AADs and highly loaded reserves (was: Arizona 200-way collision)

[councilman24 37]

TSO C23b and c used a 170lb load for rate of decent tests and only had vertical rate. D had the same max operating weight load and 36 fps total velocity that was retained in F, so this is almost 20 years old. PD and Precision argued hard both through PIA and independently with the FAA that the flared alternate test should be included in the TSO. They have yet to convince the FAA. They tried to collect data that 60 fps total velocity was survivable but for the one test they did they did not share the accelerometer (SP?) data.

Also of course many, (most?) of the PD reserves in the field were approved with an exemption to rate of decent limit test. I understand that the current FAA personnel are unlikely to issue a similar exemption and hence the insistence of only including the brakes stowed 36 fps test in the TSO standard.

It's always been a search exercise to find the regulation that makes it illegal to use the gear outside the TSO TESTING for APPROVAL standards. The TSO is not a use standard but a production/design performance standard. It does say they must be labeled with the operational limitations, but where does it say they must be used within the operational limitations? Not in 105, not in 65. Not even in AC105. Anybody able to find it? We all assume it and live (or die) by it but is it illegal for a 300lb jumper to jump a TSO C23-c Catagory A (198lbs) rig?

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

[riggerrob 643]

Sadly, most skydivers "blatantly ignore" manufacturers' numbers until they get injured.

This reminds me of the first torn-up Raven Dash-280. The junior jumper bought it because - at the time - it was the only reserve rated for his weight. Over the winter he "gained a few pounds."
The next time he jumped it, he dis-located his right shoulder and was over-weight, over-speed and unstable when he scared his Cypres.
The wounded's lawyer-uncle offered to sue everyone vaguely related to the accident, but when the lawyer was reminded that the wounded was over-weight, that part of the law-suit against Precision Aerodynamics was quietly dropped.
Hah!
Hah!
Precision eventually solved that problem by sewing more reinforcing tapes into their new line of R-Max reserves, then drop-tested them (successfully) with heavier weights at faster airspeeds.

[JerryBaumchen 1,373]

Hi Lee,

Quote

And where is the incentive to build a stronger canopy?

A little background.

I was asked to join the TSO committee back in the early '70's when Dan Poynter was the Chairman; and I said 'Yes.'

Wow, I had no idea what all that would entail. But I have no regrets; after it was over, it was fun.

At that time, TSO C23b req'd three drop tests under the Strength Tests paragraph. However, a company could drop three separate sample components ( three separate canopies, three separate harnesses, etc ) for each of those three tests.

My very first submittal to the committee had 14 items and 13 of them were adapted by the committee.

One of those 14 was that the very same sample component had to be used for all three Strength Tests drops.

IMO that change is what gives us stronger components in newer products.

JerryBaumchen