pchapman

On the Cobra buckle subject, rather than the car seatbelt buckle subject that is the main one in this thread: Cobra buckles are used in paragliding and come from Austialpin, who I think started with climbing hardware but branched into general rope work and paragliding. Patented mechanism, have some certifications available, made of 7075 alu and are more compact than other double click buckles I've seen, that use steel plates. Interestingly, for the applications they plan for, the buckles are designed NOT to release under higher load. Plenty of english language reading at:http://www.austrialpin.net/products/cobra/

Hey Mr mega-geek, It certainly depends on the dropzone. There are plenty who don't take really big guys for tandems, and have a strict limit, but others who will. I'm at one DZ (not in your area) where various lighter (& experienced) instructors have taken people in the 250-300 range, even out of C-182's, and have done it pretty much within the legal limits of the gear. But the whole deal is less fun. Being in shape does make a big difference in whether a particular instructor will be willing to go. High weight people may pay a few bucks more too, to compensate the DZ for the weight and instructor for the extra effort. As Rob gets at, it is a whole other issue whether a particular DZ will be able to let you continue beyond doing tandems. Sometimes that may relate to instructor weight - e.g, of the few AFF instructors at my DZ, none are really big and will not take a chance on trying to control someone so much heavier than themselves. The bigger problem may be the certification limits of the gear -- many rigs are are certified to only 254 lbs including the 25-30 lbs of gear. Some gear is certified higher, but it is less common. There are plenty of really big guys who have learned to skydive. And if you search this site, various people have asked about it over the years. However, finding a dropzone and gear that accommodate you can be quite tough. Only fewer places, not necessarily close to you, will be able to do the job.

And Rocket Jet releases were used to connect the reserve on the Para-Twin rig, fully TSO'd I assume. (Although on the one rig I saw, a cotter pin was added as another level of safety, but I'm not sure if the rig came that way originally) (Indeed, councilman, twardo, and I all contributed to a thread a few years ago about Rocket Jet releases.)

The scoring is Ok when a canopy is one's regular canopy, but has no way of taking into account whether the canopy you are currently jumping is much different than your regular one -- you add a lot of points for not having done all sorts of canopy exercises and courses, if it is your first jump on a canopy, even if it is similar or easier to fly than your old one. So just after a massive downsize you rack up a pile of points, but a swooper would get the same if he upsized and jumped a student canopy he had never jumped before. (Leaving aside the penalties for small hot canopies in general.) I looked at a jump I did years ago before people got all wussy about downsizing, and scored a 70 for that jump. Borrowed a Jonathan 92 for my 205th jump, 1.8 loading, at a new DZ, only 15 jumps in the last year and 1 in the last month. Although it doesn't figure into the score, I usually jumped an accuracy canopy and had a limited bunch of downsizing jumps. This was in 1994, when "downsizing" meant "do 2 jumps on the canopy, and if you aren't totally scared by the landing and can stand it up, you're good to go another size down".

Your great story about ripping off a bumper through misadventure, gunpaq, is really not all that different from one scene in Fandango! Seemed like a good idea at the time...

Yeah, it is more a starting point for discussion about safety than to be argued down to each point. Scored 43, High Risk for what it is worth. Although I have made plenty of jumps and jumps my canopy, having a small crossbraced canopy does load up on the points. Taking lessons, doing more competitions, or high hop and pops would shave some points off (although in the short term doing a competition would surely increase the risk).

While we're talking about "the jet", how often was it actually used? There was a lot of excitement back when Perris was getting it ready and satisfying the FAA, but how long or often did it actually fly jumpers after that, before languishing? It wasn't used that much, but perhaps someone can clarify.

I dunno about car type releases. Some must be certified somewhere to some standard. I have seen paragliding-style releases, that require pressing in a tab at both sides, used on non TSO BASE gear, both on chest and leg straps. Maybe a bit scary for those of us used to step-in or thread-through hardware; and less so to those used to snaps and quick ejector snaps. One brand are the Cobra releases that Paragear sells. One example of the many is this one: http://www.paragear.com/skydiving/10000091/H5056/. Heavier and costlier than the simple MS70101 style buckles we use. (Cheaper and lighter than an old 60's quick release snap though.)

Nice find; I had only seen the abstract before. To summarize the more useful parts of the results: ============================= The paper was written in 1984, about military rounds. So this isn't the most up to date, although still useful. The explanation for strength loss due to time alone (such as in storage) is that nylon oxidizes over time, and as with many chemical reactions, it happens faster as the temperature increases. While they did do some tear tests on canopies of different ages, they weren't doing a longitudinal study, that is, they weren't testing the same canopy for 20years. What they could do was to do accelerated aging tests: heat the fabric samples (say to 70-120 C), see how fast they degraded at different temperatures over 3 months, and mathematically come up with extrapolations for aging at lower, 'normal' temperatures for storage. One parachute type they checked was an old design using taffeta that had a titanium dioxide coating. Warning bells will go off in the head of any old time rigger -- TiO2 was later found to degrade nylon strength. So those canopies degraded about about 10 times faster in strength than the others, so those tests are not very relevant to modern jumping. The other canopy type tested was the ripstop on T-10 mains, which is military Type I fabric, about the same weight as F-111, but a lot more porous. So it somewhat resembles F-111 in strength. The extrapolated strength loss of the canopy fabric -- i.e. calculated not measured -- would be about 1.75% when stored at 25 C over 20 years. Or about 1.5% if stored at 20 C for the same time. This is really quite low! While useful, I'd like to see more data, even if I am a fan of jumping older canopies. Strength loss tests when sitting out in the Australian sun were done with samples under window glass -- which I think kind of defeats the purpose, as window glass stops some UV, although certainly not all. Still, after 2 months only under 10% of strenth was lost, but by 111 days 25% strength was lost, and it kept increasing, such as to 75% after 180 days total. As for dirt getting into lines: Nylon strength actually increases at low temperatures, so tests of nylon parachute lines (as on the old military rounds) showed slightly better strength at -40 C and -20 C than at +22 C. For reference, the document is: AGE LIFE PREDICTION OF NYLON 66 PARACHUTE MATERIALS. PART-I. MECHANICAL PROPERTIES G.T. Egglestone and G.A. George (Australian) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE MATERIALS RESEARCH LABORATORIES REPORT MRL-R-930 1984

Yeah you're right, there's no easy way of knowing the life. Some odds and ends thoughts on the issue: And you'll need sensors on the canopy to check the UV exposure that depends on where you jump and pack, check how much you kneel on the back of the center top panel, whether that area has salt stains from sweat, check whether opening forces become rougher and on heading performance worse due to out of trim conditions including from shrinking spectra brake lines, etc. And then how does one put a value judgement on those things like opening performance? And as others have said, you'd need to take dust, sand, and grit levels into account. You'll get people who'll tell you of canopies that lasted a very long time - like an acquaintance's Stiletto that went 3200 jumps with regular line changes, although the colours were getting pretty faded, until it tore on a jump but was landed. One can do things like doing a tensile test on the top back center panel that takes a lot of abuse. On the other hand, if it rips at 25 lbs, does that mean it was a crap canopy, or could it have been jumped a couple seasons more? In paragliding sometimes, one takes a line and does a destructive test on it, testing it to failure the check the remaining strength. But in skydiving we don't normally do tests like that, and just replace lines when we think they look bad. Our system is simplistic in that way. As for the slow deterioration of nylon over time, the literature suggests there is some but it is pretty hard to quantify and in the skydiving world we admittedly don't have a good handle on that. It would be nice to learn more. Still, I've had a 40 year old military round reserve pass tensile tests for supposedly acceptable strength. One really only knows strengths if one starts doing destructive tests. And if one finds an early 1980s square main that isn't all faded and baffed out, one wouldn't have any hesitation to jump it just because of the age of the nylon. As for reserves, things get trickier because one is down to one's last parachute. It used to be that a 20 year old reserve was often a bad thing, because it was some design that few wanted to jump in the modern era -- like a round or a Swift or an X-210. But nowadays we have plenty of PD reserves that are starting to be 20 years old so the design itself is really solid and nice landing. So I'm curious what people will start doing. You do get a few companies putting arbitrary lives on canopies. We don't see that in skydiving, but pilot emergency rigs and some of their canopies are now lifed at 15 or 20 years, which to a skydiver seems like a cover your ass move or a money grab. (While riggers don't generally want to disobey a manufacturer's requirement, it has been argued that if the life was not in the original TSO paperwork, then it is not legally mandatory. But that's a whole other argument.) There are a few countries that place mandatory lives on skydiving gear, but that's pretty foreign to US thinking, and considered pretty arbitrary and unnecessary here. We do of course have the few companies that want their reserves back for porosity testing, like PD with their 40 boxes on the canopy. Aerodyne wants a porosity check after 20 pack jobs, which pretty much would have to be done at the factory as riggers don't normally have a porosimeter. But that requirement is at the back of the manual and I bet few people send them in. For our purposes, number of jumps (and environmental conditions) has a much greater influence than simple age.

I hadn't checked the thread before adding something to my previous post -- the "Edited to add" paragraph about those who went faint from crouching -- so the addition hadn't been posted by the time you replied. I think the problem with crouching can happen to people whether or not they are the type to go a little faint from time to time. The anecdotal evidence from a couple other people who went faint after crouching for a while before exit, at least shows that it is something that has happened before and is not just a theoretical concern.

On the subject of harness pressure, which is one possibility when it comes to Doug's unexpected problem: The issue of going unconscious or worse from being suspended in a harness is a known one. I've seen it categorized as "Hanging Harness Syndrome" A quote from a paper abstract uses other wording too: That should be plenty to start googling with. I won't try to summarize the condition other than provide one quote from that short 2007 paper: Doug didn't report any factors making him really susceptible to blacking out. So here's another try at finding some possible explanation, tenuous or not, linking his experience to the hanging harness issue: @ Doug Davis: When you were waiting for the 2nd pass, leaning out the door etc, were you standing bent over and moving about, or perhaps crouched? A tight crouch at the doorway might put unexpected pressure on the legs from leg straps, doing that vein compression thing? Then you suddenly jump up (& out) and soon go woozy, like some people get when standing up quickly from being very relaxed lying down. Just an idea. Edited to add: I have since read NWFlyer's link to her thread from some years ago. A couple people did report anecdotally that they got woozy, if they had been crouched uncomfortably in the airplane for some time, and then suddenly allowed the blood to flow freely again by jumping out. So crouching with a harness on can seriously restricts blood flow, although I'm not sure of the exact mechanism causing someone to go woozy after.

Interesting! I looked it up and see it was a very short, self published print run, so I could see it would be hard to find. But at least for those who like NASA stories, they have made some good history monographs available on their web site. And those Johnson Space Centre transcribed oral history interviews I noted earlier, do include people like Fullerton, Haise, Engle, and Truly from the Enterprise drop tests...

OLD: Newbie asks experienced jumper to come and jump with him. Experienced jumper says, "Sure. I'm hanging around the DZ, making a moderate number of fun jumps a day, waiting around for available Cessna loads, occasionally dispatching a student for a free jump and a couple bucks. There's no real money in this anyway -- so yeah, I have time to jump with you, and I'll just pay my own slot." NEW: Newbie asks experienced jumper to come and jump with him. Experienced jumper says: "Look buddy, I can do 10+ tandems or video today. Plus I've just spent a shit load of money on tunnel and good coaching to improve my skills. So whether or not I am any good at all as a coach, my time is valuable. So you'd better come up with some decent cash if I'm going to jump with you. Now get outta my way, I'm on this load!"

Has anyone looked at aging and strength issues with modern adhesive ripstop tape? A few brief tests I did of some F-111 material with adhesive ripstop patches, 18 to 20 years after the patches were made, shows very little if any deterioration of the canopy fabric. This is for tensile tests of the edge of the patch, of the material away from the patch, of the material underneath the patch, and other comparison material of probably similar age. That's the short answer. My few tests also are of some general interest when considering issues of nylon aging, and the strength of older vs. newer parachute fabrics. All the tests were on F-111 style fabrics, and not zero-P material. Riggers are all told about how evil adhesive ripstop tape is, and people have honestly reported how they've seen material that tore easily from around ripstop tape that had been applied for a longer time. I myself have seen some pretty ugly and crackly ripstop repairs on 40 year old Para-Commanders. It is often mentioned that patches "may be detrimental" [Parachute Rigger Handbook] to the strength of the material. Or that "some brands" [Poynters I, 7.13] may degrade the material. Some people have said that the glue may be acidic and weaken the nylon in that way. I have even been told by one authority that using ripstop tape at all on a modern main canopy is a poor rigging practice, and that anything but a temporary patch should be a proper sewn patch, no matter whether a jumper asks a rigger for a quick and cheap solution to the problem of a small hole. The Parachute Rigger Handbook, in contrast, [in 7.7] still allows permanent patching of mains with it, showing sewing around the edges to keep it affixed to slick zero-P material. Ripstop tape has changed over the years. Poyters I has some specs for a minimum 2.5 oz material, that would have made sense on heavy canopy fabrics, but also in another section mentions that ripstop is 1.5 oz material -- closer to the 1.1-1.2 or so of F-111 style fabrics. There are only a few threads on this site about ripstop. While some riggers find it a handy tool for quick fixes on main canopies, others would rather do a proper patch in any case. Still, even if one has the skills as a rigger to do a proper patch, not everyone keeps a large selection of fabric colours, while translucent white ripstop works reasonably well with about any colour. The Parachute Rigger Handbook technically allows ripstop for round reserve canopies (as does Poynter) to a limited extent, but there is a caveat that the manufacturer must allow it, something that is unlikely these days. It is however prohibited on certificated square canopies. There are other parts of the PRH that say not to use it on certificated canopies in general, but that appears to be more about general good usage than what is technically allowed. In any case, just about nobody wants to see it used on a reserve. Still, I have seen ripstop to cover minor wear holes in reserve pilot chutes, as an alternative to completely disassembling the pilot chute for repair or replacing it entirely. While that doesn't necessarily fit with rigging standards, it seems to be a quite practical fix for small areas of damage. My tests: I had put a few pieces of ripstop tape on some F-111 style fabric of unknown but likely young age in 1994, and then in 2012 and 2014 did a number of tensile tests. Unfortunately the pieces I had were small, so I couldn't do all the tests I would have wanted. Still, these are tests on 18 to 20 year old ripstop patches. -- Did anything become extremely weak? No. Thumb tests didn't show any weakness. -- Was there an acidity problem? No. Bromocresol tests on the original F-111, on the adhesive ripstop tape, and on the F-111 underneath the tape (when the tape was peeled back) showed no sign of acidity. -- Was there any loss of strength? If there was, not by a whole lot. We'll get into the tests later after having a closer look at tensile tests that establish baseline information. Due to the small size of the test samples, the tests with clamps couldn't follow the normal standards of having material surrounding the test area. Almost all the tests were done on 1" wide strips. This does decrease the strength of the fabric, as there is no surrounding fabric to give it support. a) For comparison to the fabric that had been patched for 18-20 years, I had some plain F-111 that must be at least 10 years old and probably 20 for all I know. Let's call it the "medium age F-111", and assume it could be 20 years old. Pull tests on a larger piece went to an impressive 50 lbs before snapping, or once maybe even 55 lbs. When cut to a 1" wide strip, it usually breaks at only about 40 lbs. So 40 is still good for a 1" wide strip of fabric. Comparing the 50+ and 40 values against the old 45 lb military specification for F-111 style fabric, it shows the medium age F-111 exceeds it if tested in the skydiving manner of a larger piece, but no longer meets the spec when tested purely as a 1" wide strip -- perhaps what the fabric manufacturers consider the proper test, although I don't know their methods. b) Some essentially brand new F-111 style fabric was available, bought just a few years ago from a major retailer. In tests in a larger piece, it went to 65 lbs before tearing. (Even with slightly poorly aligned clamps, where it started to tear progressively instead of all at once, it went to 60.) In a 1" wide strip, it would break at 48 to 52 lbs, usually about 52. So it is quite a bit stronger than the "medium age" F-111, such as 52 vs. 40 lbs for a 1" wide strip. Nylon aging may be involved, but also very likely improved production processes in the last 20 years. -- What about the strength of the ripstop tape itself? 1" wide pieces pull tested to 45 lbs. The ripstop was 'new', purchased from a major vendor just a few years ago. So it is better than older F-111, and not quite as good as really modern F-111, and probably was never intended to be of quite the same quality. -- Is the sudden transition between ripstop reinforced areas and non-reinforced areas a weak point? From a general engineering perspective, it should be, as one is going from about 3 layers of material that is now stiffer, to a single layer of less stiff material. The flow of stress and strain in the region of a patch will be less evenly distributed and may put extra loads on the material just around the patch. On the other hand, we always deal with areas of different strength and stiffness in parachutes, such as rolled seams and reinforcing tapes on canopies. -- Let's look at pull tests of patches that haven't been aged:: I put pieces of the 'new' ripstop tape on both sides of a 1" wide strip of the medium age F-111. Pull testing the joint between the patch and the base fabric, it didn't break until 43-45 lbs. (With a slight variation when having the clamps close together vs. the standard 1" apart.) So that result shows a new patch provides a higher breaking strength at its edges than the base material alone (typically 40 lbs). This wasn't seen with brand new F-111 however, where a test at the edge of a patch gave basically the same strength as the material alone, 52 lbs in more than one test. I'm guessing that the ripstop reinforces the F-111, so that even when there is unreinforced F-111 that can rip, now there's less unreinforced material that can start to randomly tear between the clamps. If the clamps were a lot further apart, one would expect the breaking strength to go down to the 40 or so for the F-111 alone. While there might be issues with the stiffness of two layers of ripstop tape on F-111 (as mentioned above), that is perhaps more of a problem with randomly oriented forces. When everything is nicely lined up for a standard tensile test, it looks like the patch - at worst - doesn't decrease the overall fabric's strength. -- Now finally let's look at the old test pieces of F-111 with ripstop tape on both sides, that had been sitting stuck together for 18-20 years: The reason it is "18 to 20" is that I did some tests 2 years ago and more this year, on the patches I applied in 1994 to some scraps of F-111 material that had been sitting around, and were likely not new at the time. - Testing the F-111 away from the ripstop tape, it broke at 42 lbs in a 1" wide strip - Good! The basic material hadn't degraded just from being near the ripstop adhesive for years. Strength was similar to other old F-111. (While 42 is more than 40, I doubt there is much statistical significance to the small difference from just one test.) - Testing the junction between the F-111 and where a ripstop patch had been applied on both sides - For a 1" wide strip, in the one good test I was able to do, it broke at 40 lbs. (In another case it was about 35 lbs, but that was with only a 1/2" long strip of F-111 past the patch to grip onto, which always lowers the breaking strength. Other tests with new patches shows that not having a full 1" by 1" square of material to clamp to, can reduce the breaking strength from say 40 lbs to 27 lbs for example. Just not enough material to grip it properly -- more like pulling strands off the edge of a piece of material.) -- Was any of the old material from under the old patch, now 20 years old, degraded on its own? I was able to strip both of the patch pieces off the F-111 and test them individually. All were 1" wide strips. - The ripstop tape broke at 40-45 lbs, so not a whole lot less than new ripstop tape (45 lbs). - The F-111 that had been sandwiched between the ripstop tape and its evil glue for 20 years, broke at 40 lbs. So given that 1" wide pieces of medium age F-111 were breaking at around 40 lbs, and the edge of an 18-20 year old patch breaking at around 40 lbs, and the F-111 underneath when stripped of the patch also breaking at around 40 lbs….therefore: The conclusion is that there really was very little deterioration if any of the F-111 due to the adhesive ripstop patch. Nor was there any evidence that any of the material was in any way acidic. I can't rule out some small strength loss. That would be possible, hidden in the variability of testing with hand held clamps and by the limited size of the test material available, which limited the number of pull tests and data points that could be collected. I also can't rule out that some adhesive ripstop tape material, from some manufacturers in the past (or the present?) might cause deterioration of the material it is attached to. Without having adhesive ripstop that is guaranteed to a certain specification, and without much better testing, this doesn't mean that anything goes with ripstop tape. But it does suggest that ripstop tape, even from some years ago, will not necessarily degrade the material it is attached to. Unrelated to ripstop tape issues , one can also see that older F-111 style fabric can be significantly weaker than brand new fabric. E.g. roughly 50 vs. 65 lbs in tensile tests of larger areas (old vs. new), or 40 vs. 52 lbs for 1" wide strips. The old standard for F-111 style fabric was for a minimum strength of 45 lbs per inch. So there may be some deterioration due to nylon aging, and perhaps a larger improvement in new fabrics due to improved design & production.

So that's "Police Chase 186 MPH (299KM) Speeder In Victoria Highway Run". (Victoria, BC that is) That guy got caught back then I believe, a couple years ago. While I'm not into the motorcycles & youtube combination, my favorite is still an oldie, "Crazy Russian on R1 Going Against Traffic In Moscow At Insane Speeds". One link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzcCq6FIXSU There the action can be so fast it is hard for the mind to keep up ... on the other hand, part of that is due to the poor video resolution, which makes it hard to anticipate obstacles ahead. Craziest white lining I've seen.

Yeah I'd want to know about the source before taking the flight report seriously. That account is well sprinkled with little bits and pieces of facts or near-facts about the shuttle, but within text which sounds like an excited teenager rather than a seasoned NASA pilot. From what I read, they had a limited number of their pilots trained to fly the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, so the "thrill of a lifetime" - a quote from that supposed flight report - seems rather fake and out of place. Elsewhere on the web, that bit of possible fiction was stated to have been from a flight after a Hubble repair mission. The last repair mission, did indeed involve a shuttle landing at Edwards and flight back home to Florida, staging through Columbus Mississippi. The shuttle was particularly heavy (with Hubble servicing equipment on board), the carrier 747 did do a flyby over the runway before landing the other direction in Florida, they do normally restrict bank to 20 degrees or less, fuel consumption is stated to be around a gallon per fuselage length very roughly, and so on. So there are bits of reality in there, even if I doubt the overall text to be true. Odds and ends I found about actual shuttle carrier aircraft operations, mostly short: http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/crew/ferryflight.html http://www.airliners.net/aviation-articles/read.main/?id=158 http://airspeed.libsyn.com/webpage/2007/01 [Includes podcast interview with a pilot] http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts134/120920sca/ A NASA blog from the actual return flights from Edwards to Florida, after that Hubble servicing mission, but with little detail: http://blogs.nasa.gov/shuttleferry/ From the NASA oral history project, if you scroll to the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft section,there are long interviews with half a dozen pilots (etc?). That's the really good stuff if you want to know about flying the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/participants.htm Pilot Jeff Moultrie mentioned takeoff distances being around 10,000' typically, although I have no idea how much longer they would accept when hot & heavy. Another pilot, LaRose, also mentioned 10k being typical, but "I’ve had ground rolls sometimes 11, 11.5.". That doesn't specifically invalidate the breathless account in that article in the thread, but does suggest it is overdone. While it sounds like for shuttle carrying flights they really hoped not to lose an engine on takeoff due to the draggy configuration, they still planned their takeoff weight based on atmospheric conditions, runway length, ... and for a positive one-engine out climb rate. So again that flight report sounds fanciful.

Short answer: You pays your money and you takes your chances. Long answer: I do see some serious responses in this thread. What do you want? Sometimes it is hard to know about particular equipment until you buy it, but some things are found in manuals. E.g., Cypres 2: [With the caveat, as someone mentioned, that they won't immediately update the unit for less-than-major issues if it would mean their factory would get swamped with returns all at once.] L&B Protrack: Paragear has a giant warning label in effect filling the inside front cover of their catalogue. They do have a 60 day warranty, and actually do seem to cover merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, but limiting their liability to replacement or repair, and without shipping costs. Some of their warning & warranty information is the following: PD Reserve: That being said, it would take a lawyer to know more about consumer product legislation and figure out the fine details, because not all responsibility can be waived in a company statement. When buying a product, it has to be substantially be what one contracted to buy. If PD shipped you a box with a canopy missing all ribs, or a box with a pebble inside, any jurisdiction would probably allow you to claim your money back (or at least get a replacement). Of course there is a difference between the physical product being provided as advertised, and its suitability for a particular purpose. Other companies use similar waivers. For example, the start of a Rigging Innovations Warranty section: Hope that helps as a rough overview.

Guess we won't see that contest revived -- an Otter or Caravan load full of swoopers all converging to try be the first to hit the target! That'll get the anti-swoop anti-maneuvering anti-canopy-collision folks upset.

I think you have taken that statement out of the context of the specific situation I was talking about, Rob, which is changing the meaning a great deal. = "I think... Rob.... is ... great" ?? Back when I was involved in the DZ operations more, I know Transport Canada would jump on you if you missed your 100 hr Cessna seat track AD inspection, but I never saw them question the fundamental basis of being allowed to have 5 jumpers. Nobody said, "Hey, does the original Type Certificate even allow that?" or "So, where do those belts attach anyway?". Maybe there was an approval, but I don't know.

About 182's with 5 jumpers: I don't know certification standards well but I'd be surprised that there's a legal placard restricting the weight of passengers and equipment, regardless of the actual weight of the aircraft. After all, normally only weights like the max takeoff weight legally apply, and the payload weight available just depends on how heavy the aircraft actually is (either calculated or recently weighed, depending on circumstances). C-182 gross weights varied a lot by year and model number. 2650 lbs for the early ones, then 2800, then 2950 by the N model in '69, and later 3100, although empty weights crept up too. I'm used to 5 jumpers in a 182, but that's for a very specific set of conditions on the group of six I've jumped like that: a) widebody b) mid to late 60's models with a decent empty weight c) STC for increased gross weight to 2950 lbs like later models, from having the Wing-X wing extensions (that include added spar straps) e) fuel for about one high and one low load plus presumably legal reserve e) jumper average weight 165 lbs before gear. With heavier jumpers, we'd be down to 4 jumpers. Still it was common to be running 2 tandem pairs and a camera flyer. There were always small adjustments from plane to plane and pilot to pilot, load to load, since the weight without jumpers wasn't all the same. Maybe there was a little fudging in terms of just how much personal gear weight allowance there was. (E.g, we didn't report to manifest if we were wearing 10 lbs of lead on that jump!) And of course not every jumper reports their actual weight rather than last year's ideal weight when at their fittest. So technically I can't guarantee the planes weren't over gross. But in general there was a pretty strict system to keep loads reasonable and not make it like something we imagine from the '70s -- as long as the pilot thinks he can clear the trees, pile aboard. Legal 5-jumper 182 operation can be tricky... As for the seatbelt issue, I'm not sure whether there ever was an approval for 5 sets of belts on the floor. Maybe, maybe not. It may have been a case of installing belts many years ago on those aircraft, on the mounting points available, and the issue never being questioned again. After all, belts had to be different from when there were seats, so nothing was standard anyway. Transport Canada might have had interest in the door STC (a highly visible mod), and in making sure the maximum takeoff weight wasn't busted (the Operations Manual requires printouts of jumper weights & takeoff weight for all loads), but perhaps never much cared about seatbelt technicalities. So that doesn't help the OP at all, since he was looking for specific approval for 5 sets of belts on the floor.

That's pretty damn strict for a balloon jump. After all, once off radio, we all take our chances with off-landings. Still, it is food for thought and a reminder that one should be comfortable with decision making and landing in whatever type of terrain is out there around where the balloon flies.

Airport rules -- post #28 -- seatbelts on until 9k'.

Agreed -- at least on the way they were implemented on Vectors, they could start to rip fabric at the corners of where they met the container. Haven't looked to see how the detail design might be better on a Vector 3. On a couple old Vectors, where the laterals were quite short as they often were in the 80s on many rigs, I have cut off the stiffeners to allow for more flex in the harness, opening up the harness a little.

Looks like the solid lateral design we've seen on Vectors since at least the early 1980s? Funny how they seem to omit that in their ads. Or is there more to it? I can see it to have a role in reducing rig lift when sitflying for example, although most companies haven't gone that route. At least it gives people an option, as not everyone likes the same things on rigs.