Reserve Problem List?

[gb1 3]

After taking quite a few years off, I am not wise all of the bad points of the reserves through the years. Some of them you just have to know about. Is there a list out there that someone has compiled that would alert me to a problem with an older round or even a square that should be further researched? Of course there are the service bulletins, but a general list or site would be wonderful. Thanks JT

[pchapman 279]

I doubt there is one; I'd be surprised if anyone has bothered.

You'll probably have talk to experienced jumpers & riggers to get all the nuances and different arguments, or search on here for a particular type of gear. I do understand that newbies would like to have things explained simply ("Just tell me what to buy! What's the best gear?"), but one doesn't tend to see any overall lists, just opinions on particular items.

[gb1 3]

I have packed hundreds of reserves back in the 70's and designed and built harnesses and containers. However people are handing me pilot rigs etc for repacks and I am having to bother my friends to find out what the problems were on the particular system. Just thought that someone out there would have notes on which ones to avoid. Thanks

[riggerrob 643]

From memory .... but you can back that up by reviewing Service Bulletins published by the Parachute Industry Association, Australian Parachute Federation, etc.

Round reserves fell out of fashion almost 30 years ago because of acid mesh, ergo, few young riggers know to pack round reserves.

Early 5-cell reserves were crude and only the 5-cell Swift (serial number 53-??????) sold in significant numbers. There was one SB about re-cutting ribs which is identified by a Para-Flite factory stamp on the centre tail. Because of their age (production started in 1981) few young riggers know how to pack 5-cell Swifts' funky steering lines.

Later 7-cell Swift Plus reserves were much improved with modern materials, modern steering lines, etc. There was one SB about inspecting barracks on suspension lines. I have inspected dozens of Swift Plus bartacks and never found any that were weak.

The first batch of Raven reserves should be updated with bikini sliders and the letter "b" written on the label.

Some Raven Dash-M had weak suspension line attachment tapes. SB called for return to factory or field riggers sewing extra barracks on A line attachment tapes. I only trust the factory fix.

Common sense says not to load a 1980s-vintage square reserve more than 1 pound per square foot, since nobody was loading mains that heavy during the 1980s .....

If I sound biased against older gear, it is because I have been a rigger since 1984, seen generations of reserves come and go, tested thousands for acid-mesh, etc. I no longer have the tools to test for acid mesh and wish that the oldest of parachutes (e.g. around reserves) quietly retire.l, largely because young skydivers no longer know how to fly them.

[gb1 3]

That says alot. Thank's for the reply

[councilman24 37]

gb1

That says alot. Thank's for the reply

Nothing I haven't told you Jim.

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

[gb1 3]

Terry, you have been the biggest help so far. Thought there may have been a site out there as a reference.. JT

[JerryBaumchen 1,367]

Hi Ro,

Quote

From memory ....

And mine is not as sharp at it once was.

Quote

Round reserves fell out of fashion almost 30 years ago because of acid mesh

I doubt that even 1% of new PEP rigs are sold with a square canopy. Most mfrs of PEP rigs do not even offer a square canopy as an option.

Quote

5-cell Swifts' funky steering lines

Having owned two 5-cell Swifts ( and having had to use one of them ), I would not call them 'funky.' Somewhat different but actually ( IMO ) rather simple; not as simple as current brake setting designs, but not 'funky.'

Quote

I only trust the factory fix.

Interesting, since the mistake was made at the factory in the first place.

Quote

Common sense says not to load a 1980s-vintage square reserve more than 1 pound per square foot

I could not agree more. These canopies were never designed to be overloaded. Even the newer designs are not something that I would want to land unaided.

Quote

thousands for acid-mesh

As I recall, only the SAC canopies ( under an FAA AD ) and the Phantoms ( under a SB ) were the ones having to be tested.

Just some thoughts of mine . . . .

Jerry Baumchen

[councilman24 37]

JerryBaumchen

Quote

thousands for acid-mesh

As I recall, only the SAC canopies ( under an FAA AD ) and the Phantoms ( under a SB ) were the ones having to be tested.

Pioneer AD
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/AOCADSearch/E2298A242C935A4286256A39004DEA58?OpenDocument

And the general Australian Parachute Federation RAC adds GQ England and Eagle.

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,367]

Hi Terry,

Quote

Pioneer AD

I remembered that one 'sort of' right after I hit the Post Reply button.

However, I do not recall anyone getting an FAA approval to re-certificate the Pioneer canopies. Do you recall anyone?

Jerry Baumchen

[riggerrob 643]

When I started working for Manley Butler (1992) he told me to pull-test and bromocreasol-test every round canopy that came through his loft. Butler had approval (from the FAA) to re-certify all types of canopies "acid-mesh free". Since Manley won't touch parachutes more than 20 years old, you can forget about him re-certifying anything "acid mesh free" today. The best you will get is a $50 "courtesy trade-in!"
Hah!
Hah!

The last acidic canopy that I found was made by GQ Security USA circa 1982. Both GQ Security and Pioneer quit selling parachutes to civilians in 1984. All the other manufacturers were suspected of sneaking tent-grade mesh into production.

AFAIK only Strong and Free Flight Enterprises consistently used genuine MIL SPEC mesh. Butler did not start manufacturing canopies until well after the acid-mesh era.

Even my memory is vague now, since it has even close to 10 years since I repacked a round reserve made during the acid-mesh era .... 30 years ago .... early 1980s.

[gb1 3]

I appreciate the time spent from all of you. jt

[riggerrob 643]

Poynter's Manual, Volume 2, pages 71 and 72 mentions acid-mesh recalls on round canopies made by: Eagle, GQ Security, National and Pioneer. Pointer then goes into considerable detail and testing and re-certification processes.

[riggerrob 643]

The Raven Dash-M field-fix is to sew extra bar-tacks into the original (weak, sub-standard, wimpy, sissified, girly, limp-wristed, cowardly ...) Type 3 tape line attachments.

OTOH If you mail a Raven Dash-M back to the Precision factory, they will replace the A-line attachment (Type 3 tape) tapes with Type 1 webbing and sew them with two bar tacks.
Most other reserve manufacturers use Type 4 webbing for reserve line attachments.

[JerryBaumchen 1,367]

Hi Rob,

Quote

AFAIK only Strong and Free Flight Enterprises consistently used genuine MIL SPEC mesh.

I was fairly/deeply involved in this whole 'acid mesh problem' back in the mid/late-80's. The three problem canopy mfrs ( Security, Pioneer & National ) all used Mil-Spec mesh. We were able to determine 'somewhat' that the Mil-Spec mesh that would effect the canopy fabric has been treated with a fire-retardant. The mesh mfr treated their mesh with fire-retardant so that they could sell it to tent makers. It was a req'ment for any tent in which people would be sleeping. It still met the Mil-Spec simply because the Mil-Spec did not address anything like: You will not add a fire-retardant to this mat'l.

Today, it is not uncommon for mfrs of reserve pilot chutes to purchase mesh with a Ph req'ment. No one thought of that back in the 'good old days.'

Just a little more info on this dead horse,

Jerry Baumchen

[riggerrob 643]

Yes Jerry,

The other mysterious factor was that acidic mesh only degraded some batches of LoPo fabric.