dgw

Wings listened and they changed the reserve PC design. What about all of the legacy equipment? 6 years of new pilotchute does not cover off a large fleet of 6+ year old Wings containers in the field.

His side flaps look pretty similar to the manual image to me. (I am not a rigger.)

It doesn't have to be. You can use the 'alternative' method and have the kill line window visible.

This is all very strange, but obviously the prosecution didn't do enough to convince the jury of his guilt, certainly not enough to get a majority decision. Here's an article from The Times of 24 November. It sets it out reasonably clearly, in my opinion.

http://www.uk-skydiver.co.uk/cms/files/category/4-manufacturers/

It is either an old Racer or a TSE Chaser, which was (in my opinion) a clone of the Racer. I have one or more Chasers and without digging them out, they are a product of the '80's.

It's an FAR, not a technicality. ***(And couldn't you at least offer to unthread the cutter from the loop without doing a full repack?) I don't do that, I do offer to open (a reserve I packed), remove the AAD, and re-close it. FAA FAR Part 65 and 105 are very short, not much to them. As a skydiver, you should be well versed on the FAR's that cover skydiving. Derek V Having an expired Cypres in a rig, which has been maintained, and not turning it on, is in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. They instruct you not to use it after 12.5 years. I don't think (I haven't checked) that they instruct an owner to remove it from a rig after 12.5 years, just to not use it?

Lowering....?

The skydiver and the reserve pilotchute, once deployed, have different terminal velocities. The reserve pilotchute terminal velocity is lower than that of the skydiver. After the transient launch period (and all that goes with that..), this differential (or part thereof) results in the launch force applied to the free bag through the bridle. The launch of the free bag does not require the reserve pilotchute to achieve its natural terminal speed whilst connected to the skydiver. I think...

Unfortunately I could not view the content due to rights restrictions. But, I am sure I can hazard a good guess at the content. The reality is that 'forensic' is a misused word. Forensic means something pertaining to litigation. Forensic science is (or should be) regular, often very basic, science that is used in support of litigation. It is as good as the scientist who does the science. The same applies to 'forensic' accountants, 'forensic' IT consultants, and the whole medico-legal industry.

Well, whilst forensic science is generally helpful, it, or the implementation of it, is fallible. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article4162314.ece

This. The one and only time I ended up low was just this, and I knew it was happening as it happened. Cameras are a distraction.

I had one. The person that I sold it too had a cutaway and an RSL deployed reserve. The RSL took the entire reserve handle away with the main parachute.

Much appreciated. Very interesting.

Thank you very much. I had in mind a much more complicated system. It is not dissimilar, in principle, to a Delta II Parawing I bought which had a modified reefing system from the original. It was a wrap around the lines, with a pin release attached to an extra line. AH restored the original system (OSI). If you have time, I'd love to see the test.

There is a UPT packing video somewhere where the gentleman demonstrating the closing method used the bottom routing. He said, I seem to recall, that UPT no longer really used the top routing. Or words to that effect. I see the bottom routing as having two advantages - a much lower risk of the pin piercing the bridle, and you don't need to leave the bridle slack above the pin. Quite a few people do not know about the reason for the velcro patch.

See page 68: http://unitedparachutetechnologies.com/..._07_44_13%5B1%5D.pdf

Me too - I'm struggling a bit with the installation - I would be very interested in any video footage of the Volplane in action.

Well put. I'm so happy to see you post that, and I emphasized your points that I feel strongly about. Most of the skydivers that think that dz.com forums are all BS simply don't put enough effort into it. Yet they will spend a lot of time on Facebook learning nothing from their Friends (often meaningless) posts. and that is exactly the point! you have to spend an awfull amount of time to sift through tons of BS just to get the noise-signal-ratio somehow in balance. which is very annoying most of the time and if bloated egos and madeup personas come into play it gets even worse. and I think this phenomenon has gotten worse over the years.... in this context I am more than happy, that I was not alone in thinking something smelled funny and that sparky made the call to create this thread... actually that should have been done by the greenies a long time ago May I disagree with you ? SNR is a valid point to make, however, one should always be using their brains instead of taking random statements as facts. In other words, face to face can be just as invalid as dz.com. There are always authority types who have a large ego, a small dick, and an even smaller expertise - yet they speak the loudest and the most assertive. So - one should think logically about the information presented, and then go to a verified/credible knowledge maven and confirm the information. Or they can just do the whole "dz.com sucks" on Facebook and exchange dick jokes along with an occasional "safe-ish" style comment. RAAAAd, DUDE ! ^ This. This is the right answer. I value this resource greatly, and I value face to face information greatly. But, I have heard plenty of rubbish 'facts' face to face from supposed experts (ie making yourself big to catch the wind to get pushed back from a deep spot, from a world famous canopy pilot, 45 degree rule etc) Without the exposure to a wider range of views and debate, I doubt I'd have have worked out all of the right answers from first principles. likestojump has it - use all sources of information, but figure out who has good advice, and who does not. I know the 15 or so posters whose advice I would weight heavily on here, and ChrisD is not one of them.

"Let's light this candle" I am just glad I was lying down when I watched that :-)

I do think that some installations of certain containers are susceptible to container lock if cutter does not sever the loop. Others not so much (like the Javelin placement on bottom - which I like) That said, If its an approved installation as per container and AAD manufacturers guidelines I think you may have some defence. That said I prefer installations which don't have the potential to cause container lock in the event of a fail cut. This pin puller /pusher is a different solution and perhaps has less inherent risk as it always allows manual activation. Just thinking out loud here, but if cutters are evil because they have the potential to lock the reserve in the container, than how about a bent pin that prevents extraction?... or a cable that is jammed in the housing from that landing in the pees and cant be pulled?... or what about a broken pin??...That one makes me sweat just thinking about it... Having a close toleranced piston and cylinder assembly that is crimped to the cable has the potential of jamming and preventing a pull... or is a broken, bent, or jammed pin not illegal because the flaps never opened?? The reserve is just as locked in the container as it would be with a pinched loop in a cutter, but this is OK? Use a two 'cutter' AAD, and have both.....

March 14.

Thanks I'd downloaded it but didnt see flat turns. I'll reread it. Page 15.

I am not seeing the same thing. I see the grommet, but it seems a long way from the soft loop, and I can't see a yellow cable near the grommet.

Where do you see the yellow cable?