precision

I did the opening jump at Oshkosh in '83 (or was it '84?) out of "Ole #1" with pilot Bob Griffin. The sky was low overcast, so I just told Bob to get me what altitude he could and give me 90 knots. Before we went up, I had made up my mind that I wouldn't go unless we could get 1500 feet AGL. We were into the bases at 1450. It was a jump to remember. George Galloway

It's called ParaTelemetry, and more information can be found at http://www.paratelemetry.com Most likely, you will see it integrated into rigs at Symposium 2007 in January at Reno, but some may come out with it before that. All of the container makers listed on the ParaTelemetry site are developing their own adaptations. Art Sherry (Skydive Store) has been travelling with a demo unit, and he has repeatedly reported that reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. George Galloway

Psycho-Pack (a.k.a Precision pack) Same pack job for Xaos or any other canopy for that matter Here it is on the Icarus Extreme: http://www.precision.aero/extreme_pack.htm See the video "How To Bag a Zero-P Canopy In 60 Seconds" at: http://precision.aero/information.htm

It was summer of 1972. Since I had broken my left leg a few years earlier, I just thought it would only be right to break my other leg. (see attached) The REAL reason I started skydiving is that I was taking flying lessons at the time, and my flight instructor was drilling me about all the things that could go wrong with an airplane. Since then, I have experienced most of those bad things while flying, but none of them has ever caused me to really want to leave the aircraft just because of the emergency. Several years later while getting my instrument rating after having becoming an experienced skydiver and DZO, it was the FAA Flight Examiner's "duty" to create a distraction for while on short final doing an instrument approach on the IFR checkride. (I was flying "under the hood") What he did to distract me was to reach behind me and pop open the window. When I heard that rush of air, I instinctively wanted to exit the aircraft, but alas, were were on short final, IFR, and only 200 feet AGL!

No worries. No offense taken. I know you weren’t trying to bash anybody. I just take exception to the statement that “There are lofts and master riggers that will be able to give your canopy a better, more valid inspection than Precision.” Who and where would that be? The statement “they are not in as much of a position nor have the personnel with the experience necessary to evaluate older gear” may be your opinion, but I disagree. What I have been saying for 20 years is that determining the continuation of airworthiness is not my job unless I am the rigger repacking the reserve, but I can surely give the customer measurements of porosity and test the fabric strength, and give them a comparison to the same measurements on a new canopy, as well as measured canopy flight performance data that most lofts or master riggers can’t offer (at which time the customer may want to consider buying a new canopy, based on the interpretation of the empirical data) As a manufacturer, we don’t want to compete with the people in the repack business, but I do want to provide services that most “lofts” can’t or don’t offer. I never suggested that there wouldn’t be a charge for the inspection and lab time. I still love ya, Brooksie.

There are lofts and master riggers that will be able to give your canopy a better, more valid inspection than Precision. They manufacture new canopies and they are not in as much of a position nor have the personnel with the experience necessary to evaluate older gear. Oh my... One might question where that came from. Goodness... There are not many places who can give you a better and more thorough old canopy evaluation than the factory. At Precision, we have delicate equipment to properly measure and quantify canopy porosity as well as fabric strength. Most manufacturers have the proper facilities to conduct used canopy evaluations, including live or dummy drop testing as necessary. Send the canopy back to us and we will give you the service you need with all work signed off by a Master Parachute Rigger. George Galloway

Unfortunately there is a problem at the Precision website at: http://www.subterminal.com/precisionaero/trimspecs.aspx so here is the detail: Left Front Riser Inboard A5 B5 A4 B4 A3 B3 A2 B2 A1 B1 Outboard Left Rear Riser Inboard C5 D5 C4 D4 C3 D3 C2 C1 Outboard Mirror image on the other side. The canopy planform image is attached. George Galloway

This extreme downsizing all started with Charlie Mullins when he worked at Precision. He was very careful to not let me know that he was making the first ever sub-70 sq ft canopy because he knew I would not tolerate it. However, he was able to sneek it through production without my knowledge, and it was only after he landed it that he came in that Monday morning and asked me if I wanted to see the video. I couldn't be mad at Charlie because he had actually pulled it off and some great footage to show for it. I suspect that both Beezy Shaw and Chris Martin knew at the time what Charlie was up to, but they were all successful in keeping the secret from me. Years kater, when Chris decided to make the X-21-21, he "said" it was for display only, but I can assure you (and I am sure Beezy will back this up) that Chris had every intention of jumping it from the get-go. That's why all of the fabric, line, and thread was production standard, and the canopy went through the entire detailed construction/inspection procedure that all canopies go through. The canopy was "displayed" as intended initially, but otherwise it didn't leave Chris Martin's office for a couple of years. Chris' original intention was to dock the full flight canopy with somebody in freefall, and that jump was made successfully by several people, including Chris. You can be certain that this canopy was never intended to be landed, however. I know Beezy is reading this, and I suspect he may have some comments. George Galloway

Sean D. Tucker bailed out of his extreme performance Oracle Challenger today, when the biplane suffered mechanical failure. For many years he has flown aerobatics using sport parachute equipment provided by Precision Aerodynamics packed in a Rigging Innovations Aviator container, and also a Freeflight ram-air packed in a Paraphernalia Softie container. It was the Freeflight/Softie rig he used today. The story is at: http://tinyurl.com/kp9d9 George Galloway

In a couple of hours from now, depending on where you are, the time and date will be: 1:23 04/05/06 When is the last time, and/or the next time that this will/did occur? Just wondering. George Galloway

In all fairness, wouldn't it be best to include the fact that both C lines broke within 1/4 inch of each other, about 6 inches below the finger trap? I am not aware of any kind of epidemic of this occurrance, but I do know of it happening one time. Could these lines that I hold in my hand be yours? Your rigger sent them to me. Please PM me with the details of the "other 4 people". I would be very interested to know the details. Sorry, but my 30 years of experience as a Master Rigger and manufacturer says you had a slider-related malfunction. However, if you wanted bigger C5 lines, all you had to do is ask, and I would have been happy to send them to you. George Galloway Precision Aerodynamics

Why don't you try calling me? Anytime. George Galloway 423-949-4688

There is a brand new ParaCommander Owner's Manual for sale on Ebay right now. See attached image. You can check it out at: http://tinyurl.com/b28nc

Look forward to reviewing the information on tensile strength comparisons. *** Although the attached comparison doesn't include Mallion Rapide Links, here are some typical comparative breaking points of "PD Reserve Slinks" and "Precision Wrap-It Links"

"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him. He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child. Teach him. He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep. Wake him. He who knows, and knows that he knows, is a leader. Follow him." ----Attributed to Omar Khayam, 13th century philosopher "In the fullness of time All will be shown The unknown will be known In the fullness of time" ----Marshall Chapman 1996, Tall Girl Records, Nashville George Galloway, Precision Aerodynamics

Actually, we do just that, Rob. When a canopy comes in for SB1221, all 16 of the A-B T3 line attachment tapes are removed and replaced with T1. For consistent quality and uniformity, we have established a specific routine, and we apply it to all SB1221 canopies. George Galloway

The standard for tear strength in 0-3 fabric is even less at only 5 lbs. http://www.perftex.com/exatachute_specs.htm The standard for tear strength in ZP fabric is 15 lbs. http://www.perftex.com/soarcoat_specs.htm The experts in the fabric industry have been tearing parachute fabric for more than 50 years. Nobody is pretending that parachutes ever tear slowly. All parachutes tear fast, once a tear is initiated. It is the Tensile Strength (47 lbs) that discourages tears from initiating. The Tensile Strength is exactly the same for both ZP and 0-3. If you want to get correct answers about parachute fabric, ask a fabric expert, not a canopy manufacturer.

Well, skymedic, I fully understand your statement on this issue and I respect your opinion. I really do. The truth is that before we issued SB1221, I had already asked the FAA to issue a mandatory Airworthiness Directive but they responded by stating that "the body count isn't high enough." I couldn't believe my ears! My only choice left was to issue a mandatory service bulletin, which I did. Asking the customer to pay for the fix was a difficult decision for me to make, but the fact is that we (and most other parachute manufacturers) do not have the same scale of resources as the automotive industry. Many of our dealers have been quite willing to pay the $50 fee for people whom they don't even know, because the dealer will get our $100 merchandise credit in return. It's a win-win-win deal. To them it is like cash in their pocket, because they will turn around tomorrow and place an order for another canopy at an additional $100 discount. I have hooked many people up with this sort of arrangement, but for the most part, our customers have paid the fee and received prompt factory service to accomplish the SB. Some of our dealers provide the service to their own customers at no charge. I'll bet that Ralph Hatley has done hundreds of them for his loyal customers, and he is happy to do it for them because he knows they will come back. Now, to get back to the original subject of this thread, we do monitor forums here all the time, but most of the time we don't say too much (except for Chris Martin, perhaps) We pay attention to what people say, and we listen to comments and opinions of how people think, react, and experience our equipment. We are constantly striving to improve the parachutes we make. A most recent example is the development of the r-Max reserve. The r-Max has been in development for more than three years, and it embodies many improvements over previous reserves we have produced. That doesn't mean that prior designs are any less airworthy, it simply means that we want to offer our customers the very best products that we can develop, and during the past 20 years, 92% of our production has been TSO'd reserve canopies. The fact is, we have designed, developed, manufactured, and deployed more ram-air reserves than any other manufacturer in the world. We know reserves, and the r-Max will prove to be the best reserve we have ever produced. I make it a point to personally avail myself to any jumper who wants to call to discuss any of the equipment that we make and sell, and I do talk to a number of customers every day. I am sorry that you feel the way you do, but I am sure that you are comfortable with you decision, and I respect that. Had you contacted me first, perhaps you might feel differently than you do, or perhaps not. In any case, thanks for your comments. Respectfully, George Galloway, President Precision Aerodynamics, Inc.

This is what you get when you cross Skydiving with Nuclear war. Attached is a picture of Slim Pickens as Major Stanley "King" Kong riding atomic bomb to earth in Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb!

check out http://www.efax.com I have been using the Efax service for several years, and the basic package to establish your own fax number to receive faxes is free and easy to use. With the deluxe package you pay a little bit for the service, but the convenience of having it (to me) is well worth the little bit that it costs. Faxes are delivered to you via email, and can be stored on the Efax server for future retrieval if you want to do that. With an Efax account, you can send and receive faxes from anywhere you can get an internet connection. Check it out: http://www.efax.com/

I would like to extend my very best wishes today for a Happy Birthday to Bill Booth, the most innovative parachuting genius of our time. May the gifts you have brought to our skydiving community over the past 30 years come back to you tenfold! Happy Birthday, Bill George Galloway Precision Aerodynamics, Inc.

Maybe I am just trying to work through my own reality of being a "Newbie"... I realize that there are many good educational posts here and I will be the first to say that I have learned things here myself. My observation comparing people with 200 jumps nowadays with people having 200 jumps in the 60s or 70s is that there are so many more disciplines to learn today. When I had 200 jumps, I was an "Expert" at falling... but then that's about all we did back then. When we got lucky enough to grab hands as we flew by each other, we called it RW. So, really, when I had 200 jumps, I was an "Expert" whuffo. Today, with accelerated canopy progression, head-down flying, winged suits, and 3-D formations, it would be difficult for anybody to become "Expert" at all of these new disciplines in only 200 jumps. My favorite Forums here are Talk Back (of course), Safety and Training, Gear and Rigging, and Swooping and Canopy Control, in no particular order. My ratio is pretty high, but I have made more posts today than I have made jumps, so my ratio is decreasing by the minute. By making this post, I am now one post closer to not being a Newbie. I can't wait. George Galloway Precision Aerodynamics, Inc. broke my leg on my first jump made my first 500 jumps on round canopies

# jumps / # posts less than .5 .51 to 1.0 1.01 to 1.5 1.51 to 2.0 more than 2.0 This is just a personal observation, and maybe I'm waaayy out of line... but here goes..... Now, I don't post so much, but I try to diligently read my favorite forums every day. I am amazed at the amount of expert advice I see coming from people who have somewhat limited experience in skydiving. When I started jumping, if you had 200 jumps you were considered an "Expert", but nowadays, I say that

I have been serving on this committee with Bill Booth and others for the better part of 2 decades, and although we have recently spent a good bit of time discussing the subject, I feel strongly that main risers will never become part of the TSO elements, per se. The discussion all started back with the committee was debating the wisdom of required elements for Tandem equipment in a post-exemption world, and one of those elements was that Tandem equipment should be required to have a cutaway system. So far so good. But if we require post-exemption tandem to have a cutaway system of some sort, then we must write a performance standard to test the cutaway system. Still so far so good. The problem is that half of the cutaway system is not located on the rig, but on the risers. Now, of course, we all know that the 3 ring system has served us very well for a long time, but the time will surely come when a newer, better cutaway system is adopted into our sport. Bill Booth will quite possibly invent that new system, and for all we know, he has already invented it, and just hasn’t brought it to market yet! In any case, the dilemma is invoked because half of the cutaway system resides on the risers, thereby calling the risers into the chain of TSO authority and subsequently rigger approval for assembly. One solution would be (and I think this is where we will ultimately end up) to require that: 1) Tandem systems require some sort of cutaway provision 2) Manufacturer mandates approved part numbers limited for use in combination on their own equipment 3) Require TSO functional and structural qualification testing for the manufacturer’s combination of part numbers, regardless of what system it is [6-ring-torsion-whizzer pyrotechnic-cutter-release] 4) The harness TSO might include the large ring of the 3-ring release [or whatever Bill has up his sleeve next] but whatever it is, it must be “assembled in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions” The TSO system should never be design-restrictive, and I’m sure Bill Booth will agree, we should never write the 3-Ring system into the TSO… after all, his patent has expired :) George Galloway Precision Aerodynamics, Inc.

It's just an urban legend... for more info, see: http://www.urbanlegends.com/ulz/xbud.html