containers of that pattern set to those lengths. In other words there is a president for it to be built in that approved configuration even though this particular rig was not. And based on that you call this a repair. So how about the ROL to BOC question? If they built this rig in both configuration, and you were to change it from one to the other, would that be an alteration or a repair? Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

Cop out. You can do better then that. So what if the manufacturer also builds the rig with BOC's? The manufacturer builds that version. Is it still an Alteration to change This rig to That version? If you say yes based on the original version of this particular rig then how about some of the other examples I gave concerning the materials tracking issues with repairs now no longer matching the original construction data? Changes in harness measurement? Changes in components like ripcords, cutaway handles, main PC, main bag, main slider systems? Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

Started to write this earlier but I got distracted. It's always been my understanding that only a Master rigger can sign off or apply to the FAA for approval for an alteration. The two I did through the FAA were signed by Stanford. I think the more interesting question regards the manufacturer. We've always been lucky here to be top heavy with really good riggers. Multi generational. There has always been a Master around to sign paper work on a repair or SB or what ever. Some places are not as lucky. Manufacturers have a motivation to authorize senior riggers to perform SB, AD, alterations, maintenance, etc. on there equipment. There are some standards that you can reference regarding what constitutes a minor vs. major repair. Those debates are eternal. Often they conclude with "What does the manufacturer say?" Some of them are clear but a lot have really... lose definitions. Some I don't think know the difference. As to alterations I've been told by manufactures that a master did not even need to call them to get approval. It was when I needed to add another set of three rings to my container for cutaways. It was clearly an ALTERATION. I wanted to send them a drawing and get them to sign it. They were telling us to just do it. That's when I got to drive down to the FSDO to at least get some one to sign it. That's an extreme example but SB are a lot more common. My question comes down to this. What constitutes an Alteration? Is there an actual definition to this? In theory there is an approved configuration for the equipment, a drawing some where reflecting the "Design". You could say that an alteration was any thing that took it out of compliance with that "Design". Example: say you wanted to re trim your canopy steeper. Crw guys do this sort of thing all the time. I think that would constitute an "Alteration". But what if the company has multiple specs for that canopy, several trims, also common. In this case it would still be in compliance with one of their "Designs". If they allow senior riggers to replace lines or reline canopies... Is this an alteration? By the same logic. Say there is a "Design" a SB comes out to fix a problem. Let's say that it's to move the closing loop on the main from a tong to the bottom flap. They have now established a drawing for this. This new configuration is now the "Design" of the rig. If a senior rigger repairs the rig to bring it into compliance with the "Design" established by the manufacturer is he altering the container. He took a peace of equipment that the manufacturer had declared unairworthy. and brought it back into compliance with the manufacturers "Design". If it had a broken line, out of conformance with the drawing, and he repaired that line, bringing it back in to conformance with the "Drawing". Would that be an "Alteration"? You could define "Alteration" as any thing taking the equipment out of conformance with the manufacturers established "Design". You might define a "Repair", be it minor or major, as an action that brings a peace of equipment that it out of conformance or standard back into conformance with the manufacturers "design". Under this definition many SB, approved "Alterations", could come under the heading of "Repairs". And if it is the manufacturers prerogative to define what constitutes a "Major" or "Minor" repair on there equipment, often people list the manufacturer as the first authority on this and industry standards as the second, then in theory the manufacturer could authorize a lot of SB. Next question. If we say that there is a "Design", a "Drawing" for this peace of equipment and that any thing that takes it out of compliance with that "Drawing" constitutes an "Alteration". How specific do we want to be. For every container or canopy out there, there exist a file. For example when I worked for Stanford, There was a file for every rig he ever built. It contained every thing, the original order form, specs on the container pattern set, every measurement in the harness, ripcord and housing lengths, tracking information on every peace of hard ware, fabric, webbing, all tracked through purchase order number back through lots in every supplier. You could pull that file and know literally every thing about that rig. So, lets say you decide to lengthen the main lift web. Common work done by master riggers every where. Take out one stitch pattern, move the webbing down an inch, and resew with the same pattern. Rig fits the new owner now. Is this rig still in compliance? It may match the original manufacturers "Design" but it no longer matches the "Drawing" and data in the file. Measurements have changed and the thread no longer comes from that lot. If fact where does that thread come from? Where is the control or specs for it? In the file that junction was inspected and signed off. No more. And it's not like those dimensions can't be important. Harness fit and design isn't actually that simple. People have fallen out before. This is just one example. What about replacing a lost ripcord? That length is specified and can be critical. Sound silly but I'll give you a precedent. Javelin says that you can't replace their ripcord with any other even from another TSO'd manufacturer. They have their special terminal pin. It's in their drawing. They call that an "Alteration" and do not authorize it. My point is that maybe we should be treating these things less casually It's not that much of a stretch to ask some one to notify a manufacturer and get permittion to alter a MLW. It could be a standard form and then the manufacturer could have tracking on that. If it needed to be repaired they could send materials or hardware and have tracking information on both rather then to have it replaced with twenty year old webbing and a peace of hard ware from Para gear and don't get me started on the thread. So what is an "Alteration"? Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

Agree. I don't think $25 would cover the annoyance of the shrinkage you will get when you wash it. Washing a tight rig can turn it into a night mare. Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

Let me preface this by saying that I have never been in the military. What follow was explained to me by some one who has been. He was rather drunk at the time of the conversation and my memory may be imperfect as well. I do think that there has been blatant abuse and violation of the civil rights of the prisoners in custody in the "War on terror". I firmly believe that it is unlawful to hold them indefonantly. At least this guy got some kind of trial and sentence which puts him ahead of many. This may shock you, I realize I sound like a winy liberal when I say this. The truth is I'm about as far right as you can get. I ran into Gangus Kan at a party the other night and we got to talking politics and he basically told me that I needed to chill out. My solution to all of this is that we need to follow the law. I talked to a retired army officer about this once and he straightened me out. There are "Laws", rules, or at least agreements that cover this. They go back for centuries. When you fight a war. Every one picks teams just like in gym class. They all put on uniforms, skins and shirts. They line up on opposite sides of a field, just like in gym, and they fight. It's like dodge ball in PE. That's how it's done. There are agreed on penalties for cheating. If you are caught fighting out of uniform you are hanged or shot depending on what ever is most expedient, some times there isn't a good tree or rope available. That's one of the rules. There are other rules, or at least gentleman agreements. Like you don't serrate the edge of your bayonet or use hollow point/dumb dumb bullets. There are lots of rules that we've agreed on over the years. Like you don't put some one in a cage and set them on fire and watch them burn. In fact there are a lot of rules about prisoners. You actually have a responsibility to protect them. That is if they fought by the rules. I think it's time that we all started following the "Laws", rules, agreements that every civilized nation on earth has committed to. I believe that it is a violation of their human rights to hold these people indefinably. Ether they play by the rules like good solders, in which case they are prisoners and have the rights of prisoners, they are laid out in the rules. Or they are an... "Unlawful Combatant", I think that's the right term. By the laws of land warfare that is not allowed. They must be marched out into a courtyard and hung by the neck until dead, or shot. When ever we catch one of these people fighting out of uniform, with out a direct chain of command, I think there were some other requirements but I can't remember them, we need to execute them. They should be interrogated. That's fair. The rules allow that. But once you squeeze every ounce of intelligence out of them they must be executed in a speedy and humane manner as stated above. It is a violation of there innate human rights to imprison them indefently with out trial. This is my understanding. Apparently they actually have classes in this when they make you an officer. Could some one chime in and clarify this for me. Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

Sorry I wasn't clear. I mint a master rigger if it was a non TSO'd part or the an approval from the FAA/Manufacturer for a master rigger if it was a TSO approved part. My bad. It's my illiteracy showing through in my writing. Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

Define, non structural. There are approved, TSO'd, componants and... every thing else. A main container is not TSO'd a main is not TSO'd but still it's not supposed to be altered by a non rigger. If an "alteration" is approved, almost any thing could be done even to the reserve tray and harness. There isn't really a definition for "non structural". So depending on how anal you want to be, sewing a "patch" whether it's painted or not, onto a component could be called an alteration requiring ether a master rigger or FAA/manufacturer approval. In theory even the Mud flap which is about a "non structural" as I can think of. Reality is way different. We all have horror stories of the abuses suffered by innocent containers at the hands of their owners. The "Marksalot" rig, If he didn't want the stripes to be pink he shouldn't have bought the rig. The "Glitter" rig, I suspect there were drugs involved. The Epoxy rig, don't ask. In most cases these poor abused peaces of equipment continue to serve there owners fatefully even in the most abusive relation ships where all of their self respect has been stripped away from them. Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

I don't think we could be driven out of busyness by fuel prices. We could be regulated out of operation. Let's say they declare that skydiving operations had to operate under... Part 121 or 135? insted of part 91. Sorry I don't remember all my parts. Could happen, a couple of Paris style crashes with lots of press could do it. Or changes to operating fees if the new ATC is hostile to general aviation. Say a big fee for "Comercial" use of the ATC system. AOPA might sell us out on that to save recreation on the basis that "Commercial" airlines could afford it. That might push a regular commercial operation into part 121. Say the one time fee being too high for calling on every flight/load. They would assume that any one operating as many individual flights as we do would fall under 135 or at least 121. I mean if you think about it we operate so many flights we really are closer to small 135 operations. If they reclassified us out of part 91... Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

Not disagreeing with any of the above. There is a president of the racer caps. That guy did some nice art work. I am curious what he used as it wore fairly well. For instance in signs and t-shirts they use epoxy, by that I mean two part, based inks for synthetics or plastics when they silk screen the art work. Huge pain in the ass. I'm curious what would adhere well to nylon. I've heard of people painting logos on the bottom skin of canopies but I never found out what they used. Of course the modern cool way is dye sublimation... Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

50 years... PC time frame. Appropriate name if he made 100 jumps on PC's in one day. Double man points if he had some cheepos in the mix. Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

I think your looking pretty good. Cool project. If nothing else you'll learn a lot. It's a little different from playing with a canopy. With a canopy most of the problems you might have the canopy is out and you can ditch it if you don't like it. This is a bit different. There are a wider list of problems you might run into and some of them have fewer fixes available to you. I'm not ragging on you but it's more serious in some ways then the people out building their own mains. You can get into trouble with little gremlins lurking in your design. TSO testing is there for a reason and the testing listed in it is really minimal. Most people actually do much more. Even then problems can hide for years before the surface or small changes that seem trivial on the surface turn out to cause problems. I'm really not sure how I feel about the feasibility of this project. You could build your self a dumby and do the functional test. a lot of them you could do live. But the high speed heavy structural test are tough. I suppose you could say that this other harness design passed so this one should be fine... It's hard for me to see you doing the level of testing that I think this project would need and even then there are still a lot of places for surprises to hide. I'll give you an example. Strong was building the Quasar 2. They had been building them for years. Then they realized that if you packed it up right the flaps could lock closed. What was happening was the edges of the binding tape on the reserve side flaps were parallel to each other. If it was packed up right and the edges were parallel when they slid over each other the edges could catch and lock closed. Years before this happened for the first time. So being Strong, they come up with there flap spring things... If was a design error. All they had to do was change the pattern set so the edges of the flaps were angled to each other. It's just an example of a gremlin that can kill you or some one else. Another example was a construction change made by Javelin to there reserve... top flap? I don't recall the exact detailes but it caused a bulge/lip on the edge of the flap and they started getting hesitations. They were talking about it a a PIA. Small thing. Trivial thing. They didn't think twice about it at the time. But it caused a problem. This doesn't even touch on every thing else that makes up a full TSO program. For example, where did you get your thread? That harness thread, where did you get it? Do you have specs on it? What lot number is it from? How are you tracking it. Say you hear about a problem. Do you have trace ability to determine if it applies to your rig? What about the hard ware. We just had that big recall. I think the rig looks awesome. I think it's a cool project. I have no doubt that you have learned a great deal. I would have to think very carefully about making this my skydiving container. Not trying to rain on your parade, just saying that it's a big project. Drawing up a design and building a nice rig is just the start. And even if your not going to sell it. Even if it's just yours. How many of those corners would you want to cut? When you get cutaway from a spinner a bit low and you pull that silver handle... do you really want that to be how you find out about a hesitation problem with your container? Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

That's awesome. We should respect their cultural identity. To condemn them would be speciesest. Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

I've never been to a bull fight. I've only seen them in movies or in books from people like Hemingway. Always wanted to. Is there like, a chearing section for the bull? Is it like a football stadium here in Texas with a home and visitor side? Would I get dirty looks if I was standing up cheering for the bull? Hookem Horns! Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

Hmmm. I haven't jumped it, seen it, or really know any thing about how you generated the design. And I really don't know what the hell I'm talking about so keep that in mind when you solicit advice over the internet. It's worth every penny you pay for it. Changes or flutter in the nose as you change angle of attack. The fact that it at the corners suggest to me that it relates to the, some people would call it twist of the canopy. You can really only optimize it for one aoa. Because it's curved AoA does not change constantly across the span when it pitches. And that assumes that it's not distorting. When you pull on the breaks and as the angle changes there will be distortion in the canopy relative to it's full flight which is distorted relative to it's sewn plane form. So my guesses, coming straight out of my ass, are that as you start to pull down on your breaks you start to squeeze the tail on ether side flat. This elongates the trailing edge of those cells, they had shrunk when the think part of the back of the cell inflated. This makes the out side ribs tow inwards at the front. Depending on how you generated your plane form, the angle of attack probable varies across the span to begin with. Best guess is that you have a higher AoA in the center then at the ends. When the canopy starts to pitch back to a higher angle of attack the center increases more then the ends. Think of a canopy with 180 deg of bow. Think half a cylinder. The center is at Alpha but the ends are at 0 angle of attack. In fact they are at an Alpha angle of side slip. And if there is a trim angle to the canopy the end cells could actually be at a negative angle of attack. That's a really extreme example but it's helpful in thinking about how it changes. So I'm not sure this is a trim issue. You might be able to address it that way but I don't think that is where the problem lies. Ultimately I think it might be in the plane form and how you generated your panels. It might help to think about the line that you rotated the airfoil around when you generated your panel shapes. Rather then it being horizontal maybe you should angle it along the glide angle for instance. Keep in mind I have no idea how you generated it to begin with. This would make the nose wider. More in line with the airflow so the changes when you pitch the canopy would be less of an issue. You can also build that inflation into the back of the panel so there is a bulge in the edge of the back half of the side of the panel. The trailing edge is narrower right before the tail. It lets the cell inflate with out shrinking the tail and changing the angles of the ribs. And when you pull on the breaks you don't get the trailing edge expanding as much. If you just sew it flat it acts like a spring. This locks it in more. It'a a paraglider thing. So I think what you are seeing is from the elongation of the trailing edge as you start to apply breaks. As you get deeper into the flare the AoA becomes so high that it doesn't matter. It's all sully inflated at that point. I think the problem is in the panel set. I'm not sure it's a big deal but it may make your end cells more vulnerable to rolling under in turbulence like when you are on approach preticually if you make small break inputs like on final. The trim change you are suggesting would basically make the nose a bit steeper. You don't really shift the location of the cascade point. It finds that balance on it's own. In doing so it distorts your line set at the cascade. You compensate for that in the trim. What your doing is trimming the A, B steeper reducing the angle of attack on the front half of the canopy. Don't see why this would help. If any thing I think you may find the out side cell to flutter more. Which would be an interesting test, but I think that if you were going to try to address this in the trim that the answer would be found in the other direction. Keep in mind that all of this is straight out of my ass. Go tinker with it. Come back and tell us what you find. Sorry if this is incoherent. It's hard to verbalize and I've been interrupted a couple of times. Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

https://heatst.com/world/bullfighter-killed-by-half-ton-beast-after-tripping-over-cape/ Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

Trying to make my brain work. Could you be thinking about the... Feather canopies? Did Ashudo make them? I think they were in his... Wedge rigs? It's been a long time but I seem to recall that they were made from two different fabrics. Normal 1.1 nylon at the top around the crown and the lowest panel, the majority of the canopy, out of a lighter... 0.9 or some thing like that. I remember Stanford warning me that you could NOT do a standard 40# pull test on the lower half of the canopy. They packed up super small. It was like 3/4 of the canopy was made from modern low bulk nylon. Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

Are you thinking that it was the coating or some thing else? The outer layers, gores 1 and the last one being on the out side take all the damage. Any thing that is going to damage the packed canopy will have to pass through them. Same for certain areas of a square. It reminds me of a cat pee incident. Those outer layers tore like tissue. It was jumped. You could see the sections that tore or blew out or some areas stretched breaking fibers all over that area. If it wasn't for the smell you might have thought it was the coating on the bag but that was just the area most exposed. Also saw Wag tear an old square. It was OLD had that musty old nylon smell. Safety Flyer? or some early first gen canopy. Quincy. Pulled it out in front of the guy. Smelled that shit. Wag picks up the center cell, pops it, and tears it from nose to tail with his long monkey arms like tissue paper. "You tore my canopy!" Wag, "Your welcome." Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com

There is one other motivation for placing a life span limit on parachutes. $$$$ Skydiving gear pretty much takes care of it self. People want the new and shiny. And there has been real evolution in the designs. Pilot rigs are a different story. First they don't care. They would fly them for ever or until they will no longer serve as a seat cushion. Second there has been very little actual evolution in design. The only real exceptions are the Buttler sliders and some people might argue the Aviator canopy. And they don't care. I don't know how they stay in business. It's like Cypres. It they didn't put a life span on their units the company would be gone. They built one for every skydiver and they were done. They put a life span on their unit and they get to start all over again. I'm not saying that this is totally a bad thing. There are a lot of old pilot rigs that just need to go away. They treat them like shit. They shouldn't expect them to last. It's a bit much to expect a unit like a cypres to last forever. At least it has over hauls. But you can't pretend that there isn't a monetary motivation in this. One other big, really big, motivation for placing a life span on your gear, liability. It killed general aviation. They build a plane and then they are liable for it forever. And they were lasting forever. People being sued over seventy year old planes. There was no releaf till the passed a law limiting there liability to X years. It saved GA. By putting a life limit you divorce your self from all of those old rigs. I'm not a fan. But there are reasons why they are doing it although some of the reasons are a little self serving. Lee Lee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com