PD Soft links on reserve

[extreme 0]

What's your opinion on having a PD Soft Links on reserve (PD or other manufacturer reserve) in general?

[slotperfect 7]

I have no specific data on this (someone here will), but they have a higher breaking strength than Maillon Rapide Links.

They are less likely to fail. Maillon Rapide links, if they are loaded sideways, are weaker in that position than straight up and down. Slinks can be safely loaded in any configuration.

They are easier to install and remove. No tools, no Loc-Tite, no marking. Tacking is a point of contention among Riggers. You will find some Riggers that are adamant about tacking Slinks through the riser and through the tag to make the locking tab stay put in the loop of the riser.

Arrive Safely

John

[tkhayes 348]

The question is really is they are allowed to be used in the USA as part of the TSO required for the gear. A question probably for PD, I am not sure.

[Tink1717 2]

I recommend the use of Slinks on reserves. They won't cause wear on the slider grommets. Granted, if you're using your reserve to the point where this is an issue, you probably need a packing course, but whenever you can eliminate a wear point, you should.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The question is really is they are allowed to be used in the USA as part of the TSO required for the gear. A question probably for PD, I am not sure.

I have contacted PD about other canopies. PD says the use of reserve Slinks with other manufactures canopies is OK. I have contacted most rig manufactures and they are OK with Slinks. I have contacted many canopy manufactures and all I have contacted approve Slinks. I do this through email and I have saved all replies for my records. In all situations I contact all involved manufactures to get approval for reserve Slinks usage

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[bliston 0]

McRush is wise in keeping documentation. Anytime you are going to something different from the explict instructions of the manufacturer, you should get approval in writing.

I am a huge fan of Slinks, use and recommend them for all PD canopies (mains and reserves). I also have used them for Precision reserves (after obtaining permission in writing).

Ben

Mass Defiance 4-wayFS website


sticks!

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Quote

The question is really is they are allowed to be used in the USA as part of the TSO required for the gear. A question probably for PD, I am not sure.

I have contacted PD about other canopies. PD says the use of reserve Slinks with other manufactures canopies is OK. I have contacted most rig manufactures and they are OK with Slinks. I have contacted many canopy manufactures and all I have contacted approve Slinks. I do this through email and I have saved all replies for my records. In all situations I contact all involved manufactures to get approval for reserve Slinks usage

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This gets into the realm of Master Riggers "substituting similar TSOed components."

I will cheerfully install PD Slinks on most square reserves.
Part of the confusion originates in the notion that most manufacturers have not updated their manuals (an expensive process) since PD introduced Slinks.
To facilitate this process, Aerodyne TSOed their reusable soft links separately, so you can install an Aerodyne soft link anywhere the drawings call for a 3,000 pound connector link.

I hope everyone has the good sense not to install Slinks on round reserves.
Hee!
Hee!
... something about the vastly different opening shock.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I hope everyone has the good sense not to install Slinks on round reserves.
Hee!
Hee!
... something about the vastly different opening shock.

I don't see what could matter in regard to opening shock.

I would think that the only thing that might matter is the inability to adapt to a set of reserve risers made for L-bar links.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[RIGGER 0]

I would like to add some information regarding the use of Soft Links on Reserves:

Read the PD SR-1 Installation Instructions: "Approved under T.S.O. C23d for use with PD Reserves:"

PD SR-1 Slinks are certify for PD Reserves & they
should NOT be used on other Mfg. Reserves.

Aerodyne Soft Links P/N C148510000/ Technical P/N P1487-01 are approved only for the SMART Reserve & for the PISA TEMPO Reserve canopies.

The Soft Links Mfg. can NOT approved the Soft Links they Mfg. to be used with Reserves made by other Mfg.

Riggers CAN NOT use Soft Links from Aerodyne on PD reserves or PD SR-1 Slinks on the SMART or TEMPO reserves or on the Techno R even they are TSO'd as an separate component.

Changing from metal links to Soft Links on Reserve canopies that the canopy mfg. does not mfg. Soft Links is a "Change not approved by the reserve mfg.". Links or soft links are a part of the Reserve canopy TSO tests & only the canopy mfg. can approve the change & NOT Master Riggers.

Use ONLY items mfg. or approved by the Reserve canopy Mfg.

Safe Rigging.

[sundevil777 102]

This one has already been decided by actual practice instead of by the letter of the law.

It is commonplace. It is accepted.

Am I wrong?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[masterrig 1]

As a rigger, I believe, I'd rather go by 'the letter of the law'. I don't care to get my ass dragged into a courtroom, because I didn't,

Chuck

[Hooknswoop 19]

For the riggers that say "no", I have 3 questions:

1) Have you ever put a reserve other than a Safety Flyer into a Vector II?

2) If you believe it is against the FAR's to use PD's Slinks on any other reserve than a PD reserve, what reference are you using for that determination?

3) Do you feel you are doing you customers a favor by using weaker Rapide links instead of Slinks?

Derek

[sundevil777 102]

determining what components are compatible gives a lot of room for judgement in the hands of the individual rigger, as shown by actual application in the real world, without a lot of questions from PIA, FAA, etc.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

For the riggers that say "no", I have 3 questions:

1) Have you ever put a reserve other than a Safety Flyer into a Vector II?

2) If you believe it is against the FAR's to use PD's Slinks on any other reserve than a PD reserve, what reference are you using for that determination?

3) Do you feel you are doing you customers a favor by using weaker Rapide links instead of Slinks?

Derek

4) What reference are you using when you put any reserve on #4 Rapide links.

5)What was the H/C tested with, what was the reserve canopy tested with.

I believe it is the riggers call to determine compatible components when assembling a system. jmo

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[BIGUN 1,307]

Quote

but they have a higher breaking strength than Maillon Rapide Links.

Ya know. I know the math is there, but psychologically, I still have problems with slinks vs. links. Look forward to reviewing the information on tensile strength comparisons.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Ya know. I know the math is there, but psychologically, I still have problems with slinks vs. links. Look forward to reviewing the information on tensile strength comparisons.

From PD's web page:

"After more than a year of development and testing, Performance Designs introduces a totally new design for a reusable soft link. (The PD Slink Pat. Pend.)

The PD Slink© is the first soft link ever approved by the FAA for use with reserve parachutes!


Soft links can reduce damage to the slider grommets and extend the life span of suspension lines. They allow the jumper to easily pull the slider over the risers and toggles and they do not require the use of slider "bumpers". Previously no designs met all of our criteria.

Some of the problems encountered with other designs included: low breaking strength, inconsistent manufacturing techniques, installation requiring tools and/or rigging facilities, removal required destroying the links, riser modification required for use, etc. Some soft link designs even incorporate metal parts.

There were many issues to be addressed in the project:

* Soft link strength and reliability.
* Soft link construction methods, not to include any metal parts (a true soft link).
* Compatibility with various riser/suspension line combinations (without modification).
* Ease of installation.
* Must be reusable.

In our tests, the Performance Design's Slink© survived at loadings beyond the suspension lines and/or riser! In our testing, the failure point of the system was repeatedly the suspension lines or the webbing attaching the three rings to the riser. In comparison tests, the PD reserve soft link survived tests that caused failures and/or severe damage to #4 and #5 stainless steel links! The PD Soft links not only survived these tests, but showed no signs of damage.

Based upon the results of these extensive tests, Performance Designs is the first manufacturer ever to receive FAA 'TSO' approval for a soft link for use on reserve parachutes!

The Performance Designs' Slink© is available in two configurations:

- One for main canopies (SM-1)

--Note: SRC's (Slink Riser Covers) will now be included with every order of Soft Links at no extra charge!

- One for Performance Designs' reserves (PR-106 - PR-281) and/or tandem main canopies (SR-1)

The PD Slink© is now available as an option on all new Performance Designs' canopies at no additional charge. They may also be purchased in sets of 4 (with installation instructions). "

Derek

[BIGUN 1,307]

Thank you, Derek.

THe most important question you answered for me was tandems. Cause my thoughts were until they are safe enough for tandems, how are they safe enough for the sport jumper?

I need to re-think my position on this. Good to see you back posting on occasion. Your information and professionlism is held in high regard.

Keith

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Quote

I hope everyone has the good sense not to install Slinks on round reserves.
Hee!
Hee!
... something about the vastly different opening shock.

I don't see what could matter in regard to opening shock.

I would think that the only thing that might matter is the inability to adapt to a set of reserve risers made for L-bar links.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Round canopies tend to open much harder.
Rounds tend to open in a "snivel, snivel, snap!" sequence that is very difficult to predict.
The "snap" often exceeds limits prescribed in newer (since 1983) TSO drop test standards.

That is why Strong's 26 foot Mid-Lite is one of the few round reserves certified under TSO C23C and only a couple of round canopies are certified under TSO C23D (FFE's Preserve V and Butler's HX-series).

For example, when Sandy Reid was drop testing the Talon harness/container - the first under TSO C23C - he started with round reserves. After recording painfully hard openings, and blowing up a few Phantoms, he switched to Swift Plus reserves to finish the drop teswt program.

In conclusion, I will not install PD Slinks on round canopies because I worry about Slinks breaking during the - much harder - opening shock.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Round canopies tend to open much harder.
Rounds tend to open in a "snivel, snivel, snap!" sequence that is very difficult to predict.
The "snap" often exceeds limits prescribed in newer (since 1983) TSO drop test standards.

That is why Strong's 26 foot Mid-Lite is one of the few round reserves certified under TSO C23C and only a couple of round canopies are certified under TSO C23D (FFE's Preserve V and Butler's HX-series).

For example, when Sandy Reid was drop testing the Talon harness/container - the first under TSO C23C - he started with round reserves. After recording painfully hard openings, and blowing up a few Phantoms, he switched to Swift Plus reserves to finish the drop teswt program.

In conclusion, I will not install PD Slinks on round canopies because I worry about Slinks breaking during the - much harder - opening shock.

But for a round that is on #4 or #5 Rapide Links, Slinks are stronger than the links. If rounds open harder (and in my experince they do, ouch!), then Lsinks are a better choice to replace the Rapide Links since they can handle higher loads than Rapide links.

Derek

[RIGGER 0]

Soft Links when well done & well assembled are BETTER & SAFER then metal links

***

It is commonplace. It is accepted.

Quote

NO, even it looks fine & working the Rigger
MUST ask for the Approval of the Reserve canopy mfg. for the use of other mfg. Soft Links on his reserve.

Some mfg. might approve the use of other mfg. Soft Links & other mfg. might not.

Safe Rigging !!!

• Quote

[Hooknswoop 19]

Reference?

Derek

[RIGGER 0]

***

Reference?

Quote

Some Reserve canopies mfg. & the owners manuals.


Safe Rigging !!!

• Quote

[Hooknswoop 19]

Do you have an FAR reference that says you need manufacturer's approval to assemble TSO'd components?

Derek

[RIGGER 0]

***

Do you have an FAR reference that says you need manufacturer's approval to assemble TSO'd components?

Quote

Before you use the FAR's or AC105-2C you have to work according the mfg. manual.

Look at AC105-2c paragraph 11 A the rigger should follow the canopy mfg. instructions. (manual) if the mfg. says use links you MUST use links, if he says Soft Links only you must use soft links only, if you have BOTH option like PD you can choose.

You can not use #4 metal links tested by PD for the PR on a reserve that has been TSO'd with no.5 links
even the #4 is TSO'd for PD.

If a reserve canopy mfg. TESTED & TSO'd his reserve with metal links only that mfg. can give the approval for the change.

The right way to run the process is:

1. The rigger should contact the mfg. that his reserve does not have soft links & the same mfg. does not mfg. soft links, the rigger should ask for the mfg. approval for the SPECIFIC soft links: PD, Aerodyne, Precision or so.

2. The mfg. should contact the FAA/JAA/CAA & ask to add Soft Links to his reserve which has been tested with the links. This is a change that needs to be approved by the FAA/JAA/CAA.

3. When the mfg. have the FAA/JAA/CAA approval he can approve the use of the other mfg. Soft Links on his reserve.

4. When the rigger have the WRITTEN APPROVAL he/she can perform the work.

This is the way it should be.

So first we go to the Mfg. & if it does not work the rigger can ask the Administrator for the approval to perform his work in the way he thinks is the best.

Safe Rigging !!!

• Quote

[Hooknswoop 19]

I don't agree, but in the interest of putting it to rest, I posted a request for manufacturer's to post their approval/dis-approval of using Slinks.

Of course this begs the question, what if the container or reserve manufacturer isn't in business anymore? You are saying that a rigger then would need FAA approval? Man, what a can of worms.

I still contend that as long as they are TSO'd, you can use them with any other TSO'd gear that the assembling rigger deems compatable.

Derek