fcajump

To those who have pulled them... I have more canopies than risers (old junkers I use for intentional cut-aways) Feel free to send your retired risers this way.

When (re)assembling reserves or PEP's I will usually do the complete assemble process and then put it asside and do another rig. Then when I pickup the first rig to do the final I@R, I approach it as an unknown system (i.e. trusting nothing about it). If I don't have a second set of eye's to check my work, I find that this makes a good procedural substitute. JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

For me (Spectre w/ spectra) it was longer and longer opennings which was verified to be a trim issue. (a problem for me as I occasionally need to hop-n-pop from just over 2k.) While a retrim would have worked (line condition was fine), I chose for several reasons to go with a new line set. JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Won't speak for him, but simply that in listening to Bill Coe, I don't believe that was his intent... There is a concept that is very unclear in the regs and IMHO he took the conservative reading: When a canopy meet the TSO, it must perform to a certain performance standard... It is understood that material, when used/handled/aged/etc, will to some degree, loose its ability to perform. Was the TSO standard written assuming that there would be this degredation, or is a used canopy expected to still perform to this same standard? (i.e. during the tests it opened in 3 second because a used canopy must open in 5, or opened in 3 and a used canopy that can't is no longer "airworthy".) It does not say. Some mfg's seem to assume that the TSO builds this in to the testing, some seem to assume their canopies will not be in use by the time their performance would be degraded, and some (PD) seem to assume that their canopies should perform close to this same standard even when used or should not be used in a TSO capacity. When the standards were originally set, I am guessing, they were adopted from Mil-spec. Mil rigs are aged out whether used or not... so the spec did not have to address old canopies which had been handled too much. In the non-mil world, we seem to want to believe that a canopy used several times and packed for 20,30,50 years is still going to perform acceptable simply because we can't push our thumb through it... OK, so it might not blow up, but will it still open fast enough? Will it decend slow enough? You can't tell me that your 1954 C-9 will perform to the same standards to which it was tested... With rounds, this is a legitimate question. With large ram-airs, even more so... With F-111 ram-airs, the porosity is effected more by handling than ZP's, so even more... With tiny, high-loaded sport reserves, made from F-111... And how do you tell the rigger in the field to test for a level of fabric wear will degrade the performance enough to tell the customer to get a new one...? It looks great, doesn't tear, no discoloration, no frey... just breaths too much... (And personally, I suspect PD could make better money than via this type of inspection...) Just my late night $.02 JW PS - I have heard that the EU ages out all gear at 15 years, but not sure on that... any EU'ers out there to confirm/deny?? Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

I'd like to try out the vintage gear, but there doesn't seem to have been any middle-aged, overweight, out-of-shape conservitive jumpers in the old days that left their gear for me... (I was going to add "bad-knees", but I understand that in the old days there were jumpers that HAD bad knees, and those that do now...) I have a 1953 C9 that I have no problem jumping. I have another rig that I am putting together with another C9 I have and will do the same. Terminal and sub-terminal openings aren't a problem if the canopy checks out. On mains I do the tear by hand method as well if they check out in a bunch of different spots, then they are okay for me to jump. I can't wait for my Pioneer Hornet to get here, that should be a blast to jump. I am looking forward to a fun year of vintage gear jumps, I got more gear i am want to jump and I want to see if I can done more vintage jumps than I did last year but doing more than 100 is not that easy. Some days the openings and landings are much to be desired. Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

I hope that none of us ever have to defend our pack jobs. Unfortunately when there is an incident, all aspects of the jump, gear, instruction, pilot, plane, mfg of the jumper's underware, etc... come up for close examination. And this can be true even if the jumper simply failed to pull at all. I also grant you that the best way to avoid a problem, is to give the jumper you best pack job. Unfortunately, in the short time I have been rigging (9yrs part time), I have already seen "improved" methods and even alterations to equipment that upon review with the mfg had serious (and in many cases known) flaws. If you have a better way, I would ask on all our behalfs that you talk to the mfg. I am often surprised how open they are to discussing new, different and alternative methods. Those in the BASE community have my respect in that they "have to get it right the first time", but I also have the perception that they are often dealing with a more narrow set of parameter (and some issues skydivers don't deal with) that may lead to choices that are not right for skydiving gear. If your method IS better, get the mfg's to see it directly and authorize a better way. Maybe those who have gone through the process of getting a TSO can answer the question of "why wouldn't you do it this way?" I am GLAD to see that there are those willing to try new things, and look forward to seeing the new methods fully tested. This is how our industry moves forward. HOWEVER, I do not believe that your causing your paying customers to be "parachute test jumpers" will go over well with the courts or FAA. They won't see or care that you were using a "better" method, they will simply state that you were recklessly disregarding the established (documented) methods and exposing the innocent to unnecessary risks. Your rig, BASE gear, mains are one thing. Customer's TSOed reserves are another. Just my $.02 JW PS - I would like to know more about your technique, and hope you take your knowledge/expertise to the gear mfgs to help us all be safer. Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Like most, I can't "see" the problem/solution... For those with one in the shop, please see if you can post of pic of what the snag scenario looks like... Also, while the SB is fairly straight forward, I can't say its the most "finished" looking change... Would be nice to see an option to open the first stiches on the binding tape and trap the type 3 under the tape... a simple overstich around the horn would make it clean looking. Interesting that one of their recommended pack methods in the addendum is the old "split-stow" that some of us have used for YEARS!!!! JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

only a certified rigger can pack a live reserve, and a student rigger is not yet a licensed rigger So if I supervise someone packing a reserve, who is not rated, the rig can't be jumped? That's not how I read the regulations. Hmmm.... I was of the same opinion, but have learned to do my homework before arguing with Terry ... Current Regs (stolen from DiverDriver's site... thanks): I think to old wording implied otherwise, but this looks pretty cut-n-dried.... (Will have to pull out my old Regs to see why I remember it otherwise...) JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Yea, but don't tell my wife that... She thinks the nights and weekends at the loft are actually a high paying respectable gig... like piano player in the whore house... Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

As a newbie rigger (9 years), I'm about the same. But I've always been a slow packer, so give me 30 minutes for PEP and 1hr for Skydive reserve packing (after the aforementioned Inspect, etc) I figured my hourly rate once.... ONCE... (I'll never to THAT again....) JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

(Actually, head-down is specifically listed as forbidden...) I am not questioning the bennefits of the drogue, simple questioning the statement that (implied: "all") drogueless is forbidden by UPT, STRONG, USPA... Also: does anyone have handy the TSO limits for Strong of UTP tandem reserves? NOTE: I AM NOT suggesting that people do this, but I don't know of any rule "forbidding" drogueless freefall for the upper end of the dive. And if one were to do so, I am curious of the TSO speed ratings for the rigs... JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Its been a while since I have done Tandem, but am looking to reeducate myself and get back in the TI saddle this year... While I can see the wisdom of using the drogue (significantly) before deployment, and the assistance it gives in staying out of a side-spin, I do not see published where it is forbidden. Strong and USPA both reference no back-to-earth and no drogueless vertical orientations, but I don't see anything that forbids drogueless freefall... In fact, one of the required dives for Strong TI (when I went through it) was specifically a drogueless freefall with turns to point and track before setting the drogue. (passed it even though I lost my goggles on exit...) I would appreciate references that can bring me up to date on this if the policies have changed since I instructed last.... JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Yes... but seeing them for the first time is the rub... I got my first set from Precision (don't even know if George went to production with them)... and had the SAME problem when I first tried to connect them. Figured out that there MUST be a problem and redid them until I got it right. I also decided to tack them before that was common practice. While I like them, they are NOT your older brother's F-links. They take different attention, maint, inspection and replacement. Too many people think that they cure all hard links problems without causing new ones. During this last year, on this site, we have seen that they can be packed: in an incorrect state, incomplete state and too worn to be safely used. For those that don't already have them, here are Aerodyne and PDs posted instruction locations: http://www.flyaerodyne.com/download/SoftLinkManual.pdf http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/SlinkInstructions_1.pdf Get them, read them and ASK questions... too easy to get them wrong if you assume. JW PS - PD also has a page about SLink with "hats" http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/SlinkInstructions_RCI.pdf Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

I just tried his site and it came up fine... JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

While I had heard his name before, the first time I met him was when he sponsored me for PIA... Years later, in a PIA membership committee meeting, he asked me why more people like myself weren't active in PIA (sport jumpers / part-time riggers / non-full-time industry professionals) While we talked about several reasons, one that I told him seemed to shock him... I said that as a newbie it is intimidating to walk into the meeting room filled with all the names you have ever heard in the industry and feel like you belong. (or at least won't get chased out) This point seemed to humble, amuse and confuse him all at once... He said "Jim, you know me... why would I intimidate you?" I told him that now, no... of course not. NOW I knew that he was an approachable, funny, friendly guy but that as an outsider he was the head of PARAGEAR and one of the "NAMES" in the industry... (I had written large checks to him.) Rather than getting a swelled head at this new perspective, he seemed to be humbled... chuckle... and then take the conversation into the direction of how to convince new/prospective members that they were welcome and that these LEADERS were just as approachable and friendly as I had long since learned them to be. As stated by Cliff, he was a Gentleman... and in my dealings with him, he was a gentle man. Thanks Lowell for inviting me to be a part, and making sure I knew I was welcome at the table. Blue Skies Lowell, Jim Wine "just a skydiver with a rigger's ticket" PIA Member Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

While there might be some people I would like to use the steel cable on, if you will notice the site also sells the seals without the cable. JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Riggers, Found this on line for aluminum seals... http://www.altamax.net/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=2 Was curious if anyone was using anything other than the ol' lead seal? JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Before I go digging through my pile of old parachute documents: What is the name/title of the FAA document? Not sure of the entire document Title, but this is the section in question... Order 8700.1, Vol. 2, Chap. 49 CHAPTER 49. ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF WAIVER OR AUTHORIZATION FOR AN AVIATION EVENT JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

(OK, for the real geeks out there...) I am trying to research when a particular change was made to the FAA document 8700.1 (Yes I know, that document was replaced last year with 8900.1, but the change I'm looking for happened before that.) I have 8700.1 chg31 dated June '07. If you have one from prior to that, please PM me. Jim Wine Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

On the one hand, I do this myself. As others have explained, if you are unsure talk with your rigger and test the pull force. I have been TOLD that this can cause a different problem... in the past, others have reported that the excess cable stowed in such a maner can cause the pin to be pulled (by the tension caused by the velcro). While I don't see that happening, I can't say that it never has. I tuck it away because I am more concerned that the cable end is just another snag point. IF YOU DO TUCK IT AWAY: periodically unseat it and verify that the end-stop (ball swag, etc) is still there and well seated. (out of sight should not be out of mind) While it is a statistically uncommon thing to find, it has happened that the ball is loose and/or the cable is freyed around the end. YES, your rigger should find such things at the next repack, but what you don't know TODAY can be a hazard to YOU. Thanks to Dean S. for his articles in Parachutist. Talk to your rigger, learn about the gear. The life you save may be your own. JW Sr. Rigger Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Blatent hijack! OK, you asked for it, so here it is, attached to this message. I was more concerned about this one... Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

FYI - found this on the FAA's site in a document uses as guidance to the FAA inspectors: 8-476 ALTERATION OF THE MAIN PARACHUTE. A. The main parachute of a dual parachute pack to be used for intentional jumping may be altered by a master parachute rigger, the manufacturer, or any other manufacturer the Administrator considers to be competent. The alterations are not required to be made in accordance with approved manuals and specifications (14 CFR § 65.125(c)). Master parachute riggers are not required to comply with 14 CFR sections (§§) 65.127 through 65.133 (relating to facilities, equipment, performance standards, records, recent experience, and seal) when altering the main parachute. B. Any change to the configuration, method of operation, or method of packing the main parachute, up to and including the main canopy attachment links or the male end of the quick release fittings, is a main pack alteration. Any main parachute alteration that affects the strength or operation of the auxiliary parachute, including the harness, must be regarded as an alteration of the auxiliary parachute and handled accordingly. http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=Search&q=parachute&kw=parachute&status=a&syn=1&sort=0& -------------- Not saying I think their position is right/wrong or even clear when it comes to certain detials... just this is what they tell their own people... Take it for what its worth. JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Geez, Dave. There I was trying to lead him to realizing for himself that maybe the real issue wasn't gear related and you go and put it out there... Ah, yes... but even the OP indicated the concern of "what would have happened if it where my reserve pillow he kicked out instead of my cutaway"... And as many have replaced their reserve handle with soft handles, the concern is valid. Short of removing the handles completely, I must agree that protecting them will always be an issue. Years ago blast handles were designed to solve a safety issue... and killed folks along the way. Personally I'ld rather have handles that I can find/grab/use when needed and deal with co-jumper education issues to (hopefully) keep them where they should be during the exit/dive. Just my $.02 JW Protecting your handles is a very old and very basic is a very old and very basic safety issue. Unless somebody comes up with a revolutionary new system that does away with handles altogether, there will always be that risk, no matter what kind of handles you're using. Handles are an issue anywhere near or outside the open door and all the way down, even on the ground where you may need to use or prevent their use after you've landed. It has ever been thus. Changing your handles won't help as much as constant vigilance. Lets go back a second.... We are talking about the cutaway handle, not the ripcord. Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Having worked for a long time with both DOS and Windows... which would I rather have on my back to save my &$$...?? Give me DOS anyday. You start adding complexity to the system and I start to envision a mini-blue-screen flashing as I suck it down too low... Just my own $.02 JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Never had one fail, seen very few that were of the "right" type, but a close friend of mine did... He was just returning to the sport after putting the gear in the closet for years. Took it to a rigger up in PA for I&R. As I understand it, the rigger told him that upon inspection, he should get new gear. When asked "why" the rigger, with my friend's consent, proceeded to demonstrate by picking up the skirt and ripping it to the apex with one move. My friend, being a seasoned and wise individual, recognizing that this is better seen on the ground than in the air, chose the "new gear" route. It was a HOT SAC that had been carefully stored and not inspected since shortly before the warnings went out. This is why riggers need to: read history compare notes research any gear that they don't know (make/model/year) ask questions like someone's life depends on the answer (it DOES) Just because it "flake in the usual manner" doesn't mean it should be... JW Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...