KellyF

Members
  • Content

    412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

Gear

  • Main Canopy Size
    79
  • Reserve Canopy Size
    113

Jump Profile

  • License
    D
  • License Number
    13826
  • Licensing Organization
    USPA
  • Years in Sport
    30
  • Freefall Photographer
    No

Ratings and Rigging

  • USPA Coach
    No
  • Pro Rating
    Yes
  • Wingsuit Instructor
    No
  • Rigging Back
    Senior Rigger

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Mark, I was looking over your shoulder at the Symposium at one point, and saw a still shot from, I assume a test jump, where the MARD (not sure who's) released prematurely. It looked pretty nasty. Almost like the reserve bag got ejected out of the container at the same time as the reserve PC. I wanted to produce a device that I had as much confidence in as the snap shackle that's the first link in the chain. When you think about it, our main deployments rely on the pilot chute being able to pull the pin to initiate the deployment, and then finish it- there's no need for second PC inside the container to take over the deployment once the PC has pulled the pin. In testing, we found the same to be true with the Infinity MARD- if there's a horseshoe malfunction (for example) where the main is still in the bag, it doesn't create enough drag to open the riser covers, or separate the risers from the harness rings (even if the riser covers are open), let alone pull the reserve pin. So if the jumper cuts away the main, and pulls the reserve (standard EP's), the reserve bridle will disconnect from the Infinity MARD before the risers and RSL can lock the MARD to the bridle. So, from our testing, it appears as though the concept that the MARD needs to be able to "change it's mind" mid deployment isn't accurate. Maybe there's some fringe entaglement/malfunction scenario where an aerodynamic MARD would be beneficial, but since you're starting with an entanglement already, nothing can really be predicted.
  2. There are a couple of factors at play here. One, it sounds like when you're unpacking, you're pulling the main out of the main container more or less parallel with the backpad, which isn't how you'll be deploying in the real world (hopefully!). If you lift the main out perpendicular to the backpad, the secondary riser covers should open before the line stows release. For the primary (over the shoulder) riser covers, regardless of the type, they're not likely to open until your main creates enough drag to start pulling you vertical, so the canopy will be out of the bag. Having a body in the harness will certainly give you a more realistic sense of the forces required to open the primary riser covers. The issue of risers being placed under or over the tuck tab pockets was never an issue until a company came out with a design that allowed the risers to find their way too far under the pocket and cause locking issues in the field. Instead of redesigning the riser covers, they decided to put a label on top of the pocket instructing the users/packers to put the risers on top of the pocket, and other companies followed suit. The Infinity top flap is designed to prevent the risers from finding their way to the "wrong" side of pocket when the risers are placed underneath it. You can put the risers in either location, but the covers will be a little more secure if the risers are placed under the pockets/top flap.
  3. Not really. With the Mojo, the bridle can be under full tension and still have the Mojo connected. The Mojo will disconnect when the angle between the RSL lanyard and upper portion of the reserve bridle approaches 90° (I don't know the exact number) under tension.
  4. I, uh, have nothing more to add If you have the rig and the canopy, I would encourage you to try packing them, simply because we don't get the opportunity to actually pack every canopy/container combo. But even if you do get the Pulse 190 into it, I don't think it's going to be something you would want to do for every jump you make. Basically, you would be doing it for personal experience and building a frame of reference for your knowledge base
  5. I've never had my hands on an Angelfire, so I don't know anything about their construction, but I have a hard time believing that the designers would add bulk for the sake of adding bulk, relative to other canopies on the market. Knowing that canopy volume numbers are known to vary considerably, I would encourage you to at least try packing it if the rig and canopy are available to you. If you still have to purchase the canopy, I would go with a reserve that's known to fit. My gut instinct says that you could put the Angelfire in the I-3 reserve container, but the closing loop would need to be 3/8-1/2" longer than the PR-143, assuming the volume numbers represent some form of reality (meaning the Anglefire DOES pack somewhat bigger than the 143).
  6. I've never tried it, and never would, since the volumes aren't even close. When we size main containers, it's done with the assumption that most jumpers will likely downsize. So a Sabre 2 120 is about the biggest canopy you're going to want to put into an I-22 on a regular basis, assuming you pack neatly. You might be able to get a 135 in there for a couple of test jumps, but you won't want to do it after every jump.
  7. I talked to Morten sometime after I first saw this video, and he said that he had another camera that got knocked off, but was still connected by a lanyard. There was a frame of video from that camera that showed everything still connected when the reserve was at line stretch, then the red lanyard broke. This one has puzzled me for years. Most of the explanations I hear don't hold water. I've heard the bagged reserve fell out of the container before the MARD started to deploy it. So the reserve FELL out of the container in the split second between the RSL pulling the pin and the jumper and main getting 7-8 feet of separation after a high G spin? I don't think so... I've heard the rig was one of the Javelin's that had the cutaway cables trimmed incorrectly (so the RSL riser would release first), but that shouldn't matter if the Collin's lanyard was used. I've been told that the left riser locked up momentarily, allowing the MARD to start deploying the reserve into the main. MAYBE, but I'm not clear on what would cause the riser to lock up if the riser covers were open, which it clearly seems they were, given the location of the main riser ends during the line twists. Come to think of it, I don't know what side of Morten's helmet the camera that got knocked off was on... To me, this is a "MARD malfunction", whereas every other MARD related incident has been related to the nature of the specific MARD used.
  8. Googled and just got some NSL results. Derek V https://youtu.be/4tF6iXI70-Y?list=FLpzksUDjnFCkYtFrUztdcZA
  9. Ty Bowen and I did some tests years ago with the two piece hardware and more traditional hardware. I don't think the two piece was assembled they way they typically are now. We tested a couple of different colors of webbing that had varying levels of stiffness, both clean and contaminated with fine dirt. The takeaway was that hardware that had some knurling on the bar held more consistently than than the two piece that didn't have any knurling. Thanks! I hope this can help people determine (with risers, anyway) what is worthy of immediate grounding, vs. something that is worthy of replacement, but can be jumped for the rest of the weekend and a replacement ordered on Monday, for example. Those "red" reserve risers left the factory as black I don't have data for loads for an average main deployment, but we measured up to 3700 lbs. on each side of the harness at 200 knots with 360 lbs. in the harness. When you think about a 200 lb. jumper (easy math), even the weakest risers in the test would likely withstand a 10g opening (all on one side, even). I'm not trying to advocate people jump beat up, worn out equipment, just that a couple of broken fibers here and there generally isn't cause for concern. Inspect your gear, and observe the wear characteristics
  10. I had several sets of risers and pieces of harnesses that we had replaced littering my office, so I decided to pull test them and put together a non-scientific presentation for last August's PIA meeting in Portsmouth, VA. The jump numbers are estimates only, the main idea was to give people an idea of strength degradation due to various levels of wear and tear. We don't know exactly what caused the heavy fading on one harness, but it was likely some form of acid. The complete harness that is shown towards the end was subjected to repeated zig-zag passes with a dull needle at all the typical places where it is sewn to the container and legpads. The butterflied sections at the rings were left original. For reference, Ty-7 webbing is rated at 6000 lbs., Ty-8 is rated at 4000 lbs., and Ty-17 is rated at 2500 lbs. We typically see a Ty-17 riser break at around 3400 lbs. I'll try to answer questions, but I'm pretty busy lately coordinating our upcoming move, in addition to the standard day to day fires that need my attention
  11. To me, the funny bit is that this has been staring riggers in the face ever since toggle keepers came into existence, and people started setting their brakes above the guide ring and ripping the toggle keepers off Replace the toggle with a pin (some have a pin, even), and allow the "brake line" to pull in more than one direction, thereby providing a means for disconnecting itself, and a new MARD is born
  12. I have yet to see how an RSL/MARD will work with either one. Jerry Baumchen Jerry, Mark Hewitt's Sorcerer BASE rig used a pull out on the reserve, and was the first (that I'm aware of) rig to be marketed with a MARD. Basically, the RSL lanyards were attached to the reserve handle, so a cutaway would pull and hold onto the reserve PC handle and static line the reserve off the main. In the event of a total, the jumper would pull the reserve handle, which would disconnect (and split) the RSL lanyards, allowing the reserve PC to deploy the reserve. I did my first Sorcerer cutaway at Bridge Day '92
  13. That's a fair point. The reason I didn't take into consideration any other MARD options was because, and this is purely my impression and with my experience can't be worth much, the other options had not been out for too many years and as such were not something that I would be interested in adding on to a container. Now, I'm sure they have done quite a bit of testing and my opinion could be completely wrong, but I just would like something that may save my life to have more time and real world testing. I'm not going to tell you what features are worth shopping for and which aren't, but before you rule out another MARD or standard RSL, talk to some tandem instructors that have had multiple cutaways on MARD equipped tandems, and ask them how many times the MARD functioned as a MARD as opposed to a standard RSL. It may not be as often as you think.
  14. The commentary in that video seems to ignore the fact that the jumper is on his back with the reserve PC trying to pull the reserve bag over his left shoulder, likely getting hung up on the jumper's neck and, to some extent, his helmet. The boxed corners of the reserve container had very little to do with the force required to deploy the reserve in this particular case since the bag is getting pulled away from them (referring to the bottom corners, near the center flap). In regards to the container system in the test with the 18 lb. AAD fire extraction force- someone may have touched on it, but the rate of deceleration of the PC combined with it's state of inflation when it reaches the end of the bridle will have a significant effect on that number. The harder the PC hits the end of the bridle, the higher that number will be, even if the actual force required to extract the bagged canopy from each container is exactly the same. So, that being the case, simply a shorter bridle could give the impression that that particular rig has lower bag extraction forces, and a longer bridle could give the opposite impression. FWIW, our rig was not System A, and in the AAD test the bag was rotated before the reserve PC was even half inflated.
  15. The I-33 was designed around the Sabre 1 150 as being the biggest canopy you'd want to pack into it regularly. I don't think your Safire should be significantly different, but the differences in canopy pack volumes often aren't appreciated until the pack jobs start getting tight. When you pack your main, make sure to pack it wide- you want to use every bit of the bag available. It should have close to the same pack job density from one side of the bag to the other. The bag and container are essentially a fabric box- if you want it to look like a box, you need to support it from the inside to provide the shape you want. It's very common to see rigs where it looks like there's a football in the main bag- the majority of the bulk in the center with the locking stows stretched 2-3" and the sides and corners of the bag empty. I believe this happens because people keep the cocoon narrow so they don't lose control of the canopy as they're putting it in the bag. This will always result in a tight rig that doesn't look good. We've also had situations where we built a rig for a canopy that should have fit, but we had to rebuild the rig two sizes larger to reasonably fit the customer's canopy.