Beatnik

Look for yourself on what sheets you use. But if you get a non perfume based sheet there really isn't anything in there in the form of a chemical but the smell will be gone. If you are worried about it touching the canopy, put the canopy in a big rubbermaid tub and tape a sheet to the lid of it. The smell will be gone and nothing touched the canopy.

Don't put Febreeze on a canopy. If it stinks of smoke just pack some dryer sheets in the d-bag when you pack it up and it will remove the smell after a little while and won't do any damage to the canopy.

I am glad that there are jumpers that appreciate what I am trying to do for the sport. There are some very interesting things to come this year and there will be some good updates of new chutes and jumps happening soon.

I can't speak for other people but it really depends on what is going on with the rig. I can't really give you a straight answer to the question. My answer to the question I would say almost all the time would be to no to pack it or to repair it first before a repack. But it really depends on what the situation really is. Most of the time I will direct people elsewhere for stuff like this. I have so much work with gear restoration and some developmental stuff, I don't have the time for the regular jumper at this time.

Mine I put two Strong Grabbers on it. It is yellow with black end cells. There are some photos of it in one the threads when I did my first jump on it. I want to get some better photos of it. The top rings and ropes didn't work too bad on it. Unlike the rings and ropes on the top skin of the Para-Sled. That just doesn't feel good at all.

While I agree with you the answer is actually a yes and no. There is nothing actually stating the standards of a Rigger B, since there is no regulations on it. Just like there is nothing about emergency parachute systems either. One and maybe most would expect that that the a Rigger B and Master Rigger work to the same standards but there is nothing saying you have to or enforcing it. As to the example you gave, I could say the main container system isn't TSO'd so you can do what you want to it. But as a rigger I could also say I refuse to repack any gear with certain AADs, reserves, etc. I am not saying what you did wasn't right, you could look at it numerous ways in Canada cause we do have a lot less restrictions than those to the south of us.

The Para-Plane and the Para-Sled both have fairly long lines. The A lines on the Para-Plane are about 16.5' and the Para-Sled are about 14'. That is nothing compared to the Volplane's A lines which are a little over 21'.

I have one but I am not selling. I think having a static display of a parachute is a horrible idea when I can give a dynamic display of it. I think that is a much better way to display it. The era of the parachute is from 69-71. Then a Para-Plane Cloud came after that.

Very True.

Then there is four. Brandon is the other one.

I know of three clubs in Canada that operate aircraft.

Really good question Rob. I don't really know what to do. I have seen in happen in Steinbach also. The owners got greedy and now the dropzone operates on minimal staffing and is a tandem factory. Pretty much all the experienced jumpers changed dropzones. Once something like that happens the dropzone is dead. If the jumpers stick together then I think something can be done. They can essentially work together as a team and remove that element that the DZO has. But that takes a strong team and I haven't seen that at a dropzone. There are also groups of jumpers and some that don't get along with others. I am looking forward to see what other have to say.

I don't think that is what he is implying at all. I think that is what you are taking it as. I think he preformed similar tests on two different rigs. Except that with one he used a CYPRES cutter and the other one he cut the loop using a different method. A comparison of the pilot chute launches shouldn't be affected by the method the loop was cut nor should it be the focus.

What tools are you using that it requires that many more? In my mind if you are using bodkins, you have two of them and a piece of 300 lbs. spectra if you have an AAD. If you use a ghost loop you have it. So it is one more tool without an AAD and two if you have one. I mark on my inspection sheet which tools go in or out and have never had a problem with a tool count. The bodkins greatly ease lining up the grommets, setting up the position of the freebag and a few other things. A ghost loop is not going to do that and is going to be a bigger pain in my eyes than anything else. I cannot see anyway that one large ghost is going to make packing a racer easier or any pop-top for that matter. If your ghost loops work for you great. But I don't think that it is great advice for others to throw away their steel bodkins because you aren't able to use them. Jumpshack trains people with them, that is the way I was trained and having packed both ways, I will say it is much easier with steel bodkins than without.

I pack a lot of rounds every year. Actually, I pack more rounds than squares. That is in sport rigs and pilot rigs.

I find my steel bodkins extremely useful when closing racers with or with out AADs. I find it a real pain trying to close one of the containers without them. They make the job so much easier. If you are losing count over two tools opposed to one then they are other issues. They don't increase the tool count significantly for packing. You will have one or two more tools when packing with them. If you continue to struggle with Racers, I suggest you get some factory training. Steel bodkins if you know how to use them are invaluable with pop-tops of any kind. Packing them without seems like a lot of wasted time for no reason.

I couldn't resist!

Steel T-bodkins are extremely useful if you know how to use them. If you don't then they are like any other tool and are useless. I packed lot of pop-tops with steel t-bodkins and I find it a lot better than using a ghost loop. To DebaucheroRdrgz what I would suggest if there is no one around that you can mentor from. Contact Jumpshack and get their packing video. It is a different rig altogether but the techniques used in the video will aid you in closing other pop-top reserve style containers if you are just learning how to do it. The video will also teach you how to use steel t-bodkins properly.

While rigging knowledge is always increasing and a good rigger continuously learns. I still don't believe feeding the answers to the students to get them to pass the test. They should be given all the knowledge and lessons they should have and then be tested on it. That one test is the qualification they need for the rest of the rigger A endorsements. There is no requirement for them to do another written test all they need is a practical. If they weren't taught the information in the first place, then they have no business having the rating. Frankly, I will worry about lazy riggers who were fead what they needed to pass. They might retire from rigging in a few years but the time they get their rating and the time they stop rigging can be dangerous. The rigger rating shouldn't be taken lightly and the candidates should have to work for their rating. At the end of the day you have to prove that you are competent and able to do the job. Giving them enough information to pass the test and then test them on that in my opinion is a poor method of teaching and shouldn't be done. They essentially know what is going to be on the exam before they take it. If that is what is happening, why even administer the exam, why not just pass them without doing it? We will not see eye to eye on this form of teaching. I have done far too many hours in the school system to cater any course to the students to achieve high pass rates. That is not the way to test them.

I just dislike people giving rounds a bad rep. I have over 500 round jumps and I have never been hurt by a round. However, I have been hurt by a square. I can PLF like most people don't know exist and can do it in any direction. I know for a fact that saved my bacon more than once. I probably do more round and other shape parachute jumps than anyone else right now. I am usually doing between 80-100 a year just on them. Don't get me wrong, I much rather have a square reserve and think that it is better to train students on squares not because of simplification or anything like that. I like to train them on squares for the main reason that if they continue on in the sport they will most likely be getting a square reserve. From a psychological view it is much better to keep the training consistent than training them on another method when they get their own gear. On the note of CSPA banning round mains for students, I personally believe that was to try and force a particular dropzone that was still using round mains up into the mid 90's to switch. I don't quite agree how it came about but I do believe that is the right way to go.

I have taught in a high school for many years and know of the challenges of designing courses and planning them more than most. You are not overloading a rigger by making or having them learn. That is like telling a high school student that if we continue learning you will shut down and never learn anything. I am sorry but I don't agree at all with your logic on this. Statistically through the courses that CSPA has held, the candidates that come in with more experience or the ones that experience more during their training are the ones that do better. They should have developed there own style of packing which they can adapt to reserve packing by the time they come in the course if they have the prerequisites. If you are only going over the material that is on the test and burning it into their heads it doesn't surprise me that you have such a high pass rate. I don't agree with that method at all. The training shouldn't be catered so they can pass a test which to seems to me is what is happening. I came into my rigger course with the intention of going for my rigger B from the start. I was already doing all the work when I was working working under Rigger As, Bs, and Cs before I started the course. I think some people understand more than others and naturally gravitate towards different areas and I think some take the course so they don't have to pay someone else. On the note of acid mesh. I completely disagree with you on it. I think it is bullshit to believe that the reason we have square reserves now is because of acid mesh. The sport gravitated to square mains, I think it was a natural progression. If you want to get into years of rigging and working through we can go to one of the people I apprenticed under who earned his rigger ticket in the 50's in the army and then continued as ratings became available. Many of the manufacturers that you list of going out of business had nothing to do with acid mesh. Honestly, I think Jim Handbury dying had a little more to do with the company going out of business than acid mesh. Some of the other companies you listed merged and formed other companies and are around in some form. Clamps are useful with more than testing for acid mesh. I have seen canopies rip that were acid free. These are tools with the exception of bromocreasol green that they use. I agree with the not spending money on a FXC chamber. I don't see much of a need with that as there are getting to be less and less of them. When you sending them back every couple years to the factory, it doesn't seem like a reason to. Last chamber I bought, I paid $150 for. The problem with them is that they have to get checked as well. I think for most riggers if they go out and buy every tool out there, they probably won't get a return out of it. Tools that they can use for many purposes is hardly a waste in my books. I really don't think we will see eye to eye on some of this stuff. If you want we can continue our debate privately cause I don't see it doing a lot of good publicly.

I think that they should have more knowledge than enough to pass an exam. Not relating this to your courses but there are a ton of riggers out there that think they know what they are talking about when it comes to parachutes because they are a rigger. Just because they have a rating doesn't mean crap. I remember having a conversation with a master rigger who was telling me that rounds were unsafe and they should be banned. I told him he doesn't know what he is talking about and that his rating doesn't make him an expert. I think people should be trained to be able to pack anything. They will be much better off. Round reserves may have collapsed in the late 1980's for the sport market but I don't think it was because if acid mesh. I think it was more because of the natural evolution of gear and that is the way it was going to go. I am not sure of the $300 in extra tools to pack them. I can't think of what would cost that much to pack only rounds. A tension board and a line separator doesn't come close to that. I use both of those things for both rounds and squares. Not that I use a tension board with squares but it does keep the risers nice and straight. Candidates for any course are going to grumble about the course material and that will not change. I think it is more that they don't understand and not think there is any value to it. My personal thoughts are if a rigger wants to shut down their mind to learning so early on, I can't imagine how they are going to become good riggers. The PEP course is your idea for it. CSPA doesn't have anything like that. Emergency rigs are a rating and involves a practical test. They should have the knowledge in the first place how to pack parachutes of different types right from the beginning IMO. If they know how to read a manual and follow it they should be able to show that they can pack a rig. I personally don't think it is necessary for a course. To me I think it sounds more like a way to generate revenue and I am not opposed to you doing that cause you are the one signing off their ticket. I have been debating about getting my rigging instructor rating for a while now. But I know with me, the course would take a while to do and they would receive a lot of training more than a week like most of the rigger courses I have seen and heard of. Just from the historical trends I doubt everyone would be passing like I have seen some courses been able to somehow produce. Most CSPA rigger courses from when it started back with the TTSC only had about 10% - 25% of the candidates actually finishing and getting their rating. Some of the courses out there make me wonder how good they are when they produce 90+% of the candidates getting their ratings. Again nothing against your courses as I have no first hand knowledge about them or how they are structured. I just know what I have seen with riggers out there in Canada and am really surprised that some have got their ticket. I know the way I would structure and teach my course since I have an outline for it.

The vintage stuff appears in all the courses. It is part of it. The displays are up to the rigger instructor. Each one is going to have something different. But the basics of the course are all the same. The vintage stuff will probably never show its face to most riggers. I have seen some of the more unique models out there but a good understanding of parachutes of any shape or vintage can help you understand a lot about things that you encounter on a regular basis. I never took the course through Rob. So I don't know what his courses are like. I went through another person and I personally would only go through them for many reasons some personal. There was only two people that ended up getting their ratings at the end of the course and that is typically the way it is. If everyone is passes a rigger's course something to me is up because historically that hasn't happened with CSPA's rigger courses. There are too many people figure it is like other courses were you can just show up, do the course and get the rating. There is a lot of work and not everyone will get it all done. You never know when someone could come out and ask for a round repack. It is more and more less likely to happen but they still do happen. If you have the rating and people know about you, there is usually work that follows. That has been my experience anyways. I have been thinking about people doing this rigging courses a lot and I think that there are a good number of people that enter them and don't fully understand what it is about because they haven't done the prerequisites or any apprenticing under a rigger before hand. I think people should actually want to become a rigger and not do it because they feel they should. Just my thoughts.

I don't fully agree with you rob. With the Canadian system there is a ton of stuff you have to do for it, more than the FAA rating. I guess the Canadian system is nice if you want to just pack for yourself but if you plan on being a rigger and pack for others it is a pain. The reason for this is the amount of endorsements you need to pack the different rigs and types. I know I went through them all and right now am in Rigger B training. Personally, I believe that if you follow a manual and understand how to pack, you should be able to pack anything. I don't do many square reserve packjobs a year but I do close to a hundred round packs. Does that mean I need to be retrained to pack squares? Shit I can still pack Racers better than most of the riggers around. Those are just my feelings since I have went through every endorsement and pretty much all the training CSPA has and sometime within the next year, I will have went through all the training.

LMAO Yeah right.