JohnSherman

Kelly, When you jerk the free bag from the container by the mid -point of the bridle using a non-certified device you are "interfering with the normal operation of" and that device should be Certified. I watched your video, your reserve pilot chute is upside down during the extraction of the bridle and bag. Thats not assisting its prempting. Granted your pilot chute doesn't stay inverted very long but if you still have a flailing riser, the posibility of a low drag mal and a collapsable pilot chute that reserve pilot chute better take over.

Ok Mark Here is the answer: The test jumper is pulling only the cutaway and he is doing it with both hands. The reserve ripcord is not touched. This is strictly an RSL deployment. Slo-Mo it and you will see the cross connector pulling the ripcord. By my count line stretch occurs at about 1 second which makes more sence acording to the physics of acceleration. The canopy takes about 1 second to inflate. The only way to improve this distance is to shorten the reserve free bag bridle. I could knock of some 15 feet of deployment distance with a short bridle. That's what a MARD does, it grabs the reserve bridle at about the half way point shorteniong it. Send me you address and I will send you a canopy to try. To understand our deployment capability read the curent review on the FireBolt. It's the same technology. For 30 years we have been deploying reserves that fast. For 30 years people have denied that it was possible. Now there are MARDs and they have shown that reserves can in fact be deployed in 2 seconds. But at what cost? If you take all the videos from the Jump Shack web site and do the same for the MASD makers web site and edit them to side by side starting evenly at the cutaway you won't see a significant difference. I win one they win one. Mine is Certified and correctly TSOed. Sorry 'bout my web site they are working on it, I hope

Code was increased from 5 to 6 digits several years ago to accomidate a double digit designation for the year

If you care to comment on any of my posts and want my response you should identify yourself and fill in your profile. I don't respond to people who hide their idenity and experience. How can one craft an answer if one doesn't know the intelectual level of the person for whom you are crafting the answer.

You are wrong! Sir, Current standards do require testing. It requires testing of the complete system. If the reserve pilot chute is replaced by a MARD then it, the MARD, must be tested as a reserve pilot chute. The future isn't good enough. If the sport had to wait on PIA, or USPA for that matter, until all of their priority interest are satisfied. It wouldn't get done. The work product of PIA is so poor that their last 3 submissions to the FAA have been rejected as submitted. What has happened to the 12 Reserve failures at 750 feet with the main closed? It’s an agenda item with no movement for 2 years. Good work PIA! I suppose it needs more politicians to muddy the water.

Jerry, Great video! IMO that system probably doesn't need a MARD. It has a good pilot chute launch and low bag extraction. However, it is clear from the 2nd slide on that the reserve pilot chute is prempted by the MARD system when it is employed, and becomes the de facto reserve pilot chute and as such requires certification. The act of prempting the Certificated Reserve pilot chute denotes interfearance with the normal operation of the Certified assembly. The system needs a Cross connector to control the flailing of the off side riser and capture what little drag the malfunctioned main may have. John

Your assumption that I have read TS-135 or know what it says is as wrong as your response. The question is "do they require" which means today, now, real time. I do, however, appreciate your information because by knowing that PIA has recognized the need for Certification of these devices means they believe that they must be certified. I agree that they do need it and believe that they are currently not authorized. I believe their manufacturers have jumped the gun by releasing them to the public without Certification. MARDs preempt the function of the reserve pilot chute and should be Certified as the reserve pilot chute. I believe that their current use is a violation of the doctrine of “must not interfere with the normal function of…” and that any rigger who packs and seals one could be Cited. Certainly, the Manufacturers who produce rigs with them installed are also in violation. Of course there are no worries on this from the FAA. The main pilot chute is the only part of a MARD which is doing the work of dragging. What proof is there that it has the capability to generate the necessary drag to extract the bag from the container? Picture this. A Manufacturer, who is not the developer, purchases such a system and sticks it on their rig whose bag extraction was tested with the reserve pilot chute and now it might depend on the main pilot chute which by intent endures less extraction force and hasn’t been tested or Certified. Suppose some one replaces their main pilot chute with a “Home Made” of lesser capability. Additionally, an uncontrolled main riser can and has inverted over the main pilot chute rendering it useless. What provisions have been made to prevent this? I am not talking about the “if come” I am talking about today. This is potentially a dangerous system which currently has no Certification and should. It has already had more problems than any RSL. I mean “in total” and RSL’s have been around for some 35 years. I know we have some 25 to 30 thousand units in the field. For some 10 years we made it standard on every rig. There are rigs in the field which will deploy their reserve as fast as a MARD without the complexity of a MARD and I am not talking about just my rig. I just can’t help but wonder if the folks who have investigated incidents involving MARDs ever thought about this.

You bet it does and I have written extensively about this subject. I have in fact petitioned the FAA for relief from the "Mandatory" use of AAD on tandem for this reason. We provide a caviet with each owners manual warning about this subject. To out and out ban all cutters without a replacement method would not be a good idea. We accepted the curent cutter type of AAD without ever realizing the potential of entrapment. "Too some olt to late smart"!

Yes, Because it was used contrary to the instructions written in the owners manual. That's not the "Normal operation of..."

Jerry, Boil, Boil, Cauldron Bubble 1. No, I didn't. The reason is, the the RSL "does not interfear with the normal operation of...". Like an AAD the RSL only activates the ripcord. It does not take place within the deployment process. The Doctrin of "must not interfere with the normal (Certificated) operation of" is a long since established by the FAA when AAD's were first introduced. 2. You are absolutly correct. But I am also interested, BTW: I placard the Racer in TSO C23b but I have TSO's for everything I make in every rendition of the TSO and could placard it anyway I want. JS

Matt, I thought that is what I did. Why don't you respond to the question which invites discussion instead of doubting my motives. I have an opinion on the answer and I figured there were folks out there who might have a differing opinion might like to express it. Do you? John

Do the component which make up a Main Assisted Reserve Deployment system require Certification under the TSO system? Have Fun!

Yes Ski, the whole thing is a joke. My bridle is 3 inches wide and it won't drag anywhere like you have been told the 2 inch version will. None of them will, there just isn't enough surface area. There is no way, within the laws of physics, that a Free Bag bridle, of any width, can generate enough lift to cause the bag to extract from the contaioner. The idea of the anti-horseshoe bridle is a joke. Additionally, if you are looking for a line dump I suggest you visit the "Safety Stow".

Ok, I will jump in here about the bridle and the pockets some have. We use a 3 inch wide nylon bridle. Most use a 2 inch wide Polyester bridle. The Brits took a rig and tied the pilot chute to the foot of a jumper with an AAD rigged to release it. They drug it through the air and nothing happened until the AAD release the pilot chute. Booth used a handeploy on a free bag in a main with no boxing to hold the bag in place. They held the hand deploy and the bridle drag wouldn't lift the bag out of the container. The safety jumper had to lift the bag out and place it into the air stream before it lifted off. The Bag has more drag sureface than the bridle. If you do the math Drag=So*Cd*Q. You will not find enought area to generate enough drag even with the pockets to lift an 6 pound bag at terminal (Q=33PSF). All of this without any twists in the bridle which of course would reduct the available drag surface. The Concept of the Free Bag Bridle is a joke. I have kept it because it allows a great pilot chute launch to "Reach out and grab some air".

Many years ago this was referred to as the "Jumpmaster Check". I was taught: "Hands on", "Top to Bottom", "Front to Rear". I would like to add a specific. Check the 3-ring release cable for proper lubrication. Only the long one really need to be checked. Roll the left riser over to access the cable stowage channel on the back of the riser. Remove the cable from the channel and, by pulling the cable between your fingers from the loop to the end, determine that it is "Slick". If your fingers "Squeak and vibrate" like it would on clean hair after a shampoo go back and "Lubricate your cable". If it is OK return the cable to its happy place and go on. If it is not lubricated you won't be able to cutaway. I know this because I have had a 3-ring failure due to no lubrication.

Regular RSLs can and do work or just as fast as the Skyhook does, on some rigs. The Skyhook ia a bandaid for an inadiquet Reserve system. Compare the videos! Not only that it has had more failures than appropriate for such a short field life. It takes 10 to 20 years to prove out a reserve system in the field. Its a Bad Idea-- It is effectively a two sided single side RSL as it has no cross connector to maintain the integrity of the drag if only one side releases.

Rob, I have seen it on the ground in a demo. A girl (master rigger/D license, gold wings) donned an SOS rig. The rig was fitted and she immediately pulled the reserve/SOS handle. As she was standing there with her pull arm at full extension, handle in hand, and nothing happening, the demonstrater said (simultanious with her pull) "Don't pull it" she replied "I Can't". Scarry! I believe there was a very recient fatility where the cutaway handle was not pulled all the way out before reserve deployment, resulting in an entanglement. If you can't pull any handle out with one hand Fix it

I have been unable to find any signifficant bulk difference between The PD160 and the Optimum 160. Nor can I find a difference between the two models on any other size. We measure the volumn of all new canopies when they come in and we haven't bothered to publish Optimim data because we don't see a difference. Some are a little bigger than the PD and some are a little smaller. All within the manufacturing variations. I would be interested to hear what "Chrisat13000ft "has learned and where he learned it.

That "Little White Loop" is generally made of gutted Type 3 line. It has a tensil of 100 pounds. A normal loop load is about 10 pounds on a properly built riser. If it breaks on the RSL side (if you are unfortunate enough to be jumping a single sided RSL) you will have a reserve out before you can react and chanches are that it has already entangled with the non- cross connected main which by now is in freefall. Good luck! Any and all RSLs or MARDs which depend on the drag of the mal-funcrioned main to pull it all out must have a Cross connector from one riser to the other to maintaine the integrity of what little drag is still up there. Certainly the main pilot chute is a saving factor but it can be engulfed in the collapsed main when one riser is released without a cross connector.

Once you have recieved your initial training on any system it becomes ingrained in your mind. When the "Stuff" hits the fan, latter in your jumping career you revert to you initial training. If your EPs have changed you are prone to forget the change and go all the way beck to your first jump trainning. We found that out when Tandem was introduced. Many TM went back to their solo training EPs, tragically. Another point about the SOS. It was developed by PA and several years after they released a poster showing how to pull it. It showed pulling the handle with one hand and then grabbing and pulling at the middle of the cable with the other hand to complete the cable extraction and release. This makes it a 2 handed process on a single handle release. If you can't complete the release process and pull the cables out of the housings with one hand then go find a rig where you can. I only know of one.

I totally agree with Bill Booth (a first) that if you are going to use an RSL it must be a “Double Sided RSL”. However, some facts must be made clear about the history and development of the RSL before we can make an informed decision about the subject. The U.S. Navy (before Piggy Backs) required a cross connector on the main risers if a cutaway was planned for dealing with a mal. The reason was that the sudden acceleration when one side releases might prevent disconnecting the other side because of the complete loss of any drag you might have had. Perry Stevens created the Stevens System RSL for conventional systems. It had a cross connector at the connector links of the riser on both the front and rear risers and a lanyard from the right riser to the chest reserve ripcord. Guaranteed to remove teeth as it activated the reserve. When piggybacks came out Para-Flite put a cross connector on the Swift. A navy test jumper at El Centro had a mal on a Swift and the X-conn caught under the reserve container jamming the reserve preventing its deployment. He rode this to the ground and survived because the main still had some drag thanks to the x-conn holding the risers from completely spreading and going streamer. I have seen and studied the video. We had anticipated this problem and had in fact advised against the design. However we all recognize the need for a x-conn which is the foundation for the “Double sided RSL”. A double sided RSL which does not have a x-conn is a giant risk, as releasing one side might cause complete loss of drag. Any RSL needs a x-conn. For Piggy backs there is only one which has a x-conn. It is located at the base of the risers where they attach to the harness. It has over 30 years in the field and the rap on it was by unthinking folks who panic when they have a 2 out situation. “It will choke the reserve when you cutaway the main” they shouted. Not realizing they had reduced their descent rate to an acceptable level. They were afraid of a personal down plane which might occur temporarily during deployment but will naturally come to a side by side or bi-plane because both canopies are facing the same way if they are attached to the harness correctly. To have a down plane they must face different directions. Additionally, some folks worried it might hit them in the back of the head or knock off their helmet. Whoopie! Now that we have established the need for a x-conn why not use it to pull the reserve ripcord? We did. This design provides for no automatic reserve ripcord pull until both side release.

This is in reference to all of the comments about mistakes. The easiest way to limit mistakes in the field is through design. KISS- Keep it Simple Stupid. Simply put, a MARD, of any sort, is a "Bandaid" which adds to the complexity. It is just not necessary to add this complexity, to a parachute system, to accomplish a prompt reserve deployment. It can and has been done for over 20 years on some rigs. A MARD is a device to compensate for a low drag pilot chute or high bag extraction effort, or both, at low speeds, but it won't help you if the main is not out. Get a rig that "Works"

Bill, Throw out pilot chutes don’t save “a couple of hundred feet” feet over spring loads. That’s absurd! There isn’t 300 feet to save within the function of the pilot chute, or shouldn’t be. If you are talking about “Burble”, then talk about “Burble”. We all know “Burble” affects both spring load and hand deploy equally, dependant upon body position. The Throw outs are simpler and easier to pack, not more complex. Spring loaded pilot chutes have proven to be faster over the years. If Hand Deploy “saved altitude on deployment” we would be using it on all of our reserves. Only in Australia has this been tried and incidentally, rejected! But you know all that.

This article describes the difference between the 2 sets and how they might affect you. http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=3RING&SortBy=DATE_D Additionally, this document tells how to inspect them. http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=3RINGINSPECT&SortBy=DATE_D Hope this helps in making your decission.

Because the Safety Stow has no stiffiner to keep the grommets separated at a specific distance the tension can never be depended on. We made a series of tests on all types of rigs where we measured the tension of the Safety Stow on the bight or how much does it take to pull the lines out. We found that one stow always had a very low release force requirement (