riggerrob

30 years ago, a guy named J. Scott Hamilton invented a possible solution to this difficult cutaway problem. Like many of us, he was getting really tired of dumping his reserve because of hard pulls on his 4-pin main ripcord. One day Mr. Hamilton tried wrapping his knee under his elbow and using his leg muscles to supplement his arm muscles. Since leg muscles are much bigger than arm muscles, it solved his problem.
I wonder, would Mr. Hamilton's old solution solve our current problem?

Financially, both S/L and AFF cost about the same by the time a student has earned his A License. S/L has the advantage that the cost can be spread over more months. If an AFF/PFF student can only afford one AFF jump a month, then I encourage them do traditional S/L progression. One jump a month is way too slow a pace to learn anything. At least with S/L they can get in the air often enough to progress.

Skin tight Spandex jumpsuits looked silly on tandem instructors. Thanks for confirming our suspicions.
80% of my 2200+ tandems have been done with big floppy jumpsuits. During that period, I have only experienced 1 90 degree side spin. It scared the shorts off of me! So I quit doing tandems in shorts and a T-shirt.
The only reason I was jumping in shorts and a T-shirt was to avoid heat prostration during a Southern California summer.

Please post a picture of the new d-bag.

Sounds like you are thinking of buying a '94 Talon.
Since I worked at the Talon factory from 1994 to 1997, perhaps I can provide a little background.
The first Talons debuted in the mid-1980s, with 6 reserve flaps and a fair amount of Velcro. The first Talons were similar to Vector 2, with a few minor improvements. Talons were the first rigs with tuck tabs on the main pin flap and over the years they replace more and more Velcro with tuck tabs.
Like most manufacturers it takes Rigging Innovations 2 or 3 years to work the bugs out of a pattern set. For example, by 1990 they had refined all the different sizes of original Talon and started on the Flexon. While the Flexon was responsible for many innovations including reserve pin cover tuck tabs and harness rings, it contained too many tuck tabs and came with a terrible packing manual. Flexons never sold very well because few people understood how to pack them.
In 1994, Rigging Innovations introduced a completely new Talon. It shared no parts with the original Talon. The '94 Talon was more of a simplified Flexon with trough style riser covers. It has a 4 1/2 flap reserve container and uses the Stealth pilotchute out of the Flexon. The '94 Talon was a huge improvement over anything anyone had built before. I jumped my '94 Talon for 3 years, then sold it to my friend Dave. Hint, Dave is still a friend.
In January 1997, Rigging Innovations introduced the Talon2, which was just a '94 Talon with all the minor pattern glitches cleaned up.
My last task at Rigging Innovations was to write the packing manual for the Talon 2. That manual incorporated all the tricks we had learned while packing Flexon, '94 Talon, Talon 2 and Genera containers. Hint, if you are packing a Flexon, ignore the Flexon manual and refer to the Talon 2 manual instead. The Voodoo manual is just a Talon2 manual with a 2 page insert.
In conclusion, the '94 Talon you are considering buying is a good rig. Since it was built in 1995, all of the pattern bugs were corrected before it left the factory, so it is almost as refined as a Talon2.

The standard for new F-111 fabric is 0 to 3 cubic feet per minute. The better mills -like Gelvenor - are consistently producing fabric that measures 0.5 cfm.
I am guessing that landings will start to suffer when porosity approaches 4 or 5 cfm.
Perhaps we should ask a major manufacturer like P.D. or Precision.

Several times, I have cleared line knots on Strong 425 tandem mains by pulling the toggles all the way down to induce a deep stall, then letting them up rapidly. When all the lines go slack, line knots usually clear.
I used the same trick to clear a line-over on my Sabre. It opened in a spin, and I immediately considered cutting it away, but one look at the Fraser River directly below caused me to pause. So I pulled the toggles down into a deep stall, then let them up rapidly. The canopy had become rectangular. I breathed a deep sigh of relief, looked at my altimeter (1500') and steered for a small field beside the river.

Two points.
First, it seems that you can optimize a canopy for terminal openings or sub-terminal openings, but very few manufacturers know how to make canopies open consistently at both ends of the envelope.
For example, first generation tandem canopies were optimized for sub-terminal openings. If you took them to terminal velocity - and they were packed by anyone except god's gift to packing - they opened hard with big students. On the other hand, current generation SET 400s open so slowly at terminal velocity, that I do not dare try to open them sub-terminal.
Sounds like the original poster's problem was with an under-sized pilotchute.
Secondly, the most important factor in deciding whether or not to double wrap rubber bands, Tube Stows, Sky Bands, etc. is whether they are tight enough to hold the lines. If I am packing a canopy with skinny lines and I only have large rubber bands in my pocket, I routinely double or triple wrap them around lines. It has been years since I have seen a bag lock.

All manufacturers - except P.D. - routinely supply connector links with new canopies.
Lately P.D. has been shipping new canopies with silly little plastic ties connecting lines to cardboard cards. It looks like a plot to sell more "Slinks."

He! He!
Some days tandems look like freeflying.
Since it is impossible to predict what the student will do with their legs once they clear the doorway, all bets are off for the first 5 seconds after exit.
Trust me. I have made more than 2200 tandem jumps, but every once in a while a student shows me a move that I have never seen before!
Life is never boring in the tandem business! Some days tandems resemble freeflying.

We have been using that style of pocketed release handle for many years on Strong tandems. I have never heard of one coming loose accidentally.
On the other hand, I have pulled them a dozen times on skydives gone bad. When they are mounted outboard on the right main lift web, your fingers naturally slip into the pocket.

That's odd.
I was under the impression that you were not supposed to use silicone lubricant on adjustable loops.

Yesterday I found a packing manual for a mid-1980s vintage National Mirage container.
As suspected, it is a grainy, third generation photo-copy. The text is still legible, but pictures are difficult to understand.
Suggestions?

Yes. it takes a few tries to get a Reflex right. I never mastered the technique until the guy who packed display rigs for the Fliteline factory showed me a few tricks.
The key is some subtle tricks in how you distribute the reserve canopy bulk in the free-bag. It takes a few minutes of extra effort to create the correct size and shape of "crater" for the pilotchute to sink into. A common mistake is allowing bulk to creep towards the loop as you pull the side flaps closed. If you do not create and maintain that "crater", no amount of pulling. pounding, poking or proding after the container is closed will make the pilotchute look pretty.
Oh, and one other thing: poking pilotchute fabric with any kind of hard object is a bad habit. I have grounded far too many pilotchutes for holes created by muscular riggers trying to stuff fabric with packing paddles, etc. If you lack the skills to stuff fabric with your fingers, then pass the job onto someone who does.

Judging by your report on its flight characteristics, the maximum wing loading for that Russian canopy is zero!

Coating F-111 canopies with silicone has been tried several times in the past, and it has failed several times in the past. Every few years someone invests in advertisements in major skydiving mafazines offering to re-coat old canopies. The ads only last until a few customers blow up canopies. The basic problem seems to be that taking F-111 patterns and converting them to Zero-P often results in painfully hard openings. I suspect that part of the problem is that F-111 is more forgiving of sloppy packing than Zero-P fabric.
Combine this with a canopy that already has hundreds of jumps worth of wear and tear, and you can expect to tear up the ocaissional canopy.
On the plus side, we do know that spraying F-111 pilotchutes with laundry starch will extend their service lives.

Dave Brownell was using aluminum for slider grommets.
He even asked me to take a few measurements of the aluminum grommets on an old Para-Flite Swift 5-cell reserve. Back in the 1980s, both Para-Flite and National tried using #5 aluminum grommets. #5 grommets worked well on reserves, but not on mains. It seems that fat Dacron lines and sloppy packing resulted in too many slider hang-ups on mains.
Dave used anodised aluminum tubing to build his experimental sliders. They worked well, but things ground to a halt when he encountered geometric and health problems. I tried to offer him a solution, but I guess he is too busy with health problems.
One other factor to consider with aluminum or plastic grommets is denting when they hit metal connector links. I doubt if aluminum or plastic grommets would last very long with metal connector links. The obvious solution to preventing denting is to use soft links like PD Slinks.
Finally, the black discolouration on Vectran lines is just iron oxide rubbing off the stainless steel grommets. When stainless steel corrodes, it produces a gray or black oxide that is ugly, but harmless. When aluminum corrodes, it produces gray aluminum oxide.
This largely a cosmetic problem.

The most likely cause for having two canopies out is scaring your Cypres. The simple solution is to activate your main at a reasonable altitude.

Phreezone,
Yes it is possible to break an FXC between repacks and not know it.
Because the FXC 12000 is a purely mechanical device (i.e. no electronic gizmos) it is difficult to detect damage without removal and a chamber test.
The two most probable ways of damaging an FXC 12000 are dunking it in water or dropping it on concrete. However, FXCs have a long history of surviving abuse by students.
Keep in mind that it is possible to damage any piece of skydiving gear between repacks. That is why we have scheduled repacks and other inspection schedules. These scheduled inspections are educated guesses at when damage will occur.
I don't want to side track this string, just remind you that repack schedules have very little to do with opening time. Repack schedules are mainly about detecting damage before it gets bad enough to kill you.

As for the various revisions to FXC 12000s ... back in the mid 1990s, FXC came out with Revision "J". "J" incorporated a series of minor updates and changed the factory pilgrimage schedule to every 2 years. All FXC 12000s should have been updated to Revision J many years ago.
The only other revision I have seen since then is Revision "M" ,as in "M" for main. Revision M looks like J except for an additional rubber bumper on the power cable. The rubber bumper limits damage to the housing after you scare a main AAD a few hundred times. Hint, main AADs are usually set to fire much higher (i.e. 2500 feet). I have seen an FXC 12000 Revision M pull a reserve ripcord when it was supposed to.

On the question of whether an FAA Senior Rigger is allowed to assemble an Astra into a rig, it is the same standard as installing a Cypres. It depends upon whether there is any sewing involved. If the rig leaves the factory "Cypres/Astra-ready" and it is a simple slide-in installation with maybe a little hand tacking, then a Senior Rigger can do it
If there is any machine sewing involved, then the FAA considers it an "alteration" to a reserve container and you have to call in a Master Rigger.

Rob Warner
FAA Master Rigger, with SSK certification to do Cypres retrofits to old containers and the dude who did the first few Astra retrofits to Talons.

The best training program incorporates a variety of training methods to teach a variety of skills.
For example, at Pitt Meadows, most first timers go tandem to experience that huge pyschological rush.

The brighter students are then encouraged to attend the first jump course. They do 2 or 3 IAD (similar to static-line) jumps from 3000' to learn the basics of steering a parachute.

If they want to progress any further, they can chose between traditional or PFF routes.

Most aspiring skydivers chose Progressive Freefall. During the first 5 levels of PFF they master basic freefall survival skills.

They do a few more jumps with coaches to polish solo skills in preparation for their solo and A certificates.

There is a lot of overlap between phases. All of our coaches/instructors hold multiple ratings. For example, there are additional canopy control exercises at every level of PFF and coaches offer advice to improve landing accuracy.

Finally, if a student wants to travel to visit a wind tunnel, we encourage them to do a few "tunnel dives" - to refine body position, turn technique, etc - under the supervision of an AFF instructor.

Hint, phone around to the major dealers to find out which dealers have reserved production slots for Vectors. If they have already paid for a production slot that is "maturing" soon, then your new Vector should arrive pretty quickly.

Lately I have been jumping my Sabre 135 with my old Amigo 172 reserve in the same container.
Fortunately, I am good enough at packing that I have never needed my Amigo. I chose the Amigo 172 because I believe that it is the smallest F-111 canopy I can land with my legs intact. Granted, I have stood up the landing on a Triathlon 160, so that may be the size of my next reserve.
Before rushing out to buy a tiny reserve, remember that reserve technology lags a long way behind main technology.

I use alcohol or toluene-based felt markers on suspension lines and have never noticed any additional wear at the marks.
As for marking canopy fabric, Para-Flite did a study years ago and concluded that Dixon chalk pencils did the least damage to F-111 nylon canopy fabric.
I also built a couple of kit parachutes that had alignment marks done with a variety of pens. The canopies fell out of fashion before they showed any wear at the markings.

The earlier, mechanical AADs (i.e. FXC 12000) were big, bulky and not terribly precise.
I really wish that "what's his name" would read the FXC manual before quoting inaccuracies on the internet.
If you set your FXC 12000 to fire at 1000', then you should be "saddled out" by 2500'.
The main reason that many schools still use FXC 12000s is that they are proven, older technology that works in the student environment.
Most also freely admit that they would buy Student Cypri if they could afford them, right after they pay for the engine overhaul, the hangar rental and replacing that ratty Manta in student rig #3, etc.

I am convinced that the majority of FXC "mis-fires" occurred below 2000', but users blaimed them on equipment.
As to his comment that FXC 12000s are unreliable unless chamber tested .. the last time I read the FXC manual, it said that a rigger could not legally repack a reserve containing an FXC unless he chamber tested it before every repack and sent it on a pilgrimage to its birthplace every two years.
No piece of skydiving gear is reliable if you ignore the maintenance schedule.
In contrast, Cypri contain more trustworthy electronic gizmos. In 1994, shortly after Cypri became fashionable in Southern California, three licensed jumpers arrived at my loft with scared Cypri. They all sheepishly admitted that they had been in freefall below 1000'!
There are two reasons why FXC's Astra AAD is not as popular. First, the Astra debuted a few years after Cypri were firmly established. Secondly, when Francis Xavier Chevrier brought Astra prototypes to Rigging Innovations, we told him that his Astra was better than Cypri on all but two counts. First, the control head was too big to stuff into most Cypres-ready containers. Secondly, we thought that having to shut off the Astra after every jump was more than the average skydiver could remember. If you forget to turn it off after every jump, you have to replace batteries every couple of weeks, a nuisance at best.

Sorry folks, I did not intend to come across as hard-liner in my first post.
When a container looks "square" from the side (i.e. it is as deep as it is long) I doubt if it makes much difference whether or not you rotate the bag into the container.
As a side note, Tim Overby recently asked me to build him a new main d-bag for his tiny Javelin. He was experiencing way too many off-heading openings on his sub-100 square foot main and the stock d-bag. Tim theorized that the stock d-bag had to turn too many times during the opening sequence.
I basically copied the dimensions of his old d-bag, but rotated them 90 degrees when I drew the new pattern. The new d-bag had the bridle attachment directly under the pin when the container was closed.
Tim has not had anymore off heading openings with his new d-bag.
Rob Warner
FAA Master Rigger