seal_S49

You may have the answer there. If your other linesets had a knotted running end (or a smaller loop) instead of the newer (bigger?) fingertrapped loop, there would have been much less movement (friction/abrasion) of the line across the grommets to cause such wear. On the other hand, it's possible that the grommets have been marginal all along and only now exacerbated by the toggle attachment method. It takes a huge amount of line-wear to damage a grommet. Look at all the abuse that slider grommets take before they finally need replacement. On the other hand, look at how much wear your slider grommets did to those old linesets. Although the photos look like the line has been exposed to something sharp, I must admit that under severe conditions even a good grommet will eventually damage a line. The condition of the grommets can only be answered by someone who has inspected them. I'm putting my money on your rigger. I'll bet you a pack-job that this problem will be solved when the grommets pass inspection and the toggle attachment is tightened.

Without being able to inspect the toggles myself, the photos make me suspect that the sharp-edge grommet theory is correct. The line has to rub across something hard and sharp to cause that kind of damage. Sometimes the mfr's grommet tool is out of adjustment, causing grommets that are not fully set (compressed) with the unfinished edge still protruding. I've seen this type of defect before. If you're going to replace the toggles only for that reason, I'd rather suggest asking your rigger to take his #0 grommet set and re-stake the old grommets. A bit of attention with some emory cloth may also be needed. Of course you'll also want him to replace the frayed sections of line (toggle to cat-eye). This is a chance to have your rigger finish these with any type of toggle attachment you prefer--a loop of any size or a knot in the running end. The entire job may cost less than those new toggles ($25 + shipping) and you'll need the line repair anyway.

Sounds like someone has been reading the FARs!!! You can tell when a Kid's been in the cookie jar - you can tell when a Rigger's been in the FAR's! Dude, I LIVE in the FARs!

Absolutely right! Sunpath's SP03 comes to mind--complete with a photograph identifying the MLW. I can only speak of my own experience as a candidate being tested by a DPRE, but I hope that all practical testing involves the requirement to read mfr's instructions and specifications. I admire my DPRE for reading my rigger's log and deliberately making me pack a container with which I had no previous experience. This practice verifies that a candidate has the ability to read and follow the mfr's instructions which are provided during the test. Most skydivers may not realize that the DPRE doing the testing may not be the same rigger(s) who trained the candidate being tested. There is a lot of equipment in this industry, and it's not possible to test everyone on everything. Comprehensive testing insures that a rigger understands the necessity to research any new task, follow all documentation, use standard rigging practices, and learn any new skills required. As for the original post, I'm still willing to believe that it's possible for a senior rigger to effectively inspect a harness, etc. and complete a repack even if he or she earned a certificate without knowing the term "MLW." I don't have enough experience to comment on the witch-hunting, DPRE-bashing posts. BTW, great use of the English language!

When I took (and passed) the oral & written rigger's tests, the term "MLW" wasn't included in either. Does that mean my DPRE was incompetent? As much as I'd be shocked that a fellow rigger didn't know this term, I'm not sure I'd conclude that she or he would be unable to safely inspect, pack, and maintain (except for major repairs) an approved parachute.

Now there's a good answer.

The only way you're really gonna know is to jump the Stiletto. I'd put in my $.02 on how well the Stiletto performs (ground hungry?!), but instead I suggest you ignore ALL the opinions you read here and get some real experience. If I believed everything I read, I'd be trading my Stiletto for a Saber 2. (not likely!) BTW, after you're proficient w/ front riser maneuvers under the Saber 2, try them w/ the Stiletto for some real fun.

A guy with 3 jumps giving advice to a guy with 10 jumps, and now we get a history lesson. Don't take my word for it--do some research on paragliding (an offshoot of hang-gliding) and you'll find that most ground launching is done outside the skydiving community. The paraglide guys have put many years of effort into a highly developed sport that is almost invisible to us. While all canopy-sports have the same roots, it's a real slam to paragliding to say that skydivers are exclusively responsible for the development of ground-launching. While most paragliding canopies are suited for long flights and look very different than ours, it's interesting to notice that paragliders are developing faster canopies that are suitable for terrain swooping and look more like ours. Meanwhile, skdivers are becoming interested in ground-launching, which requires different flight characteristics than skydiving. We could learn a lot from each other, and it looks like these two sports have taken the same direction. Don't be surprised if we end up sharing a hill with folks who have never made a skydive.

I hope a DPRE would agree that OEM pouches eventually wear out and need replacement, and that this doesn't constitute a "mod." (maybe you meant alteration). Regarding your question, I'm not going to comment on whether a rig is still airworthy when it's so "old" that it's main PC pouch is worn-out.

QuoteHard to beat $15 per BOC. Absolutely right! I'd only resort to making these if a more durable product was possible. Thanks to all who responded w/ mfr. & fabric info.

What is your best source for replacement BOC PC pouches, and why have you chosen that particular product and supplier? Have you made any of these yourself? If so, what are the material/dimensional specifications? Thanks

Since you asked, here are several more considerations: 1) A 9-cell will pack bigger than a 7-cell of similar square-foot size. I've packed a 190 7-cell that seemed only slightly bigger than a 175 9-cell. Square to eliptical may make a difference also. Different mfrs' published pack volume may not always be an accurate comparison. 2) Anytime you change the length of your closing loop, make sure you have a tight enough pack that you won't be at risk for premature deployment. 3) Puckering flaps from a loose main fit may be more that just a cosmetic problem. If the container is not filled out, you may compromise the security of your main deployment system. Throw-out bridle can hang out between pin & PC pouch or pull-out pud can come loose from velcro if pack is too loose. 4) The more you mismatch your main & reserve size (& performance envelope), the less stabile your flight will be during a dual deployment. BTW, since you didn't ask, I won't comment on your experience or choice of canopy size. However, that may be the most important question of all.

I packed my reserve as a main in my 2nd rig & connected a static line to the main bag for a Cessna exit w/ sub-terminal opening--spotted myself to land on some nice grass. No problem with lost or damaged gear. BTW, Precision Aerodynamics allows for this practice in publication part #P13001, calling it "one familiarization jump prior to reserve packing." Flame away!

Since I asked, "if anyone has recently purchased...," I'll take your answer to be an "I don't know." Hard to actually say it, huh? BTW what does a 3-mile run have to do with gear & rigging?

If anyone has recently purchased 1" type VI, class 2 or class 5 Kevlar tape, I'd like to know where this is available in retail quantities of less than full-roll. This material looks like nylon binding tape and is commonly used in the construction of retractible pilot chutes and for canopy reinforcement. Thanks

Now that's what I call a rhetorical question, just like: "Why did you come sliding in on your ass?" or "Why did you go low?" or "Why did you pack that malfunction?" or "Why did you spot so short?" So tell me, why do we ask so many meaningless questions in this sport when the answers are either obvious or irrelevant? (oops!)

Raven = 2.26/1 Triathlon = 2.25/1 Both of these fly very well.

Yes, it matters to those of us who organize demos at which we are expected to arrive on time. I wear a wristwatch on my L wrist and use only a chest-mount alti for these, or I put my watch in a jumpsuit pocket. Otherwise I don't wear a watch during jumping.

Of course it's not. But how about "the manufacturer recommends it?" Do you disagree with that reason also? The point of my experience is that it has convinced me that the latest mfr recommendation is correct. The (lengthy) answer to that question caused me to pack pull-outs R-L even before Sunpath recommended it. That method is now officially approved. Who has been validated here?

I think that's a good idea with any system. I do jump a pull-out and have packed it R-L even before the manufacturer finally recommended this. In over 1400 jumps with this system, I've never had a hard pull, nor have I yet had a malfunction on any system. I've trained some rather small people to transition to this type of deployment and none of them have ever complained about a hard pull. If you realized how easy it is to pull a pud, maybe you'd have more confidence and wouldn't feel the need to let your PC to do it for you. Would you please explain why the L-R flap-closing sequence will give me an easier pull?

A caution to anyone using a pull-out system: the L-R sequence can lead to a hard pull/total malfunction. Older Sunpath manuals specified L-R sequence for both throw-out and pull-out. Newer manuals were changed to show R-L (correct) closing sequence for pull-outs only.

There are two sets of limits: (1) TSO specifies the maximum weight and speed the assembly can withstand without failure. That doesn't mean you will like the opening or landing under those conditions, (2) Manufactures often place lower recommended weight and speed limits that represent a more realistic loading for a survivable opening and landing. Although many jumpers exceed the manufacturers recommendations, few exceed the TSO specs because they are so much higher.

There is no "easy" route and their reasons may be as much moral as they are legal. An intelligent, responsible person will not want to give you any advice that could easily results in your injury, even if you are game to try this wing loading on a reserve. I think that their self-restaint from criticizing your intent is admirable. I won't criticize it either. You should be talking directly to the manufaturer for a demo ride. During my last demo experience, the manufacturer referred me to a retailer from whom I could borrow one or their canopies. And are you aware of the possibility of fatal opening shock? Even if the canopy survives, you may not. There has already been a fatality in the U.S. in which the cause of death was concluded to have been internal injuries from opening shock of an overloaded reserve. The human body has a G-force limitation... Choose carefully--it's an important decision.

...that the difference will be negligible, and that a greater wear factor will be the type of pull-up cord you use and how you remove it when closing is completed. ...and that this could easily turn into another pull-out/throw-out debate. (Gosh, I hope not)

Sorry this post is so late, but I was researching an unrelated issue and came across this relevant info in FAA Advisory Circular 105-2c: Any rigger who has worked with solid links to which lines are tied, stacked, and zig-zag stitched would probably agree that Rapide or soft links are a simplified method of assembly, not a complex operation. And regardless of the importance of line continuity, the approved system can't go back into the air untill after rigger inspection/service. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if a jumper brought me such a job. I can't find any reference in FARs regarding who may "work with reserves."