fcajump

As long as you don't deploy in a sit or back flying... JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Gary, I'm just curious - what is your definition of "new"? For me, given the track record of metal cables, and my concerns over the service life, inspection and replacement of soft ripcords, I would say that "new" in this case is before we have had systems retired for age that started with the soft ripcords. Soft links are good too. But it took a wide acceptance of them, and years on them to learn in blood what their limitations were. Most people now understand that they are life limited roughly equal to the line sets they anchor. Unlike metal links (which have their own issues that we have pretty well understood for a long time) we had to learn a new life cycle for the new link. As metal ripcords have a great track record and the inspection/maintenance requirements are pretty well understood, I will choose to use them until we have found out what the real-world limits are on this most vital gear item. IF this too is a lesson we (collectively) are destined to learn in blood, I'd rather it not be mine. In this specific item, I am concerned of possible wear inside the housing. Whether from a sharp edge in a malformed housing or foreign object that has worked its way in. I am concerned as to whether the entire ripcord will be extracted and inspected at each repack. (you know... its a pain to feed it back through, it slides easily enough so you know its not bound up... it'll be fine... right?) And that's before we found this (previously unanticipated) issue with the coating. What other real-world issues will these ripcords have... dunno... Don't get me wrong... there are some things I have bought early in their release... I bought a Cypres 1 when the ads were touting the fact that the control unit was hidden away so that other jumpers won't know you have one. (yes... really... that was a thing) But the other AAD's on the market then were proven to have serious issues, and this new AAD had a sound test program... so I rolled the dice. Here, I don't see the great advantage to the soft ripcords, but do see life cycle/maintenance issues that give me pause. You, of course, are welcome to evaluate the options and your risk tolerance and choose which makes you feel more comfortable... But I have to ask these questions... What problem was the soft ripcord intended to fix? What new issues might exist with this solution? Are the new problems better than the old? Just my $.02 JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

PM sent Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Terry - thanks. I was only a hanger-on to the discussion and did not have a complete picture... Terry's correct that the individual was not a PIA speaker, simply a rigger with a question/issue/point-of-view whose peers were seeking (it seemed to me) an intervention... sorry if that was unclear in my prior post. JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

As a low-time pilot... I'm not sure why a jump plane should need to still be descending at 2400fpm (~28mph vertical) at/below pattern altitude (750' AGL)... Not to say they don't, but can Diverdriver or one of the others tell me if that's normal? JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Me too... if you find more than one going looking for a home. Would also like a Goliath and a DC5... They're what I learned on, young Pup that I am... JW PS - do not tell my wife I want any more old canopies... Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

I think it's irrelevant. If there is slack on the seal thread, even a little, the peak force will occur at the moment the pin starts to move..., at which point dynamic friction takes over and the force required to continue the extraction will be significantly less. I know very few riggers (actually, none) that do the pull test to full extraction - they know that once the pin budges, that is max. If there is even a bit of slack on the thread, the tension will be applied during motion, and would not touch the 22-pound limit. That is my hypothesis - obviously a fixture to test this reliably would be needed, something that would both apply and measure perfectly throughout the entire motion. Logging: On the BACK side of the repack cycle, I know many that do pull tests to extraction when starting an inspection. While that does NOT indicate what the force would have been on day 1, it is likely that on day 1 it was no less (exceptions for Racer and Reflex). Peak force: I have noted in my own testing, and listened to a furious discussion by one rigger attending PIA Symp (2013 or maybe 2011) that if one draws the pin (very) slowly (contrary to actual use or TSO testing procedures) many pins have a second (sometimes higher) peak force while moving just prior to the tip clearing the crown of the far side of the grommet. Once noting that, I started testing with a more decisive pull rather than slowly creeping it out. The individual I was listening to was an advocate of routinely changing the grommets to ensure there is absolutely NO scratches/burs/etc on the grommet surface to minimize the pull force as a result of this slow-pull peek observation. JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

On the question of whether the seal is required for continued use: while I do not see any place that requires the jumper or pilot to verify that it is there, it seems to be a common sense issue to ensure that it is less likely someone has messed with your rig. On a different angle of playing devil's advocate - Terry and others have pointed out that the mfg's are required to prove that their gear, packed according to their instructions are able to be deployed at less than 22lbs (with/without thread, in whichever direction/conditions that were required at the time of testing). Can anyone show me where the FAA requires that a given repack in the field must meet that requirement (and the thread/pull conditions there of)? Again, do not misunderstand me... I believe in ensuring the jumper can pull the RC, and usually record test pulls and table deployments. I am asking where the requirement is that this rig at this repack must meet the requirements placed on the mfg during their certification testing. Answer #1 to my own question here is: if the mfg instructions say so, then it falls under the notion of "repacked in accordance with the mfg instructions." But beyond that, are there any FAA regs that state what pull limits the repack must meet OUTSIDE the TSO testing process? JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

We all know that for the general reserve/PEP (with some old exceptions), that the max pull force must be less than 22-lbs. But is that with or without the required seal/thread in place? What brought this up (again) is that UPT seems to have a different interpretation than I've generally seen... From the FAA published Parachute Rigger's Manual: "Under the TSO system, the maximum allowable pull force for the ripcord is 22 pounds. " "(during a test pull) If the force is less than 22 pounds, the rigger can then re-close the container and seal the ripcord. " (emphasis added... this would imply to me that the 22-lbs is BEFORE the addition of the seal thread) NAS 804 "4.3.2 Pull Test - Pack Opening Device: The pack opening device shall be tested by use of an accurate spring balance to indicate its positive and quick-functioning with no more than 22 pounds pull." (no indication within NAS 804 of testing with sealing the rig at all... implies to me that the 22-lbs is BEFORE the addition of the required seal/thread) Many mfg's indicate that the maximum force is 22-lbs, but are not clear on this point. But in UTP's recent Service Bulletin... PRODUCT SERVICE BULLETIN 2015-01 "In the US, maximum allowable pull force is 22 pounds (10 Kilograms) with the riggers seal in place." (emphasis added. note that they are not saying that this is the case for UPT gear/ but all US gear) So... does anyone have any more definitive information on this? JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Where I jump, the rule has evolved (and followed) that: - belts are on until 1500' - door is closed until all belts are off and helmets/gear in the rear section are checked to be secure. Additionally, I would comment: - I would be OK with an exit at 1500' under reserve if needed - In the case of a major failure, the jumpers further from the door will be unlikely to still have 1500' to work with. What altitude the bail-out started is not what you need to look at, but the altitude remaining once YOU get to the door of that descending aircraft. - Are you aware of the flight path the pilot takes? Is there rising terrain under the flight path? Do you REALLY have what your altimeter says WHERE you are when you bailout? - The Tandems in the front of a large plane are still affected (if not more so) by the notion of a flight control problem when that door is opened at 1500' when someone (by the door) has his PC get out and wrap their canopy around the tail. If I recall correctly, their reserve/decision alt is around 2k'. Would not like to have to waddle a student to the door at 1500' in a descending aircraft... even worse if they're still belted when the whole things starts going bad. (Alright TI's... speak up... sitting in the front of a full Otter, at what altitude do you simply buckle back up and ride it down when the sport jumpers are bailing at 2k, 1500', 1k...) Just things to think about, JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Still don't know who you are, where you jump, what you actually do or believe. You post what seems to be well reasoned input to some threads and yet post ignorant/arrogant garbage on others. I would suggest backing off, taking a break from the social experiments, filling in your profile and being as careful in this environment as you claim to be in your jumping and other activities. Please remember that there are newbies in this sport who are on the cusp of making decisions that will change or end their life. Your posted bravado may (have) given them the little nudge off the cliff without the proper gear and training. Just my $.02, JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

While I might choose to do differently on my own gear (within what's legal), THIS is a strong point when I'm dealing with customer gear. JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

If you had not picked up on it yet, most of those older/more experienced people are trying to suggest that, despite your self analysis, you may not be safe doing the things you are doing. The reason some of them are so emphatic is that they've seen your attitude before in others that have come forward with a high-self image only to bury them shortly there after. They've also buried the highly skilled and cautious, simply because this sport forgives little and will have surprises for all of us. Worse, they have upon occasion buried others that have been killed BY individuals who had previously been told they were not as proficient as they had assessed themselves. You say that you are at a small Cessna DZ. I suggest continue to count carefully the canopies in the air and that you stay where you are. The attitude would be unwelcome most other places. And just in case the vast majority of experienced jumpers are right, we'd rather not be the one's that have to write up your incident report. Peace. JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

http://usapr.com/files/Posts/1/bobbins.pdf -clicky- Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Just would like to get a feel from Racer owners/jumpers on how common each RSL configuration is in the field... As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've got a 2k3 throwout with the RSL removed. JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Agreed on all points. I don't use the type 2 method in any container other than SE's. (did a 2-stow diaper in a Softie because it didn't have the full stow option, but hated it in many ways and got the owner to change rigs shortly thereafter). Type 6... hadn't seen that before looking up my facts for this discussion... That's one thing I like about these discussions... keeps me on my toes and teaches me things, even about stuff I thought I already knew.

On a personal note... I've also used a main D-bag (from a Vector) to deploy a slider equipped round and it was the nicest/cleanest round deployment that I've experienced. I suspect that if Strong (or any other PEP mfg) were to invest* the time and expertise, their seat pack could be much improved using a type 5 deployment. *There in is the problem, isn't it... that would not likely be considered a 'minor' change... Much more expensive to recertify than to continue building what you're building... especially since the track record in the field is actually quite good for all of them despite our concerns over packing/deployment methods. JW PS - if SE, Inc is listening... I'd we willing to discuss working on that 'alternative' packing method development... Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Actually ... that depends on your definition of "canopy first deployment"... either it is, in which case so are Type 3 and 4 which most other round canopy's still use, or only Type 1 is... Per the FAA Parachute Rigger's Handbook (https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/media/FAA-H-8083-17.pdf, p2-10), The type I is a "canopy first deployment", with the skirt unrestrained. This however is a Type 2. Type 2 being a two (or three) 1/2 stowe diaper. Which, as with the Types 3 & 4 restraines the skirt until all lines have been deployed (when packed properly). These are both line-first deployments (lines fully deployed prior to skirt opening). Now if you wish to reference NASA document "Parachute Deployment" https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/05%20Parachute%20Deployment%20Wolf.pdf, they define "line first" as anything other than a parachute in a deployment bag or sleeve (Type 5 or 6) since the canopy is exposed to the air prior to all lines being deployed in all types 1-4. IF you are having the skirt unrestrained prior to all pack stowed lines being deployed with a Type 2*, then you're not packing it correctly. * the last tray stow should release at the same time as the last skirt stow. Now, do I think that type 2 is as good at ensuring the skirt is restrained until all lines are deployed as the type 3 & 4's... no. Do I think there is greater potential for riggers to do it wrong, yes. But, if the line stowes are properly done and the bands (especially the diaper) are at the correct tension, then that is what it is designed to do. Would I design it this way... no. Should SE, Inc. change their design... that is their call. Will you pack one with a type 2 diaper, that's your call. Personally, I will do a 3-stow type 2. I don't however do not like the 2 stow type 2, and I and very careful with stow tension and the results of table deployments. Just my $.02, always willing to listen to those with other views. JW PS - moderators - I think it would be beneficial to trim out the discussion of deployment methods from this thread into its own. This very useful discussion should be viewed under its own title and is having less and less to do with the original topic of one particular rig. Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

As well as a type 3 or 4... maybe not. But there should not be a rat's nest in the pack tray, and the rigger should ensure that the stows at the diaper are snug. Old bands here are useless. I've not seen too many come in sloppy, though (very unfortunately) I've seen one come in with all lines stowed in the diaper (from a long-time rigger who refused to use a manual or be questioned) and I've seen old/weak bands on the diaper. Thanks for the feedback.

Yep

However, a Type 2 as used in the Para-Cushion, when packed correctly (split line groups and secure bands on the diaper) still maintains a closed skirt (as with a full-stow type IV) until line stretch. JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Rob/Terry - Why? (just curious) JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

How about this, Six-Camera Spherical Array http://recode.net/2015/05/27/gopros-next-adventure-virtual-reality-drones/ Jerry Baumchen Unfortunately, I suspect you'll see someone jumping with one within the year... No snag hazard here... I do believe there are those exceptional people that can handle more than the average person in way of distractions and situational overload... but the rules need to be crafted for the average person not the exception, especially as the determination of "exceptional" is left to self-assessment. JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Nope, not even one yet. (your point?) I have learned (sometimes the hard way) about introducing too many new things all at the same time. (which was my point) I know that, like many others, I believed early on that I could put a camera on my head and "forget it". Quickly realized that I wasn't "forgetting it" during the dive. It was a new distraction. While I don't yet have my 200 camera jumps, I've had it on long enough that I am now able to "forget it" during the dive and would be comfortable introducing another 'new' thing. I simply suggest that a new camera flier should wait to introduce a wing, and a new wing flier should wait to introduce a camera, (at least on the same jump) until they no longer have to think about the how of using the new tool. JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...