PEPs With Ram Air Canopies (Was: Sean Tucker Bailout)

[pchapman 279]

Quote

For many years he has flown aerobatics using sport parachute equipment provided by Precision Aerodynamics packed in a Rigging Innovations Aviator container, and also a Freeflight ram-air packed in a Paraphernalia Softie container.

It was the Freeflight/Softie rig he used today.

It must be one of a very few bail-outs ever done with a ram-air in an emergency rig?? Not a lot of those rigs around it seems.

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Quote

For many years he has flown aerobatics using sport parachute equipment provided by Precision Aerodynamics packed in a Rigging Innovations Aviator container, and also a Freeflight ram-air packed in a Paraphernalia Softie container.

It was the Freeflight/Softie rig he used today.

It must be one of a very few bail-outs ever done with a ram-air in an emergency rig?? Not a lot of those rigs around it seems.

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

A while back, Sandy Reid told me about a (small, aerobatic) Sukhoi pilot who used an Aviator and he was tracking down rumors about a European (Belgian or Swiss?) who had also used an Aviator "in earnest."

Rob Warner
author of the Aviator packing manual

[riggerrob 643]

You are correct, there are not a lot of PEPs containing square parachutes.
Though this is not for lack of trying by PEP manufacturers.
Back in 1993, I repacked a few square PEPs while working for Butler.
When I joined Rigging Innovations - in 1994 - one of my first tasks was helping with heavy-weight, high-speed drop tests of the P124A/Aviator (square PEP) system.
I also packed a few squares into Softies - and simplified the d-bag - while working for Par-Phernalia in the late 1990s.
The bottom line is that square PEPs have been available for a long time, but fear of hook turns prevents more pilots form buying them.
How you can kill yourself hook-turning a 280 square foot 7-cell is a mystery for me, but that is their fear.
Maybe the real issue is that most aerobatic/warbird/glider, et. pilots decided 30 years ago that their best outcome - after bailing out - involved a broken leg, in trees, at sunset, halfway up a mountain slope, etc.
Trying to tell them anything else is worse than a waste of time, because their minds were made up 30 years ago.

[JerryBaumchen 1,371]

Hi Rob,

Actually, I've always thought it was because they are not willing to spend the extra $$$ for a square. Also, they seem to only get their PEP rigs backed once a year.

They will spend $10,000 for some do-hicky for their airplane but not an extra $700-900 for a square canopy.

Some years back I had a talk with Bill Coe about the idea of a cross-connector on the risers so that no matter how far a pilot-type pulled the toggle he would actually be pulling both risers down; hopefully to prevent violent stalls, etc. I think it is an idea whose time will come.

Jerry

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

They will spend $10,000 for some do-hicky for their airplane but not an extra $700-900 for a square canopy.

Thats because they are sure they will never need it. And in most cases if they do need it they stay with the plane until its to late.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[pchapman 279]

Quote

You are correct, there are not a lot of PEPs containing square parachutes.
Though this is not for lack of trying by PEP manufacturers.

Pilots often seem to consider just about any TSO'd parachute "good enough" because it is so unlikely they'll get the chance to use it. So they'll put their spare cash into something else that they feel matters more. The thinner and more comfortable the rig, the better.

Attitudes changed somewhat after 1996 when one fellow bailed out of a Sukhoi at high speed (220+ kts) and blew all the lines off his light weight chute. (I don't know if he would have had the altitude to slow down.) Acro pilots started looking at the max weight and speed numbers.

There's an American aerobatics mailing list that I'm on. A couple years back there was a discussion of round vs. square. Although squares were seen to have advantages, there was a lot of discussion back and forth about which opened faster, and whether a tumbling pilot would end up with line twists and an uncontrollable parachute anyway.

So there was still a lot of hesitation to go for a "fancy" square system with a lot of unknowns for them personally.

For me there's confusion about what size of square canopy a pilot would want. I guess the biggest canopy of the Aviator line (280 ft. sq.) is pitched the most, because of its special brakes & "anyone can use it" characteristics.

If a pilot wanted to get a square rig that's no more bulky than the Phantom / Aerostar 24, they'd have to go to a Raven 150 for the same canopy pack volume. (At least according to one set of those ever-variable pack volume charts.)

But if a pilot accepts the bulk of a more solid canopy anyway (e.g., like a Strong 26' LoPo at 487 in. cu.), then it probably doesn't add much in bulk to go to the biggest Aviator. (A Raven IV of about the same quoted size is 506 in. cu.)

In the end there's still a lot of learning to be done about squares for pilots, and Sean Tucker's case will likely be well discussed. (But so far the only report from him that I've read, focuses on the airplane not the parachute flight.)

[JohnMitchell 16]

Interesting. I wouldn't think pack volume would be as big of a deal if it's spread out from shoulder to butt and it's your seat cushion too. But I'd guess most non-jumpig pilots have little regard for their parachutes.

[airtwardo 7]

Attitudes changed somewhat after 1996 when one fellow bailed out of a Sukhoi at high speed (220+ kts) and blew all the lines off his light weight chute. (I don't know if he would have had the altitude to slow down.)

***

I believe you're refering to Rick M. in his new Sukhoi 31 and the wing seperation. I knew Rick and from what I remember there was a question on the aircraft possibly damaging the parachute.
That was his 2nd bail out.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[sdctlc 0]

Quote

Interesting. I wouldn't think pack volume would be as big of a deal if it's spread out from shoulder to butt and it's your seat cushion too. But I'd guess most non-jumpig pilots have little regard for their parachutes.

Look at Base Rigs... Many of them look like they could be a good Pilot rig.. Maybe not with a throw out but I think it is a good example of a well distributed canopy pack can make it feasable. Maybe not with a throw out but modified toa Spring loaded I dont see why not....

Scott C.

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[pchapman 279]

Quote

I believe you're refering to Rick M. in his new Sukhoi 31 and the wing seperation.

As you'll know Airtwardo, Rick's original bailout was similar to Sean T.'s, involving a failure in the elevator system. But when he went in he didn't get out of the cockpit (NTSB #ATL96FA051). The accident I referred to was a Su-29 near New Orleans just a month later (FTW96FA151).

As for rig thickness, it may not usally be a big deal, for all I know. Rig design probably influences comfort a lot more, and as was said, the canopy gets spread out over a large area (Although there are some cramped cockpits where the pilot does need a specific shape of rig to fit well.)

[riggerrob 643]

Attitudes changed somewhat after 1996 when one fellow bailed out of a Sukhoi at high speed (220+ kts) and blew all the lines off his light weight chute. (I don't know if he would have had the altitude to slow down.) Acro pilots started looking at the max weight and speed numbers.

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

Rumor has it that he merely stood up in the cockpit and pulled the ripcord. The lines tore off the canopy as it inflated and tried to pull him out of the cockpit.

No one expects any canopy to survive that sort of abuse.
It did not help that it was a low speed canopy (Phantom?).

[riggerrob 643]

For me there's confusion about what size of square canopy a pilot would want. I guess the biggest canopy of the Aviator line (280 ft. sq.) is pitched the most, because of its special brakes & "anyone can use it" characteristics.

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

Yes, some of the confusion - among pilots - is caused by skydivers talking about popular SKYDIVING reserves (97 t0 150 sqaure feet). That is irrelevant.
They should be talking about popular STUDENT reserves in the 230 to 330 square foot range. Most of the reserves that I have packed for skydiving students are in the 250 square foot range, which have the same pack volume as a Strong 26' Mid-Lite round canopies found in many popular PEPs..
When you stop to consider, most aerobatic pilots should be treated like skydiving students in terms of canopy size.

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Interesting. I wouldn't think pack volume would be as big of a deal if it's spread out from shoulder to butt and it's your seat cushion too. But I'd guess most non-jumping pilots have little regard for their parachutes.

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

True.
PEP containers are so wide (i.e. 14 inches) and so long (20 to 40 inches) that the container and (parapack) freebag end up weighing more than the canopy.
For example, after packing a Raven 4 into a 40 inch long (chair-type) PEP, I told Manley Butler that there was little point in making freebags that long because there was not enough canopy bulk to fill it out.
Any square canopy less than 300 square feet does not have enough bulk to fill a freebag any longer than 24 inches (a popular length for PEP back-type containers).