riggermick

What is the difference between a "hard helmet" and the student's skull? I give up what's the difference? Oh, it's not a joke? Could be if some bright spark comes up with a punch line. Mick. Sparky

Patch= PTCH (1-?). PTCH 6 (the one I'm familiar with) is basicly a Para Commander rip off from the Czech Republic. Circa late 60's -early 70's. Mick.

I have to go work for a while, but later I can draw up a fairly lame diagram. Check out the post further down, do I win the lameness competition? I actually did it old school, real cut and paste and the help of a sharpie. Mick.

Maybe these will help. They are parts of harness diagrams from the Reflex drawing package. They have been edited and annotated to try and provide some clarity to the verbal descriptions already advanced here. One picture is worth 1000 words, so I guess this is at least 2 grands worth, hope it makes sense. Oh BTW most harness construction is similar from manufacturer to the next but there are subtle differences even though they all do the same job. Mick.

3/8" per knot the bulk is nedgebile the slider does'nt care. Mick. Ya know what? My bad, I didn't realize you were using 550 dacron, that is bulky. I was thinking 825 Spectre. Ignore the previous post. Mick.

3/8" per knot the bulk is nedgebile the slider does'nt care. Mick.

I'm still using my Para Gear press from 1979, works like a champ. Not too many moving parts. Mick.

3 : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified. Boy doesn't just about describe everyone here, self included. Mick.

QuoteCorrect. The lines are fine with only 300 or so on the set. I check all of the bartacks and more than half were coming loose, Questions: What type of bar tacker was used to reattach the line set? Was it a center start/ stop? Was it a 42 stitch? Were the thread tails scissor cut or hot seared? Did the stitch width allow for any thread to interlock on the very edge or even off the edge of the lines? Each and every one of these points either individually or collectively can cause a bartack to fail under repeated loading. Also double-check the thread to verify if it is indeed "e" thread. Just food for thought. Mick. Oh, just for clarification; The left hand side start stop bar tack when loaded at odd angles has been known to unravel, this is one the reasons many canopy mfg's use center start/ stop tackers.

You know, I don't have the actual paperwork for the materials in question (Bomber Mfg. has all that) but I do have the material request/ data sheet for the previous drawing. It describes the materials required and their lengths/ quantities as well as the patterns required to produce that piece. Also shown is a page from the manufacturing operations sheet (the written instructions that go with the drawings and patterns). Although a pattern would be impossible to show here I have included the master CAD pattern spec sheet for the piece in question (minus any measurements) To show how one would look. Armed with all this information one "reasonably skilled in the art" should be able to reproduce the piece accurately and repeatedly. Of course there is a lot more involved in the process but I think this gives a pretty good idea of some of the complexity involved in rig production. Next time anyone feels like bitching about rig prices think about all of the time and expense that go in to designing, certifying, building and marketing a harness container. If it were that easy everyone would be doing it! Mick.

What does "H/C" stand for? Horrible/ Crap!!!! Actually it's Harness/ Container. Mick.

That leads me to the following question: does (or should) every manufacturer keep a sample of each roll that they used to build their rigs? No, they don't keep samples of every roll they get in. In a couple of years you'd end up with a warehouse full of samples. TSO holders are required to batch test materials periodically. The time interval is established by the manufacturer when the TSO authorization is sought. Critical item traceability will track down any sub-standard materials, it may take a little while. With the exception of a catastrophic failure a loose rule of thumb that can be used is as follows: One incident is an anomaly two incidents is a coincidence and three incidents is a trend. Using this as a base line is generally a good place to start. Mick.

Gotta go with the H/C manufacturers recomendation over the AAD manufacturers, unless it's on the actual material used in construction. The closing loop design/ configuration on a reserve is part of the certified system and the H/C manufacturer is the only one who can legaly change it. Mick.

Can someone help out. How does one reduce the size of the attachment so that it can be reviewed easily? Much thanks in advance. Mick

That was the point I was trying to make, I guess I could have just come right out and said it. Although some may consider the second skin "applique"(sp) IE: cosmetics like stripes, piping etc and not an "alteration". Uh oh it's getting grey in here again. Mick. If you are making a change from the original drawing it sounds to me like that would be an alteration. Without testing how can you say there would be no affect on function. Since there is nothing broken, nothing is being repaired. Seems pretty simple to me. But then again what would I know. Sparky Hey Sparky (you probably know this already, but hey enjoy) and other curious parties, Just for general discourse and for the curious who have heard about rig drawings (you hear it banded about all the time on this forum) but whom have never actually seen one (in this case a very small part of one, the total package is huge) here's what one looks like. Each and every manufacturer has a different style, interpretation, and size package for their individual product/ process, there is no set format that the FAA requires it to be presented in. That being said: The drawing package must be legible, must be able to be interpreted by "someone reasonably skilled in the art" and otherwise contain all the pertinent information required to produce the product and any subsequent copies repeatedly and consistently. Attached is a second tier, first sub level component drawing of the Reflex reserve container (it's one of seven different sheets that make up just the reserve sub assembly, there are many many more sheets involved for the entire rig). The material data/ spec sheets for this page are not shown. Notice the the two numbers preceeded by dashes in the lower left corner of the drawing (-33 and -31), those are part numbers. Part numbers require a patern along with the apropriate tool ang gauge controls that go along with them to check/ maintain consistency. The numbers with circles around them are item numbers. Item numbers are fixed property objects such as grommets, binding tape, webbing CYPRES pouches etc. If any alteration or re-fabrication of articles carrying part numbers is required the original drawing and/or pattern (or a copy of) needs to be used. The factory is sure as hell not going to give up their intellectual property to all and sundry who request it. This type if information is hard fought for and difficult to compile and being such a small industry it is jealously gaurded. Rightfully so. So how do individual repairmen in the field accomplish these types of repairs without this information? Good question, most skilled repairmen will just "dead recon" it and that will be that. Depending on how skilled and conscientious your repairman is will weigh heavily on the outcome of your repair. As you can probably tell from the drawing the reserve side flaps, vertical wall and pack tray are actually all the same piece. Most modern rigs are built this way as it is accurate, cost effective and relatively simple to produce. This should also alert you to the fact that replacing a single flap is exceedinly difficult and time consuming considering all of the other parts of the rig that surround the reserve container. So the next time you are wondering why your rigger says he has to send your rig back to the factory to have xyz flap fixed (read: Replaced usually) you'll have a better understanding of why, as most riggers out there do not have the equipment or skill to be able to pull off a repair of similar magnitude. I'm only posting this for educational purposes, I believe that "your average jumper" needs to be better informed about their equipment. Mick.

QuoteThanks Rob! Now that sounds quite impossible for Sunpath to track this problem down... Read the thread a dozen or so post's up from here, it explains how Sunpath can quite easily track the problem, if indeed there is one. Then again it may be a one off. Mick.

That was the point I was trying to make, I guess I could have just come right out and said it. Although some may consider the second skin "applique"(sp) IE: cosmetics like stripes, piping etc and not an "alteration". Uh oh it's getting grey in here again. Mick.

but why would you ever want to iron it? Ever tried to patch a wrinkled canopy? or re close a bottom seam? Mick.

This small canopy would be the last resort and it could be in a deployment system that can be thrown clear of any mess , would have long lines and would go above and beyond any mess before it would even clear of the deployment bag. I designed one of those for paragliding back in the early eighties. I was marketed under the Aerolite brand (one of tony Domenico's old co's). I re-designed the system in the mid 90's as a tertiary reserve system for use during the Reflex drop testing program. works like a champ, no control over where you want to go but at least you don't hit the ground hard enough to dent it. It is a free bag deployed design that the user can hurl in any direction he/ she can find clear air to get it in to. The paragliding version had a single 30' (or so) long bridle attachment point so as to allow it to get as far away as possible before inflating. The drop test version was a QAC (quick (relativly speaking)attachable chest) type for easy donning/ detaching and had to have a pretty beefy cross connector fitted. Both work on the same princible. I didn't invent the original concept of the gravity deployed free bag round, I just made it practical, the idea's been around a while. Mick.

I'd like to address something you said. You mentioned that every part of the system, should be covered under the TSO and QC manuals and therefore the type of repair I performed would, in your opinion, void the TSO. Would that include changing out the closing loop? After all, wouldn't loop length and material type be part of the TSO testing paramiters? I realize that I am taking it a bit far but where exactly is the line drawn and who gets to cross it? In theory all parts should be from the manufacturer but in reality they are not. Example, replacing a rudder cable on a small A/C. You could go to the factory and buy the part (which they would have to make for you as they generally wouldn't keep a box of pre made ones around) or you could (as most A & P's do) make it yourself following the manufacturers instructions using approved materials, tools and procedurers. Just like a closing loop it's a matter of practicality. If one is an apropriatly rated repairman, he/ she could elect to re-skin a damaged part of the fuselage or send it to the manufacturers repair facility for the work to be performed. There has always existed a "legal grey area" for this type of work and no doubt always will. As I stated before if you have the factory's aproval more power to you, if it were me in your shoes I'd get it in writing. Mick.

All of the reserve pilot chute springs in the Reflex and The talon/ Voodoo are powder coated to alleviate this problem. Mick.

Umm.... Who poured beer on their reserve? It seems like the sticky reserve flap would be the culprit, so I don't see how they are grounding all Odysseys. They might as well ground all rigs to check for stick reserve flaps. Could be a bad batch of fabric. Sometimes the coating(s) that is/ are applied to the front and rear of the fabric are the wrong type or an odd mix from the factory. Sometimes the factory or the distributor incorrectly catorgorizes a commercial grade (cheap back packs etc) fabric as a certified grade. Under the sometimes harsh conditions of parachuting, lesser grade fabrics (and more importantly their backings) can become compromised and fail or become sticky etc. Sunpath, through it's critical item tracability process will be able to trace the fabric used on the offending flap(s) via the rigs S/N back to the roll it came from. From there, back to the distributor, back to the manufacturer and and hopefully what if anything went wrong. Knowing which roll the fabric came from will enable them to trace each and every rig that is affected and if necessary take corrective action. Or it could just be beer on the flap! It should however be investigated throughly. Mick.

That is not what the manufacture told me when I called to get their opinion on the matter before doing the job. They viewed it simply as a major repair because, the method I use does not change any of the flaps configuration or operation. Everything went back together exactly as it came apart. They did tell me however that there where very few riggers in the world that they would feel comfortable with doing that sort of work out side of the factory. However, because they know me, know that I have the skills, the ratings, the machines, and the properly certified materials, and that I was not changing the function of the rig in any significant way they gave me the go ahead. I suppose that there will be those of you who disagree, but the manufacture did not. That was 5 years ago and the rig is still in the air. It has long since left my care and is now being cared for by other riggers who have called the manufacture on their own to verify that the repair was authorized Each has recieved the same answer. YES IT WAS That is their perogative. Most manufacturers wouldn't allow this type of mod to be done outside their factories, when I was in the business I never allowed it. Under our TSO drawings and QC manual proceedures, the outer skin of the reserve container (as well as everything else in the reserve system) is covered under the terms and conditions of that document. Most if not all (harness/ container) manufacturers TSO drawings should encompass the outer skin of the reserve container. It would be rather difficult to certify a container without that particular item being covered. That being said: Each and every manufacturer has the perogative to allow or disallow this type of modification. Glad to hear you have the ability and the blessing to do it from the manufacturer. If there is a need for it then you are fullfilling that need. Mick.

Don't forget Rob, that overlays will void the TSO unless the manufacturer provides a letter authorizing the procedure, accompanied by drawings etc. Like you said: send it back to the manufacturer it's the best way. Mick.