Repack a 5 cell swift?

[bodypilot90 0]

If the reserve was in great shape would you repack it.

Not my rig, yes I have a reserve ride on one.

[stratostar 5]

For everyday use.... no For a vintage rig set up with the proper trained person using it once in a blue moon... yes provided it was still airworthy and said "proper trained person" is stupid enough to wear it out the door.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[likestojump 3]

Quote

If the reserve was in great shape would you repack it.

Not my rig, yes I have a reserve ride on one.

provided it truly was in great shape - I would only repack it for someone who knew what it was, and what they were doing. I would not be willing to repack for someone who just wants a cheap reserve.

[pchapman 279]

I'd repack it, subject to good pull tests and making sure the jumper understood the canopy.

Probably not the thing for a heavy freeflier. One can also argue about to what degree nylon degrades with age. But I don't condemn a canopy just because it won't flare as nicely as a newer design.

Heck, I got a rigging 'save' on a Swift just this summer. I packed a buddies' old CRW rigs, he lent them out, and soon enough, they entangled and chopped...

[koppel 4]

I was packing one of these for an older jumper, mid fifties, until last year. It was somewhere around a 1988/9 model and was not quite at twenty years.

I had been encouraging him to get it replaced for a couple of years and he was getting to the point of doing so. On the last repack early last year I look at it and decided to pull- test the material. It failed at 18 lbs.

For me now anything over 15 years gets pulled tested once a year regardless of what it is.

I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.

[fcajump 164]

Likely not. Too many caviots... its kind of like when one asks ones self for the third time if they really are up to going for the jump...

If you have to ask yourself, maybe you've already answered yourself.

Now, as a Main... for a vintage experience... with experienced jumper... probably. I'll let you know next spring when I do (got one and a cutaway system)

JW

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

[councilman24 37]

No. I have one for rigger practice but wouldn't put it in the air.

And if you do look up the AD that required some to be remanufactured.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

Quote

For me now anything over 15 years gets pulled tested once a year regardless of what it is.

Curious, not argumentative:

What about Precision products with "no clamps" directive from manufacturer?

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[bodypilot90 0]

what years were swift 5 cells manufactured?

[AndyMan 7]

Maybe.

First, I'd check for AD compliance. I found one out of compliance, and grounded it this summer.

Second, I'd make sure it was appropriate for the jumper. Basically, my criteria would be that the jumper has been jumping long enough to understand what he was getting in to.

I would not pack it for someone who has been in the sport for less than 10 years or had less than 500 jumps. Yes, these numbers are arbitrary, and I'm fine with that.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[muff528 3]

All y'all are such haters! for any legitimate reason. (Not only because of age.) Otherwise, I am more likely to stop using it because of my age ...not the canopy's age.

[councilman24 37]

I done know of the top my head. But I don't think the were made into 89. Its seems to me the were 7 cell by then. I bought one in 82, which was not long after they came out.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[sundevil777 102]

Maybe we should stretch the question to include the possibility of repacking a much older ('78 or so) safety flyer. They landed even worse than a 5 cell swift.

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

[petejones45 0]

Quote

or everyday use.... no For a vintage rig set up with the proper trained person using it once in a blue moon... yes provided it was still airworthy and said "proper trained person" is stupid enough to wear it out the door.

Are you saying jumpers back in the day were naturally stupid?

From my understanding the swft plus was a marvel of its time

Look out for the freefly team, Smelly Peppers. Once we get a couple years more experience we will be a force to be reckoned with in the near future! BLUES!

[sundevil777 102]

The swift plus is not the subject of this thread. I've 2 jumps on them, they were great, but the discussion is about the original 5 cell swift.

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

[stratostar 5]

Quote

Are you saying jumpers back in the day were naturally stupid?

Not at all. Those cats these days are still smart, they know better then to take that up when there is better stuff today for the same job. There are however some old gear nuts who will jump most anything.... or for lack of better words, are "stupid enough to wear it out the door" and as the old rigger saying says, can't see it on my back, but here is your seal....

Quote

From my understanding the swft plus was a marvel of its time

The whole rig did pack small.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[riggerrob 643]

"

Quote

...

I would not pack it for someone who has been in the sport for less than 10 years or had less than 500 jumps. Yes, these numbers are arbitrary, and I'm fine with that.

_Am

"

.....................................................................

If you follow that same logic, round reserves should only be worn by jumpers who already have 50 or 100 successful landings under round mains.
By "successful" I mean: they walked away.

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Maybe we should stretch the question to include the possibility of repacking a much older ('78 or so) safety flyer. They landed even worse than a 5 cell swift.

.......................................................................

No!
Even Para-Flite admitted that Safety-Fliers and Safety-Stars were not their best designs.

As an aside: the only square reserve - that I tensile tested a hole in - was a Safety Star. It s pre-F111 fabric failed at 23 to 25 pounds!
In comparison, most Lopo fabrics, F111 and most military fabrics easily pass 40 pound tensile tests.

Even though I survived a hundred jumps under 5-cell Strato-Star mains, I never want to jump any of Para-Flite's first or second generation reserves.

OTOH I do have a 5-cell Swift reserve in my spare rig.

Where to draw the line is a personal decision for each rigger.
I don't bother teaching young riggers how to set the brakes on 5-cell Swifts.
Maybe the simplest guideline is to not pack any reserves older than you.

Rob Warner, a 53-year-old FAA Master Rigger ... who has a long list of excuses for why he does not want to pack most reserves older than 20 years and a long list of profanities to explain why he does not want to waste his time on ^%$#@! round reserves built during the acid mesh era (1980s).

[petejones45 0]

sorry meant to say the swift! the plus had 7 cells

Look out for the freefly team, Smelly Peppers. Once we get a couple years more experience we will be a force to be reckoned with in the near future! BLUES!

[koppel 4]

ah my well read friend, there are always exceptions to rules that prove the case....

I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

If you follow that same logic, round reserves should only be worn by jumpers who already have 50 or 100 successful landings under round mains.
By "successful" I mean: they walked away.

No, I'd be perfectly happy packing an airworthy round reserve for a first jump student.

The difference with a swift is that since it's square, there's an expectation that it will fly similar to other square reserves the jumper may be familiar with.

Like I said, yah - it's arbitrary, and I'm fine with that.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[bodypilot90 0]

Funny I had no special training in for a 5 cell had less than 40 jumps and landed mine fine. It did seem kind of strange the the toggles were stowed on the brake lines. I did know how to plf cause I had a ragged out Ravin for a main. I Do understand there is better gear out there but why take old gearut of use if it is airworthy

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Quote

If you follow that same logic, round reserves should only be worn by jumpers who already have 50 or 100 successful landings under round mains.
By "successful" I mean: they walked away.

No, I'd be perfectly happy packing an airworthy round reserve for a first jump student.
...

_Am

"

.........................................................................

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the issue of round reserves for students.

Putting on my "lazy instructor" hat ...
Most North American DZs converted to square mains (e.g. Manta 290) back during the late 1980s and by now, most schools have also converted to 250 square foot reserves, because instructors are too lazy to teach two separate lectures on canopy control.
Since most modern skydiving instructors have never jumped round canopies, how can they be expected to teach how to land round reserves??????
By "modern" I mean they learned to jump less than 20 years ago.
I have seen it dozens of times. After an hour-long lecture on how to steer a square main, FJC students' brains are full. Many FJC students suffer information over-load. As soon as the instructor starts talking about round reserves and how they steer differently, blablabla ... the students' eyes glaze over and new information stops sinking in.
At this point, students start filtering must-know information from probably-not-going-to-need-that-today information. Ergo, most of what is said about round reserves is lost.

Fast forward to a student trying to land a round reserve, most of them will try to flare a round reserve, because that is all they remember from class.
Case in point, last year, the Canadian Air force published a study lamenting the fact that many pilots injure themselves trying to flare round canopies after ejecting.

Rob Warner
FAA Master Rigger
and an instructor since military-surplus round canopies were fashionable

[Beatnik 2]

I have a couple of problems with your post. Most of it is pretty good and I agree with but one point I do not and the other I have additional information on.

First point:

Quote

most schools have also converted to 250 square foot reserves, because instructors are too lazy to teach two separate lectures on canopy control.

I doubt it is because of the instructors being lazy. I think it is more about the DZOs or those higher up in the DZ because of all this fear of liability that has occurred in CSPA. The liability things come up all the time and on the CSPA forums, insurance and the defence fund is still a recent topic. I believe that many dropzones are sucked in this we need squares to not be liable.

Second:

Quote

ase in point, last year, the Canadian Air force published a study lamenting the fact that many pilots injure themselves trying to flare round canopies after ejecting.

This doesn't really make your case cause if you know what training they get you will realize a lot. Most of the time the people training the pilots have very little knowledge and many of them have never jumped. I sat in one of these briefs two years ago and their was much to be desired and never during it did they mention about flaring. Since there is such a small amount of pilots that actually use the chutes and the study never checked to see those who have had civilian training makes that study a little useless and invalid.

Just my thoughts and opinions. The rest I thought was good.

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

I have a couple of problems with your post. Most of it is pretty good and I agree with but one point I do not and the other I have additional information on.

First point:

Quote

most schools have also converted to 250 square foot reserves, because instructors are too lazy to teach two separate lectures on canopy control.

I doubt it is because of the instructors being lazy. I think it is more about the DZOs or those higher up in the DZ because of all this fear of liability that has occurred in CSPA. The liability things come up all the time and on the CSPA forums, insurance and the defence fund is still a recent topic. I believe that many dropzones are sucked in this we need squares to not be liable.

Second:

Quote

ase in point, last year, the Canadian Air force published a study lamenting the fact that many pilots injure themselves trying to flare round canopies after ejecting.

This doesn't really make your case cause if you know what training they get you will realize a lot. Most of the time the people training the pilots have very little knowledge and many of them have never jumped. I sat in one of these briefs two years ago and their was much to be desired and never during it did they mention about flaring. Since there is such a small amount of pilots that actually use the chutes and the study never checked to see those who have had civilian training makes that study a little useless and invalid.

Just my thoughts and opinions. The rest I thought was good.

I've been asked by aerobatic pilots with round PEP's how to flare their canopy for a soft landing...it's what they see US do.

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