riggermick

Seen it happen twice. Both times were from the same cause, the type 2a loop was not routed through the grommet on the housing before the cable passed thgough it. The condition is not always easy to spot as seen from the side, that's why when you check your cable/ housing/ loop assembly you need to grab it and turn it while tugging gently on it. This will accomplish two things: It will allow you to see the whole assembly and if it's assembled correctly and if the loop doesn't pass through the grommet you will be able to pull the housing right off the back of the riser. Both of these incidents happend after the jumper landed both on the wearers left. The right side was in the same condition but due to it's inline orintation did not spring out to the side like the long housing always does. Hope this helps. Mick.

The Swift + is fully Kevlar reinforced which makes it able to withstand high shock loads, it also opens very quickly (be prepared if you have to use it). Not the most popular reserve ever made, mainly due to the "minimilist" construction techniques. By minimilist I mean the internal seams are not folded over to hide the (hot) cut edges as as found on most other canopies. It is a cosmetic issue rather than a structural one. Bottom line: not the prettiest reserve out there but plenty strong and reliable. Mick.

Yes, of course type 4. My mistake.. From the "thickness" of cord I think that its "like" 5-cord. But - what material, what manufacturer ets - I dont know and HC manufacturer dont tell as... I dont know, HC is under investigation now, and I cant look at it now. About SPI - I dont know too, but cant imagin, that a little wrong tension and little wrong SPI may be the cause. That rig was inspected often, and there was no "big" mistake- that you can catch my eye inspection... No, newer. It was jumped and stored it near perfect condition (we have 5 month season and normal store for the rest of the year). I dont ever see that wariant of construction (simple drawing in attachment). The only one "near" - its a racer, but on racer diagonal and rear riser is the same strap. It have no stitch above 3-ring. It was pulled there at deployment. See in attachment. Yes, thats right Some quick math here. Poynters calls for 4-6 stiches per inch (SPI), so let's average 5 SPI. On a typical 3" four point pattern with no box around it (did not see any evidence of "bullet" holes across the top of the 4 point) that's 15 SPI. 15 SPI x 9 (the amount of runs needed to complete a 4 point) = 135 stiches total. 135 stiches x 40 lb (5 cord typicaly used for harness stiching) = 5400 lbs. I counted bullet holes on the webbing as best I could from the photos and came to the number 13. 13 x 9 = 117 x 40 = 4680 lbs. This is more than enough to withstand opening forces. The only variable that can't be tested online is the thread tensile strength, if it's less than 40 lbs that would be the root cause of the failure. The construction method looks sound, albeit a little different from the way it is traditionally done. Mick.

I think that the stitching (or rather stitch holes) you are seeing above the harness ring have just been pulled out of place. You can see that the type 12 and type 8 which passes around and through the harness ring slot is out side the mudflap. I looked at that too, but I assumed that the torn stitching I could see was normaly inside the confluence wrap below the harness ring. That is the sitching we can see in the bottom left picture on the "intact" front reserve riser has been pulled above the harness ring either as a result of the 4 point pattern failing or later to make the images clearer. If your idea that the rear reserve risers have been stitched onto the front risers and the diagonal was correct, then that would be a stitch patern that is doomed to fail as you describe. I can't imagine that sort of pattern getting through any from of testing though so I assume it's just how the pictures have been taken. Looking at the photos it appears that the diagonal passes through the three ring junction and becomes the second (rear) half of the webbing "sandwitch" making the MLW. The rear reserve risers look like they terminate at the bottom of the four point pattern. This type of construction, though not standard in the industry should stand the riggors of a hard opening, although it is a built in fail point (rear reserve risers seperating) if the stitch pattern fails. Under the same scenario with a "normal harness" the reserve risers would remain intact and the diagonal would seperate and as long as the "mud flap" holds the jumper would stay in the harness. All that being said, it appears as though the thread most likely failed when loaded at an unusual angle. The first thing I would look at is the tensile strength of the remaining thread and the stitch count for each stich pattern. Enough thread, perhaps from a carefully unpicked stitch pattern elswhere on the rig may provide a few clues. Mick

One would have to assume here, that you are refering to the hardware and not the actual webbing it'self? Could you be a little more specfic to the nature of the issue? Cheers .. Mock.

I'm betting he's not a rigger!! It sounds like his personal "I have blah balah jumps, I know everything, blah blah" opinion. Tell him to "go pound sand". Talk to your local rigger he should know more than than your local "sky god". Mick.

Why?

QuoteHi Rob, Not to keep beating this thing but . . . . 1. I do not work for the FAA and cannot interpret their regs; they are the only ones with that authority. 2. I've relocated a number of times. The facility inspection (in my experience) is done by someone from the MIDO, not the ACO. I've always consider this facility inspection nonsense. Here, you've built a parachute (complete or component), tested it, and the ACO has determined that your QC manual and Test Report are acceptable. Now along comes some guy from the MIDO who wants to look over your facility to 'see if you can make a parachute there.' That's nuts in my book, you just did it. One thing about an FAR, it ties the builder's hands and it ties the FAA's hands. They do not have any authority to just make someone test. They need a very sustantiated reason. Now, given that, if they turn their General Counsel on you, you might want to think about whatever it is they are asking. The way I 'heard' it Ray was trying to do too much of a change at one time. Or maybe someone had it in for him. I do not know the details. I still do not see anything in the TSO FAR's about any testing being req'd if a facility is moved. That's my story and I'm sticking with it. That is unless I'm wrong. Jerry Just as an aside, MIDO conducts an audit every two years of each "approved" facility, be it, aircraft or parachute. ACEP audits are a matter of routine. They cover all manner of manufacturing, Tool and gauge control, raw material procurement, traceability, constistency of what is built VS what is written, etc, etc, the list is long. I found out very early on during the process, if you give the inspector what he's looking for, good or bad you can go on business as usual (if wrong, you have a time frame to correct mistakes). These guys are auditors pure and simple! If you are honest with them they will work with you. If,however you are not so forthcoming They will sense it and make life miserable. Their job is to police the TSO standards. They also know that nothing is perfect and some adjustments need to be made at various levels. Bottom line is: If you are honest with them they will be fair to you!! MIDO are NOT THE BAD GUYS!! They are simply carrying out their mandate. They don't give a flying fuck about parachute equipment as long as it meets the REQUIRED standards, plain and simple. If you have somthing to hide be afraid very afraid!! I have personally "been there and done that". Several times! Hope this brings some clarity to the discussion. Mick.

Have you worn your rig while wearing it (the suit)yet? You need some extra leg room in the crotch to tighten your leg straps. Mick.

And, the Dragonfly was a 220 sq. ft. 9 cell....essentially a 9 cell Firefly. A 210 or 230 Spectre should fit in there easy...might even be too loose. AAAhhhh, the first production 9 cell. Sweet landings after all of those Swift, Strato flier and Strato star landings (I know I was a Paraflite whore back then!)!!!! I loved mine, it was however the first canopy I had to chop "in anger" ending an 1100 (somthing) jump record without a reserve ride. (K XX (round 20' diameter)) After I did the upper control line mod it was just fine. The Bandit, the next generation production 9 cell did not land so well as it was around 170 sq' as opposed to the DF's 220 sq'. Of course this all predates ZP fabric. Good times!!!

If I was to guess, and I am (guessing that is). Looking at the serial number 651782: 65= 1965, 1= paracomnder mk 1, 7= July and 82= the production number so # 82 on the list. Alternatly #1 could be the day it was put into production (which looks more accurate as it is right along side the rest of the (supposed) date, either way it looks like #82 out of how many? Mick.

When it comes to altimeters, it comes down to what is in fashion. Milions of people have relied (and have not been let down by) analog altimeters. Both work, one doesn't need batteries and one does. Me, I'm old school I prefer analog as it gives you an instant picture of time left VS time elapsed. Both are accurate enough for landing, I know of no one who relies on just an altimeter to setup for landing. It's all done through the use of eye balls and gut instinct for the final commit to land, unless you are being radar guided in zero zero conditions. Mick.

Guess why most swoopers are using digitals Cuz it's cool?

Why not? The color logo distracts from the "alien skull" outline but the B and W version is a dead ringer from a short distance. All sorts of marketing possibilities come to mind!! You should look into it. You could call it the Roswell edition or somthing like that!! Mick.

Looks good!!!! Note to Kelly: Your logo's on the main riser confluences look, from a distance like "roswell alien sculls". You should market the whole alien technology thing!! Mick.

Try googling "project man high" that's what the program was called. Mick.

wouldnt want that happening when the door is opened at altitude, now would we? i dont trust them. there is only one word you need to know about aad's......CYPRES Opening the door would cause a pressure drop not a pressure increase. AAD's work on the princible of increased pressure to activate, not decreased. However, it does look like there is an issue with the AAD's interpretation of exactly what constitutes a viable pressure change in order to activate. Software problem? Hardware problem? Both? It does need to be looked into though. Mick.

The grass always seems greener....until you actually get to the other side of the fence, and see that there is crab grass over there too. Just like real grass it is very labor intensive, tuck tabs are more akin to Astroturf!! Mick.

All too well!!!! Mick.

I think I'm seeing a little slider burn on those lines big guy!! And the "larks head" base is through the grommet, good for a band snap (common) or a hang up (rare). Hey, you bust mine ,.....I bust yours!!!. (Off topic) BTW Squeek could be either, If you have never met him/ her, not too many clues in the profile, just the somewhat effeminate avatar. Who knew/ knows?. Mick.

It may be a Starlite system from Strong Ent. Hard to tell. Mick.

I don't think anyone's been paying for using the three ring design for quite a long time, if ever. The patent expired about 4 or 5 years ago. Every US manufacturer paid $ 6.00 a rig ($ 1.00/ ring) while it was in force. Bill made a handsome chunk of change out of the invention. Mick.

Be carefull with that. I'm 5'9" and have a 21" lift web,, I have ducks disease though AND LISA your legs are way too long girl, my iseam is 29" and I'm an inch taller than you Does this mean that you, (gasp) A Woman is actually admitting that you are a "little" heavier than you are? This can't be true, say it ain't so! Oh ,,,,you've shattered my vision of you! Oh well! But hey, buy me a drink and we'll be back on track!!. Mick. Umm well I'm about to shatter your vision of me even more..I'M A DUDE not a girl OH No!! Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (running away). Sorry "dude" Always thought you were a chick! My bad Mick.

I thought your MLW length was determined by the measurement from that "soft spot" (or "hole") at the bottm of your neck to one of your hip bones?? Or is it just different manufacturers do it differently?? Exactly!!! Mick.

Be carefull with that. I'm 5'9" and have a 21" lift web,, I have ducks disease though AND LISA your legs are way too long girl, my iseam is 29" and I'm an inch taller than you Does this mean that you, (gasp) A Woman is actually admitting that you are a "little" heavier than you are? This can't be true, say it ain't so! Oh ,,,,you've shattered my vision of you! Oh well! But hey, buy me a drink and we'll be back on track!!. Mick.