Parachute 20 year limit [Archive]

Bruce

December 3rd 08, 09:10 PM

qflyer1 wrote:
> On Dec 3, 11:34 am, wrote:
>> I have a security chute that is older than twenty years of
>> experience. Are you guys finding that the repackers are refusing to
>> recertify past twenty years? Seems the manufacturers have put out
>> service bulletins recomending twenty year service limits. I am
>> interested in getting this chute repacked if possible. Please let me
>> know of anyone that might inspect this chute. Preferably near
>> Atlanta, GA.
>
> In Atlanta, go see Red Payne at Flight Concepts
> 770-279-7733 - Norcross
> He works on pilot rigs on Fridays
>
> He knows his stuff. Does the rigging for MGSA.
> My Strong chute is approaching 20 years and he says it's still in good
> shape.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> 1FL
My rigger finally said - "last time I will repack that" on my pioneer
tri-conical. Pioneer stated that their product has no life limit. It
dates from 1974 and has passed it's tests to date. He is concerned that
after all these (34) years the porosity and hence descent rate will be
increasing.

This is a long way past the 20 year life. Tested annually for condition.

If you trust the guy with your life when he packs it - best you listen
when he says - it looks perfect, fabric is strong and clean, but is it
safe - Apparently the answer is NO!

I am in the market for a new one.

Bruce

HL Falbaum[_2_]

December 3rd 08, 09:19 PM

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> qflyer1 wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 11:34 am, wrote:
>>> I have a security chute that is older than twenty years of
>>> experience. Are you guys finding that the repackers are refusing to
>>> recertify past twenty years? Seems the manufacturers have put out
>>> service bulletins recomending twenty year service limits. I am
>>> interested in getting this chute repacked if possible. Please let me
>>> know of anyone that might inspect this chute. Preferably near
>>> Atlanta, GA.
>>
>> In Atlanta, go see Red Payne at Flight Concepts
>> 770-279-7733 - Norcross
>> He works on pilot rigs on Fridays
>>
>> He knows his stuff. Does the rigging for MGSA.
>> My Strong chute is approaching 20 years and he says it's still in good
>> shape.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tim
>> 1FL
> My rigger finally said - "last time I will repack that" on my pioneer
> tri-conical. Pioneer stated that their product has no life limit. It dates
> from 1974 and has passed it's tests to date. He is concerned that after
> all these (34) years the porosity and hence descent rate will be
> increasing.
>
> This is a long way past the 20 year life. Tested annually for condition.
>
> If you trust the guy with your life when he packs it - best you listen
> when he says - it looks perfect, fabric is strong and clean, but is it
> safe - Apparently the answer is NO!
>
> I am in the market for a new one.
>
> Bruce

Consider this--amortized over 20 years, a new chute is cheap insurance. You
will spend more on repacks if you do it as the law requires. Ask this--if
you have to jump, and your old chute fails, how good will you feel about how
much you saved? If you could get a brand new one right then, would you write
the check on the way down?

Hartley Falbaum
USA "KF"

[email protected]

December 3rd 08, 09:23 PM

On Dec 3, 3:10*pm, wrote:
> I called Red. *Red reports twenty years is max age that he will repack
> regardless of condition. *Seems like a very good fellow to know for my
> repacks once I get a newer chute.
>
> Lane

No matter who you use, with the price of gas, it makes sense to call
UPS Ground. For a chute older than 20 yrs, it makes sense to ship it
back to the factory for the repack.

It might be a few dollars more, but the factory will test the fabric
and then do the repack.

It makes more sense than driving a round trip just to drop off one
parachute and then another round trip just to pick it up. (I even
had to do three trips one time because the rigger decided not to open
the shop that day)

[email protected]

December 3rd 08, 10:46 PM

I hear what you are saying about the gas! Red said that these
Security chutes are not supported in the US anymore. Evidently there
were a few problems over the years. Seems that no matter what
condition this chute is in the majority of the riggers (all I have
spoken to) want to wash their hands of these chutes. Something to
consider when you see cheap ones on Ebay!

Lane

Eric Greenwell

December 4th 08, 12:37 AM

sisu1a wrote:

>
> The thing is, while it is not an FAA mandate, (the 20yr thing...) the
> individual packer who certifies it as airworthy has their butt almost
> as much on the line as yours is while wearing it, and studies have
> shown that 20 yrs of normal use/exposure is approaching the safe
> working life limits of the materials.

That's not what Strong parachute says, or my rigger, so I'd like to see
these studies for myself. Do you have a link to them?

Mostly, I'm puzzled by the idea that an emergency parachute has a
"working life limit" because it doesn't work: it just sits there. I
would think it's only a matter of how long the materials last, and nylon
and metal will last indefinitely in a cool, dry place.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Eric Greenwell

December 4th 08, 12:48 AM

HL Falbaum wrote:

>
> Consider this--amortized over 20 years, a new chute is cheap insurance. You
> will spend more on repacks if you do it as the law requires. Ask this--if
> you have to jump, and your old chute fails, how good will you feel about how
> much you saved? If you could get a brand new one right then, would you write
> the check on the way down?

Recently, Strong refused to repack my 30 year old Strong parachute
because the *container* was suspect (some sun bleaching on the upper
straps). They suggested I buy a new container, and then they'd be happy
to repack the parachute, because the canopy was in excellent condition.

I suggest a parachute amortized over 30 years is even cheaper insurance,
and you still don't have to write check on the way down.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[email protected]

December 4th 08, 02:50 AM

On Dec 3, 5:46*pm, wrote:
> I hear what you are saying about the gas! *Red said that these
> Security chutes are not supported in the US anymore. *Evidently there
> were a few problems over the years. *Seems that no matter what
> condition this chute is in the majority of the riggers (all I have
> spoken to) want to wash their hands of these chutes. *Something to
> consider when you see cheap ones on Ebay!
>
> Lane

hmmm... I went back to your original post and saw that it was a
Security chute. Back in the 80s, they had some serious chemical
deterioration issues with their 350 and 850s.

Security became an English company in the 70s or early 80s and they
terminate the US corporation in 85. So, my suggestion of shipping
your chute via "ground" wouldn't work very well, would it.

You will probably have a hard time getting a rigger to repack it.
Seems like a good time to upgrade.

HL Falbaum[_2_]

December 4th 08, 03:06 AM

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> HL Falbaum wrote:
>
>>
>> Consider this--amortized over 20 years, a new chute is cheap insurance.
>> You will spend more on repacks if you do it as the law requires. Ask
>> this--if you have to jump, and your old chute fails, how good will you
>> feel about how much you saved? If you could get a brand new one right
>> then, would you write the check on the way down?
>
> Recently, Strong refused to repack my 30 year old Strong parachute because
> the *container* was suspect (some sun bleaching on the upper straps). They
> suggested I buy a new container, and then they'd be happy to repack the
> parachute, because the canopy was in excellent condition.
>
> I suggest a parachute amortized over 30 years is even cheaper insurance,
> and you still don't have to write check on the way down.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

If Strong will certify it, I would be happy to use it. My only point was
that if "some" rigger would repack it when another would not, I would get a
new chute. In other words, a second opinion is not necessarily better just
because it is more favorable. But I would trust the factory that made it.

I don't know what deteriorates on a chute, but the cloth of the canopy is
only one component. The stitching and the risers could be every bit as
important.

Hartley Falbaum, Georgia, USA

Eric Greenwell

December 4th 08, 04:24 AM

HL Falbaum wrote:
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>> HL Falbaum wrote:
>>
>>> Consider this--amortized over 20 years, a new chute is cheap insurance.
>>> You will spend more on repacks if you do it as the law requires. Ask
>>> this--if you have to jump, and your old chute fails, how good will you
>>> feel about how much you saved? If you could get a brand new one right
>>> then, would you write the check on the way down?

>> Recently, Strong refused to repack my 30 year old Strong parachute because
>> the *container* was suspect (some sun bleaching on the upper straps). They
>> suggested I buy a new container, and then they'd be happy to repack the
>> parachute, because the canopy was in excellent condition.
>>
>> I suggest a parachute amortized over 30 years is even cheaper insurance,
>> and you still don't have to write check on the way down.
>>

>
> If Strong will certify it, I would be happy to use it. My only point was
> that if "some" rigger would repack it when another would not, I would get a
> new chute. In other words, a second opinion is not necessarily better just
> because it is more favorable. But I would trust the factory that made it.
>
> I don't know what deteriorates on a chute, but the cloth of the canopy is
> only one component. The stitching and the risers could be every bit as
> important.

Sending the parachute to the factory for a repack at least every 5
years, starting at 20 years, seems like a good idea. It wasn't much more
to have Strong repack it, even with shipping, than the local rigger. It
was just gone longer. This time period seems reasonable for a personal
parachute, where you know how it's been treated it's entire life.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Eric Greenwell

December 4th 08, 04:41 AM

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Sending the parachute to the factory for a repack at least every 5
> years, starting at 20 years, seems like a good idea. It wasn't much more
> to have Strong repack it, even with shipping, than the local rigger. It
> was just gone longer. This time period seems reasonable for a personal
> parachute, where you know how it's been treated it's entire life.

"this time period" refers to the "every 5 years, starting at 20 years"
remark about sending it to the factory.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Jim[_5_]

December 4th 08, 09:57 AM

I would like to find a chute repacker closer than the Pepperell,
Massachusetts repacker I have been using for my 20+ year old Security
chute..

Google search does not locate a "Kutstown Parachutes", but does locate a
couple of skydiving operations there. Could you give me some more specific
info as to how to locate or contact Mark?

>Don't know anything around Atlanta, but I do know that Mark of
>Kutztown Parachutes, in Kutztown, PA will repack it, if it's airworthy.

Don Johnstone[_3_]

December 4th 08, 11:30 AM

A parachute life and even the repack periods are historical rather than a
period calculated to be safe, as the Stong article would seem to
indicate.
Originally parachutes were made from natural fibres, cotton for the
container and silk for the canopy. Both these materials do deteriorate
over time. The service life and repack periods appear to have been
arbitary time periods. Certainly the 6 month repack period goes back to
the days of silk canopies and was probably necessary.
With the increased use of synthetic fibres the life period certainly
became obsolete although some parachute manufacturers hung on to the old
limits, well they would wouldn't they if they wanted to sell the things.
It seems that the yardstick is now that if you can get a rigger to repack
it no problem.
The biggest problem appears to be that fitting a new canopy or container
may not be an option. For example the original EB80 used the I 24 canopy,
the latest versions uses the H 112 canopy. It appears that the I 24 is
still available so all may not be lost

Tim Mara[_2_]

December 4th 08, 04:42 PM

I hope your rigger checked for any AD notes on your parachute!
Many of these old Pioneer Parachutes had some serious directives and notices
issued on them and simply pull testing and repacking would not uncover these
defects!

There were several parachutes only a few years back that came under fire
with the acid mesh problem.....not only Security parachutes though they were
the most widely publicized. Manufactures today still test each lot of
material for this same problem and have been known to reject material that
might be questionable.
There is a possibility, though hopefully unlikely, that even parachutes
still in use out in the field may possibly still have this problem.
Know your rigger, know that he is doing all that is required to insure your
safety...it may seem like an expensive unnecessary piece or equipment and a
foolish regulation.....until of course you need to depend on it!
tim

Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

> My rigger finally said - "last time I will repack that" on my pioneer
> tri-conical. Pioneer stated that their product has no life limit. It dates
> from 1974 and has passed it's tests to date. He is concerned that after
> all these (34) years the porosity and hence descent rate will be
> increasing.
>
> This is a long way past the 20 year life. Tested annually for condition.
>
> If you trust the guy with your life when he packs it - best you listen
> when he says - it looks perfect, fabric is strong and clean, but is it
> safe - Apparently the answer is NO!
>
> I am in the market for a new one.
>
> Bruce

[email protected]

December 4th 08, 06:55 PM

I would like that you, on your next repack, ask your rigger a simple
question: "would you put this rig on your back, go up to 3000' and
make a jump with this?" You might be supprised what kind of answers
you will get.

Thanks,

Jacek "some rigger"
Pasco, WA

Andy[_1_]

December 4th 08, 07:56 PM

On Dec 4, 11:55*am, wrote:
> I would like that you, on your next repack, ask your rigger a simple
> question: "would you put this rig on your back, go up to 3000' and
> make a jump with this?" You might be supprised what kind of answers
> you will get.

The reply you would probably get is probably "**it no! I'd never jump
a round canopy", but that's what 99% of glider pilots are wearing.

Andy

Surfer!

December 4th 08, 09:03 PM

In message
>,
Andy > writes
>On Dec 4, 11:55*am, wrote:
>> I would like that you, on your next repack, ask your rigger a simple
>> question: "would you put this rig on your back, go up to 3000' and
>> make a jump with this?" You might be supprised what kind of answers
>> you will get.
>
>The reply you would probably get is probably "**it no! I'd never jump
>a round canopy", but that's what 99% of glider pilots are wearing.

IMHO no-one in their right mind deliberately jumps out of a perfectly
sound plane. But what kind of canopy does the rigger have for his/her
reserve? Are they round?

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

Andy[_1_]

December 4th 08, 09:53 PM

On Dec 4, 2:03*pm, Surfer! > wrote:
> *But what kind of canopy does the rigger have for his/her
> reserve? *Are they round?

Almost certainly not. People jumping ram air main chutes usually have
a ram air (square) reserve.

Andy

Gregg Ballou

December 5th 08, 12:00 AM

And people that used to jump ram air parachutes are likely flying gliders
with a square if they can afford it. I've seen enough round reserves
used to never want to give it a go.

At 21:53 04 December 2008, Andy wrote:
>On Dec 4, 2:03=A0pm, Surfer! wrote:
>> =A0But what kind of canopy does the rigger have for his/her
>> reserve? =A0Are they round?
>
>Almost certainly not. People jumping ram air main chutes usually have
>a ram air (square) reserve.
>
>Andy
>

sisu1a

December 5th 08, 02:19 AM

> sisu1a wrote:
>> studies have
> > shown that 20 yrs of normal use/exposure is approaching the safe
> > working life limits of the materials.
>
> That's not what Strong parachute says, or my rigger, so I'd like to see
> these studies for myself. Do you have a link to them?
>
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

I do not, I was passing along hearsay from a trusted source, and after
searching the best I could find was this article on the subject form
1958, http://tinyurl.com/6b5bca (.pdf file...) which admittedly does
not really support my point much being as old as it is. After talking
with a prominent rigger today while I was picking up my National, I
asked him about it to find the answer so I could provide such data. He
could not point me to any sources either, although he of course agrees
with the 20 yr thing. His suggestion was to ask some higher ups at
Parachute Industry Association, which I have done, and I will share
anything I turn up from that avenue. Also, here is a link to the PIA
rigger's newsgroup, where I'm sure you could get more useful info
there if you are motivated enough on the subject to post/search there:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/mb/riggers/tool/mb/riggers

> Mostly, I'm puzzled by the idea that an emergency parachute has a
> "working life limit" because it doesn't work: it just sits there. I
> would think it's only a matter of how long the materials last, and nylon
> and metal will last indefinitely in a cool, dry place.

Poor choice of wording on my part I suppose. I didn't mean time spent
'working' when I posted that, but rather the length of time it is
still fit to work if it needs to. According to the same rigger, the
older nylons (like what would have been used in the 1958 study linked
above...) actually held up longer than the newer materials, but was
lower performing in actual use. Much like today's high performance
optics, today's high performance parachute materials have special
coatings that affect the physical properties and such, but on chutes
they supposedly degrade and rub off over time, even under the best of
conditions. 20 yrs is even thought to be optimistic to some for this
reason...

-Paul

[email protected]

December 5th 08, 12:20 PM

What is this about round vs ram/square? I thought it was generally
accepted that ram/square give more control and lower descent rates,
but are less suitable for glider emergency chutes because they work
reliably only if you are the right way up etc. when you pull them.

Whereas it used to be said that round ones may give no or less control
and a higher descent rate (for a given area), and you may get broken
ankles, but they are better life savers because they deploy more
quickly and reliably when used by untrained glider pilots in emergency
when you may deploy them in far from the best attitude.

True, false, or what?

Chris N.

Gregg Ballou

December 5th 08, 01:00 PM

False. I believe squares are (slightly)more reliable. Only problem with
squares is that an untrained jumper can hurt/kill themselves landing one.
Square parachutes accelerate when turning(think glider without pitch
control) hence turning low to the ground and impacting while the parachute
is descending is the issue. I believe there are two companies selling
square pilot rigs: Paraphenalia and Rigging Innovations. Rigging
Innovations has two versions one is a standard square reserve for
experienced jumpers or folks willing to get training and the other has a
detuned square that still gets better descent rates than rounds. I don't
work for either company but being an exskydiver I use(well wear) a square
parachute. They are more expensive by probably $700-$1,200. take good
care of them and they should last more than 20 years...
At 12:20 05 December 2008, wrote:
>What is this about round vs ram/square? I thought it was generally
>accepted that ram/square give more control and lower descent rates,
>but are less suitable for glider emergency chutes because they work
>reliably only if you are the right way up etc. when you pull them.
>
>Whereas it used to be said that round ones may give no or less control
>and a higher descent rate (for a given area), and you may get broken
>ankles, but they are better life savers because they deploy more
>quickly and reliably when used by untrained glider pilots in emergency
>when you may deploy them in far from the best attitude.
>
>True, false, or what?
>
>Chris N.
>

Martin Gregorie[_4_]

December 5th 08, 03:23 PM

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:20:16 -0800, cnich15000 wrote:

> What is this about round vs ram/square? I thought it was generally
> accepted that ram/square give more control and lower descent rates, but
> are less suitable for glider emergency chutes because they work reliably
> only if you are the right way up etc. when you pull them.
>
My chute, which was put together by John Rix (Southern Parachutes) is now
old enough that he's repacking it on a year-by-year basis. He's willing
to replace the canopy when the time comes if he can find one, but says
round canopies are becoming very hard to find. So, I asked him about
replacements. He suggested the Rigging Innovations Aviator model. It has
a square, 7 bay canopy that can't be stalled, and so needs no more
training than a round parachute. They're not cheap ($US 2300 on the web
site, compared with Â£1250 for a Strong from AFE).

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Tim Mara[_2_]

December 5th 08, 04:21 PM

true....almost any parachute manufacturer will tell you the same...Round
parachutes are tested in order to pass TSO standards and have to be able to
successfully deploy when: packed wrong, deploy even when pilot is in any
position, when the parachute is soaked, dirty, even damaged and
more...Square sport parachutes must also be "flown" and even student squares
which are tamed down so they cannot fully stall or high speed take some
training and knowledge as well as an astute pilot who is fully aware of what
is happening, not always the case when the pilot is bailing out of a mid air
or disabled aircraft...knowing full well that many glider pilots may not
have even read the operators manuals for their emergency parachutes and have
little of no knowledge of how to use one if the occasion shows itself makes
for a far better choice of a round emergency parachute than a square for
90%+ of the potential users...
yes....you might hit the ground with a bit of an aaaarrrrrgggghhh with an
emergency parachute..but you'll have enough adrenalin pumping you won't even
feel it....if you happen to land wrong as you may well ...you could even
bust an ankle though you probably won't unless osteoporosis has already set
in...but you'll likely live to write the story and fly another day...
tim

Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

> wrote in message
...
> What is this about round vs ram/square? I thought it was generally
> accepted that ram/square give more control and lower descent rates,
> but are less suitable for glider emergency chutes because they work
> reliably only if you are the right way up etc. when you pull them.
>
> Whereas it used to be said that round ones may give no or less control
> and a higher descent rate (for a given area), and you may get broken
> ankles, but they are better life savers because they deploy more
> quickly and reliably when used by untrained glider pilots in emergency
> when you may deploy them in far from the best attitude.
>
> True, false, or what?
>
> Chris N.

Tech Support

December 5th 08, 06:44 PM

Cris and all

Some stories on chutes.

I'm retired AAF/USAF and punched from a jet over Greenland in a snow
storm in the middle of winter and walked. I'm a member of the
Catapiller Club (It's still in existance so anyone who bails out can
join and get the pin).

Military chutes at that time were 24 foot round. Prior to and during
WWII they had two diameters. 28 foot if you weighed over 190lbs and 24
foot for us skinny guys. Idea was to reduce landing accidents cause by
descent rate. History showed that the landing injuries didn't go up
very far with heavy pilots using the 24 foot so system was changed and
only 24 foot became standard. It was cheaper to only have one style
and the 24 foot fit better in the small fighter cockpits.

After the War and due to the possibility of high speed bail out, they
started enclosing the canopy in a 'bag'. When the chute was deployed
the canopy stayed in the bag until the shroud lines had fully extended
at which time the pilot chute pulled the bag off the canopy and it
deployed. This reduced the whip lash problems with canopy deploying
and the pilot falling away from canopy until the shroud lines were
full out (snap, crackle and pop).

There were two shroud lines on right and left rear that were flagged
in red. These shrouds could be cut after canopy was deployed and the
canopy then distorted and had some forward motion. By pulling on the
right or left shrouds you could turn the canopy and this gave you
some rudimentary steering ability.

Prior to landing you rotated the canopy so that you would touch down
facing forward downwind. Upon touch down you executed a parachute
landing roll like the Para Troopers use. You then dumped the canopy to
prevent dragging in the wind.

My advice is to use the MOST RELIABLE chute under ALL conditions
(round) and get some rudimentary training in its use.

Merry Xmas and good and safe flying. (No chutes please :o)

Big John

************************************************** ******************************

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 04:20:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>What is this about round vs ram/square? I thought it was generally
>accepted that ram/square give more control and lower descent rates,
>but are less suitable for glider emergency chutes because they work
>reliably only if you are the right way up etc. when you pull them.
>
>Whereas it used to be said that round ones may give no or less control
>and a higher descent rate (for a given area), and you may get broken
>ankles, but they are better life savers because they deploy more
>quickly and reliably when used by untrained glider pilots in emergency
>when you may deploy them in far from the best attitude.
>
>True, false, or what?
>
>Chris N.

[email protected]

December 5th 08, 11:06 PM

Tim and Big John, thanks.

Gregg, thanks also, but at present I am more convinced by Tim and
John. I looked up Rigging Innovations and their comments on their
emergency chute for pilots. I noted that it said “ . . . allows for
their use by aircrew personnel with minimal additional training
required over and above what they receive on current round parachute
systems”.

As a BGA Regional Safety Officer, I don’t feel comfortable advising
people to buy chutes that need any training – it will fall mostly on
deaf ears. The reality is, I believe, that most UK glider pilots have
not and will not experience any training beyond a verbal briefing.
“Air experience” flights, people taking a flight following purchase by
a relative or friend for a birthday etc., and many others pre- and
post solo, are never going to get any better than that. In the UK,
almost all 2-seater flights happen with both pilots having chutes.
Solo pilots virtually all fly with chutes, ditto experience.

For the time being, I will stick with round, tested for use by
inexperienced people, and preferably TSO’d or equivalent, and advise
my colleagues similarly when asked.

Chris N.

[email protected][_2_]

December 5th 08, 11:39 PM

Squares are better. The detuned RI Aviator descends slower than a
round without doing anything. A small amount of training and the
options go way up. Square reserves are not new, and I'm certain that
there have been more square reserves deployed than round reserves.
Figuring that squares have been the standard for twenty years and the
number of jumps done over the last twenty years compared to prior
history. It may take awhile but I'd guess that once a couple of more
pilot rig manufacturers go to squares round parachutes will rapidly go
extinct. The reserve in my pilot rig is the same as one used by
skydivers, I doubt that the pilot rig business will be able to justify
round parachute production for a handful of outdated units sold. IMO
Buying a new round in 2008 is silly.

HL Falbaum[_2_]

December 5th 08, 11:57 PM

> wrote in message
...
> Squares are better. The detuned RI Aviator descends slower than a
> round without doing anything. A small amount of training and the
> options go way up. Square reserves are not new, and I'm certain that
> there have been more square reserves deployed than round reserves.
> Figuring that squares have been the standard for twenty years and the
> number of jumps done over the last twenty years compared to prior
> history. It may take awhile but I'd guess that once a couple of more
> pilot rig manufacturers go to squares round parachutes will rapidly go
> extinct. The reserve in my pilot rig is the same as one used by
> skydivers, I doubt that the pilot rig business will be able to justify
> round parachute production for a handful of outdated units sold. IMO
> Buying a new round in 2008 is silly.

Well-this brings up a question--.

I have no firsthand experience or statistical evidence to support this,
but---
I inquired of my rigger (Red Payne, Flight Concepts International, Norcross
[Atlanta} Georgia, USA) about getting a square reserve/emergency chute. I
told him that price was not a factor. I just wanted the best survivability
and protection from injury.
He said I should stick with my round chute. If you are injured in the
accident or in egress, and can't "fly" the chute properly, you'll be worse
off with a square emergency chute. Red makes TSO'd reserve and regular
skydive chutes and is an "old timer", so I paid attention.

My question thus is---what do y'all think if you have to jump, partially
incapacitated, but able to get out and pull the ripcord.

Hartley Falbaum
Georgia, USA

ContestID67

December 6th 08, 12:25 AM

On Dec 5, 5:57*pm, "HL Falbaum" > wrote:

>
> My question thus is---what do y'all think if you have to jump, partially
> incapacitated, but able to get out and pull the ripcord.
>
> Hartley Falbaum
> Georgia, USA

One thing that the Europeans have on us is that many (some? all?) use
static rip cords which are attached to the airplane. My glider (DG)
has a hole near the seat back marked with a red stripe for just that
purpose. It took me a while to figure out what it was for as no one
in the US seems to use this method. Thus if you are incapacitated and
do manage to exit the aircraft, the chute opens automatically.
However, don't exit the glider on the ground and just walk away!!
POP. OOPS.

I have been told that in the UK everyone wears a chute no matter the
craft. True? Other countries?

Thanks, John

Brian Bange[_2_]

December 6th 08, 12:30 AM

At 23:57 05 December 2008, HL Falbaum wrote:
>
> wrote in message
...
>> Squares are better. The detuned RI Aviator descends slower than a
>> round without doing anything. A small amount of training and the
>> options go way up. Square reserves are not new, and I'm certain that
>> there have been more square reserves deployed than round reserves.
>> Figuring that squares have been the standard for twenty years and the
>> number of jumps done over the last twenty years compared to prior
>> history. It may take awhile but I'd guess that once a couple of more
>> pilot rig manufacturers go to squares round parachutes will rapidly go
>> extinct. The reserve in my pilot rig is the same as one used by
>> skydivers, I doubt that the pilot rig business will be able to justify
>> round parachute production for a handful of outdated units sold. IMO
>> Buying a new round in 2008 is silly.
>
>Well-this brings up a question--.
>
>I have no firsthand experience or statistical evidence to support this,
>but---
>I inquired of my rigger (Red Payne, Flight Concepts International,
>Norcross
>[Atlanta} Georgia, USA) about getting a square reserve/emergency chute. I

>told him that price was not a factor. I just wanted the best
survivability
>
>and protection from injury.
>He said I should stick with my round chute. If you are injured in the
>accident or in egress, and can't "fly" the chute properly, you'll be
worse
>
>off with a square emergency chute. Red makes TSO'd reserve and regular
>skydive chutes and is an "old timer", so I paid attention.
>
>My question thus is---what do y'all think if you have to jump, partially

>incapacitated, but able to get out and pull the ripcord.
>
>Hartley Falbaum
>Georgia, USA
>
>
>
I wanted a square chute because they are considerably thinner and I needed
leg room. When I mentioned it to a friend who soars and also jumps, he told
me exactly the same story. If the plane is broken and you have to jump, you
may be broken too. The round chute will get you down safely, even if all
you can do is pull the cord.

Brian Bange

Greg Arnold[_2_]

December 6th 08, 12:34 AM

Brian Bange wrote:

> I wanted a square chute because they are considerably thinner and I needed
> leg room. When I mentioned it to a friend who soars and also jumps, he told
> me exactly the same story. If the plane is broken and you have to jump, you
> may be broken too. The round chute will get you down safely, even if all
> you can do is pull the cord.
>
> Brian Bange

What type is the military using in their jettison seats?

Eric Greenwell

December 6th 08, 01:17 AM

Gregg Ballou wrote:
> False. I believe squares are (slightly)more reliable. Only problem with
> squares is that an untrained jumper can hurt/kill themselves landing one.

An odd feature for a (slightly) more reliable parachute.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

sisu1a

December 6th 08, 01:26 AM

On Dec 5, 4:34*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> Brian Bange wrote:
> > I wanted a square chute because they are considerably thinner and I needed
> > leg room. When I mentioned it to a friend who soars and also jumps, he told
> > me exactly the same story. If the plane is broken and you have to jump, you
> > may be broken too. The round chute will get you down safely, even if all
> > you can do is pull the cord.
>
> > Brian Bange
>
> What type is the military using in their jettison seats?

http://www.ejectionsite.com/

Eric Greenwell

December 6th 08, 01:33 AM

wrote:
> What is this about round vs ram/square? I thought it was generally
> accepted that ram/square give more control and lower descent rates,
> but are less suitable for glider emergency chutes because they work
> reliably only if you are the right way up etc. when you pull them.

Be sure to select a canopy type and size the matches your weight. Check
the manufacturer's charts or talk to them. I bought a Softie sized so I
was at the bottom end of it's weight range, giving me an impact speed
about like jumping off a table.

The wind and terrain will make a much bigger difference in your landing
the difference in descent rate between properly sized round or square
parachutes. A soft landing is likely important for someone doing 10 or
20 jumps a day, but not for emergency use.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[email protected]

December 6th 08, 02:47 AM

I agree with Tim Mara's points in his post above.

I had to bail out after a midair at Uvalde this year. That was my
first jump.The round Softie did the job perfectly. I did land hard,
and sustained some fractured vertebrae, but my ship landed a lot
harder than I did. As Tim states, you'll be adrenaline pumped, and
really won't feel it at the time. I got up and walked about three
quarters of a mile until I found some help.

My main take-away from the experience is that you need to have an
egress plan, and I got mine (and one of the two Softies I own) from
Allen Silver at www.silverparachutes.com - I highly recommend the
articles on his site. I got my other Softie from Tim at www.wingsandwheels.com,
and he's a great resource as well.

Regarding the 20-year limit, my first Softie is coming up on that
soon, and I'll replace it when that time comes. Seems like cheap
insurance to me. I'm a happy Softie customer, although I hope I don't
have to use the product in action again.

Mike Brooks
ex RG1 (next up - XL5)

Brian Bange[_2_]

December 6th 08, 03:15 AM

Mike,

What kind of ship are you replacing the Genisis with?

Brian

At 02:47 06 December 2008, wrote:
>I agree with Tim Mara's points in his post above.
>
>I had to bail out after a midair at Uvalde this year. That was my
>first jump.The round Softie did the job perfectly. I did land hard,
>and sustained some fractured vertebrae, but my ship landed a lot
>harder than I did. As Tim states, you'll be adrenaline pumped, and
>really won't feel it at the time. I got up and walked about three
>quarters of a mile until I found some help.
>
>My main take-away from the experience is that you need to have an
>egress plan, and I got mine (and one of the two Softies I own) from
>Allen Silver at www.silverparachutes.com - I highly recommend the
>articles on his site. I got my other Softie from Tim at
>www.wingsandwheels.com,
>and he's a great resource as well.
>
>Regarding the 20-year limit, my first Softie is coming up on that
>soon, and I'll replace it when that time comes. Seems like cheap
>insurance to me. I'm a happy Softie customer, although I hope I don't
>have to use the product in action again.
>
>Mike Brooks
>ex RG1 (next up - XL5)
>

[email protected]

December 6th 08, 03:27 AM

On Dec 5, 9:15 pm, Brian Bange > wrote:
> Mike,
>
> What kind of ship are you replacing the Genisis with?
>
> Brian
>

Another Genesis - I wasn't finished yet with G2's when I was
interrupted :)

Gregg Ballou

December 6th 08, 05:30 AM

FYI a square parachute can be flown with one hand- by putting both brakes
in the same hand. And the big detuned squares likely land as soft or
softer than rounds without any input. That said I think folks are nuts
for having the option and choosing rounds but I'll never argue against
free choice.

Greg Arnold[_2_]

December 6th 08, 05:55 AM

sisu1a wrote:
> On Dec 5, 4:34 pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
>> Brian Bange wrote:
>>> I wanted a square chute because they are considerably thinner and I needed
>>> leg room. When I mentioned it to a friend who soars and also jumps, he told
>>> me exactly the same story. If the plane is broken and you have to jump, you
>>> may be broken too. The round chute will get you down safely, even if all
>>> you can do is pull the cord.
>>> Brian Bange

>> What type is the military using in their jettison seats?
>
> http://www.ejectionsite.com/

Interesting site, but I can't find info about the type of canopy they
use. I am guessing it is round, since after an ejection you may be in
no shape to fly a square chute?

Brian[_1_]

December 6th 08, 02:38 PM

On Dec 5, 5:34*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> Brian Bange wrote:
> > I wanted a square chute because they are considerably thinner and I needed
> > leg room. When I mentioned it to a friend who soars and also jumps, he told
> > me exactly the same story. If the plane is broken and you have to jump, you
> > may be broken too. The round chute will get you down safely, even if all
> > you can do is pull the cord.
>
> > Brian Bange
>
> What type is the military using in their jettison seats?

I can say across for sure what they are using, But the Thunderbird
pilot that jettisoned out of his F-16 in 2003 at the Airshow in
mountain home, Idaho definitly had a round chute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alo_XWCqNUQ&NR=1

Brian Case

Martin Gregorie[_4_]

December 6th 08, 02:55 PM

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:25:05 -0800, ContestID67 wrote:

>
> I have been told that in the UK everyone wears a chute no matter the
> craft. True? Other countries?
>
Largely true in the UK. In my club we wear chutes for all flying except
in our T-21b, where chutes are never worn. I don't know why, unless that
wing overhead would make getting out extremely difficult.

I've done a limited amount of flying in Germany and New Zealand. In both
places chute wearing was taken for granted: so routine that NOT wearing
one would be surprising.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Tim Mara[_2_]

December 6th 08, 04:13 PM

Parachute capacities and sizes and technologies are somewhat misunderstood
and subject to some interpretation. Newer designs are far more efficient
than older designs and even a 200 + pound pilot will be far better off
wearing a parachute that fits with him in his glider than a big bulky one he
leaves in the clubhouse because he can't fit into his already over gross
cockpit.
For an example, some 24 foot canopies have larger volumes and some 26 foot
canopies and so on...there are also different canopy designs that produce
different flight performances. Some manufacturers have more conservative or
optimistic ratings published. We can only use the data that is available to
us and a little common sense to determine what we are comfortable with, but
when you see a manufacturer recommending a very small canopy with a very
high capacity and another with a larger canopy with a far more conservative
recommendation you should also question for yourself how much of this is
sales pitch and how much is an absolute commitment to safety. Ask the
manufacturer if he has actually used his own rigs, how much does he weigh
and which models he would feel comfortable with offering to his fiancé or
his x-wife! :o)
tim

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> What is this about round vs ram/square? I thought it was generally
>> accepted that ram/square give more control and lower descent rates,
>> but are less suitable for glider emergency chutes because they work
>> reliably only if you are the right way up etc. when you pull them.
>
> Be sure to select a canopy type and size the matches your weight. Check
> the manufacturer's charts or talk to them. I bought a Softie sized so I
> was at the bottom end of it's weight range, giving me an impact speed
> about like jumping off a table.
>
> The wind and terrain will make a much bigger difference in your landing
> the difference in descent rate between properly sized round or square
> parachutes. A soft landing is likely important for someone doing 10 or 20
> jumps a day, but not for emergency use.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Andy[_1_]

December 6th 08, 11:48 PM

On Dec 5, 6:33*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> The wind and terrain will make a much bigger difference in your landing
> the difference in descent rate between properly sized round or square
> parachutes. A soft landing is likely important for someone doing 10 or
> 20 jumps a day, but not for emergency use.

I have made only about 60 jumps but all of them in the last 10 years
and all of them with low loading ram air chutes. The significant
difference between the ram air canopy and the round canopy is not just
sink rate. A ram air parachute has forward velocity and when it is
turned it goes in a different direction. A round parachute has very
little forward velocity and when steered just points in a different
direction but continues to go in the same direction - downwind.

Although a properly flared ram air chute has a lower touchdown sink
rate than a round, it's main advantage for emergency use may be that
the pilot can have some choice as to the landing location.

I still fly with a round but its over 20 years old. If I have to buy
a new chute I would seriously consider getting a ram air canopy.

Andy

Eric Greenwell

December 7th 08, 12:31 AM

Andy wrote:
> On Dec 5, 6:33 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>> The wind and terrain will make a much bigger difference in your landing
>> the difference in descent rate between properly sized round or square
>> parachutes. A soft landing is likely important for someone doing 10 or
>> 20 jumps a day, but not for emergency use.
>
> I have made only about 60 jumps but all of them in the last 10 years
> and all of them with low loading ram air chutes. The significant
> difference between the ram air canopy and the round canopy is not just
> sink rate. A ram air parachute has forward velocity and when it is
> turned it goes in a different direction. A round parachute has very
> little forward velocity

3 to 5 mph, according to my Softie manual.

> and when steered just points in a different
> direction but continues to go in the same direction - downwind.
>
> Although a properly flared ram air chute has a lower touchdown sink
> rate than a round, it's main advantage for emergency use may be that
> the pilot can have some choice as to the landing location.
>
> I still fly with a round but its over 20 years old. If I have to buy
> a new chute I would seriously consider getting a ram air canopy.

My observation over 30 years of soaring is the round emergency parachute
works remarkably well for glider pilots. If the pilot gets out, he gets
down safely. I can't remember any glider pilot being seriously injured,
with the possible exception of the pilot of the glider that broke up in
wave near Minden a few years ago (surface winds were about 50 mph when
he landed).

Does anyone remember incidents where the pilot was seriously injured?

Does anyone know of an incident(s) where a ram air parachute, used by a
pilot with no jump training, would have significantly improved the outcome?

Does anyone know of an incident(s) where a ram air parachute, used by an
experienced ram air parachutist, would have significantly improved the
outcome?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Gregg Ballou

December 7th 08, 01:45 AM

>
>Does anyone remember incidents where the pilot was seriously injured?
Don't know of any. But I wouldn't be surprised. Given the average
age of glider pilots they need all the help they can get not having to
heal.
>Does anyone know of an incident(s) where a ram air parachute, used by a
>pilot with no jump training, would have significantly improved the
>outcome?
Not enough events to draw from. Pilot rigs with squares are new(square
reserves have been around >20 years) and it's likely the early adopters
are mostly former jumpers.
>Does anyone know of an incident(s) where a ram air parachute, used by an

>experienced ram air parachutist, would have significantly improved the
>outcome?
If you count skydivers using square reserves then lots. With (I'm
guessing)1-2 glider bailouts worldwide per year we don't have the number
of incidents to draw from.
My position is that if someone is in the market for a new parachute and
the price difference isn't a deal breaker then a square is the sensible
choice.
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
>* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at
www.motorglider.org
>

Eric Greenwell

December 7th 08, 03:30 AM

Gregg Ballou wrote:
>> Does anyone remember incidents where the pilot was seriously injured?
> Don't know of any. But I wouldn't be surprised. Given the average
> age of glider pilots they need all the help they can get not having to
> heal.
>> Does anyone know of an incident(s) where a ram air parachute, used by a
>> pilot with no jump training, would have significantly improved the
>> outcome?
> Not enough events to draw from. Pilot rigs with squares are new(square
> reserves have been around >20 years) and it's likely the early adopters
> are mostly former jumpers.
>> Does anyone know of an incident(s) where a ram air parachute, used by an
>
>> experienced ram air parachutist, would have significantly improved the
>> outcome?
> If you count skydivers using square reserves then lots.
> With (I'm
> guessing)1-2 glider bailouts worldwide per year we don't have the number
> of incidents to draw from.

I'm talking about glider pilots using round emergency parachutes in an
emergency: do we know of any incident(s) where using "detuned" ram air
parachute instead of the round one might have significantly affected the
outcome, positively or negatively?

> My position is that if someone is in the market for a new parachute and
> the price difference isn't a deal breaker then a square is the sensible
> choice.

My position is there is no evidence the untrained glider pilot will be
better off, and some chance the pilot might actually be worse off. So
far, the evidence I'm aware of (USA only - not familiar with overseas),
is that the round emergency does a good job, even with pilots that
haven't jumped before and have no real training.

I have no qualms about experienced jumpers using ram air parachutes in a
glider.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Bruce Hoult

December 7th 08, 05:31 AM

On Dec 7, 3:55*am, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
> I've done a limited amount of flying in Germany and New Zealand. In both
> places chute wearing was taken for granted: so routine that NOT wearing
> one would be surprising.

Er .. what?

We certainly don't normally wear chutes in our club two seaters for
rides or training, which is 99 of what they are used for. I can say
I've flown at every club in NZ but all the ones I have been to are the
same.

Chutes are worn as a matter of course in single seaters.

Tech Support

December 7th 08, 05:41 AM

Mike

Did you apply to join the Caterpillar club and get ur certificate and
pin?

If you can't find the addres, let me know and I'll try to find the
contact info for you. They are back in NJ. You will have to provide
them documentation of ur bail out. There are only a few of us among
many hundreds of thousand pilots that have had to use a chute to save
our lives.

Trivia

I flew the P-40 at Uvalde during WWII :o)

Found out in later years from a friend who lived and grew up in Uvalde
that the room the wife and I rented was across the street from the
best little Whore House in town. Traffic 24 hours a day :o)

And the best.

Big John

************************************************** *********************

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:47:17 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>I agree with Tim Mara's points in his post above.
>
>I had to bail out after a midair at Uvalde this year. That was my
>first jump.The round Softie did the job perfectly. I did land hard,
>and sustained some fractured vertebrae, but my ship landed a lot
>harder than I did. As Tim states, you'll be adrenaline pumped, and
>really won't feel it at the time. I got up and walked about three
>quarters of a mile until I found some help.
>
>My main take-away from the experience is that you need to have an
>egress plan, and I got mine (and one of the two Softies I own) from
>Allen Silver at www.silverparachutes.com - I highly recommend the
>articles on his site. I got my other Softie from Tim at www.wingsandwheels.com,
>and he's a great resource as well.
>
>Regarding the 20-year limit, my first Softie is coming up on that
>soon, and I'll replace it when that time comes. Seems like cheap
>insurance to me. I'm a happy Softie customer, although I hope I don't
>have to use the product in action again.
>
>Mike Brooks
>ex RG1 (next up - XL5)

Martin Gregorie[_4_]

December 7th 08, 12:30 PM

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:31:11 -0800, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> We certainly don't normally wear chutes in our club two seaters for
> rides or training, which is 99 of what they are used for. I can say
> I've flown at every club in NZ but all the ones I have been to are the
> same.
>
My memory must be going. I was certain I wore a chute for my check ride
at Paraparam and I certainly did at Omarama - I have pictures to prove
the latter.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Andy[_1_]

December 7th 08, 01:41 PM

On Dec 6, 5:31*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Does anyone remember incidents where the pilot was seriously injured?

April 1982 Tulare, California. Pilot baled out after a midair and
died on impact with the ground. It was my first contest.

Andy

Gregg Ballou

December 7th 08, 03:15 PM

At 13:41 07 December 2008, Andy wrote:
>On Dec 6, 5:31=A0pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Does anyone remember incidents where the pilot was seriously injured?
>
>April 1982 Tulare, California. Pilot baled out after a midair and
>died on impact with the ground. It was my first contest.
>
>Andy
Impact with an open parachute?

TonyV

December 7th 08, 03:26 PM

> Chutes are worn as a matter of course in single seaters.

Pretty much the same at my (US) club. But, you have to ask "How weird is
that?".

Tony V. LS6-b "6N"

Bruce Hoult

December 8th 08, 12:30 AM

On Dec 8, 4:26*am, TonyV > wrote:
> > Chutes are worn as a matter of course in single seaters.
>
> Pretty much the same at my (US) club. But, you have to ask "How weird is
> that?".
>
> Tony V. LS6-b "6N"

I would say that with 3000 - 4000 ft cloudbases near the airfield and
2000 - 3000 ft terrain, our trial flights and training flights are
probably seldom high enough above the terrain for a parachute to be
any use to someone not intimately familiar with its use.

[email protected]

December 8th 08, 01:58 AM

In these increasingly litigious days, I should have thought people who
run 2-seater flights without parachutes would be wise to learn from
this 1999 event:

“ . . . they were approximately 2,500 feet agl . . . the glider was
struck by lightning and large sections of its airframe disintegrated.

. . . . The student had already decided to abandon the glider and,
after he had departed, the instructor followed but was surprised when
he realised that he had not had to jettison his cockpit canopy. It was
estimated that both parachutes had successfully inflated by 1,800 feet
agl.”

Happy and safe soaring to you all.

Chris N.

Andy[_1_]

December 8th 08, 02:02 PM

On Dec 7, 8:15*am, Gregg Ballou > wrote:

> Impact with an open parachute?

I don't know for sure but my recollection was that the chute had
opened. No doubt there are others on this group that were at the
contest. I checked NTSB reports and don't find this accident listed.
There are only 5 reports for that month which is unusually low so I
suspect the on line records are not complete.

Andy

JJ Sinclair

December 8th 08, 03:00 PM

.. No doubt there are others on this group that were at the
> contest.

I was there, flying my Duster. There was only one Q in the sky and it
was located at the IP.The two pilots climbed up into the Q and then
crossed wings in the mist. Several pilots watched as the ASW-20 pilot
struggled to get out by trying to open the canopy the same way he
always opened it..........unlatch the side locks and shove it up. He
never did pull the jettison knob. Finally got out, pulled the D ring,
chute deployed but he hit the ground before it could blossom.
Old habits take over when under extreme stress.........there's a
message here for all of us.
JJ

Tim Mara[_2_]

December 8th 08, 03:07 PM

I am often asked "how high do you have to be for the parachute to open if
you have to bail out"
I guess you could go on and on about just how much time it takes to exit the
glider, get into a proper position, deploy the parachute and make a safe,
soft landing...but my simple answer is, "if I know I am going to die in a
glider slamming into the ground, and there is a .000000001% chance I might
get out and survive with a parachute......I will be trying until the last
ounce of earth covers my shoe laces!" Honestly, I don't think when the
occasion appears anyone will be doing the math...and in a state of high
adrenalin time passes by very slowly...slow enough I don't think I want to
have this time to ponder the consequences...
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 8, 4:26 am, TonyV > wrote:
> > Chutes are worn as a matter of course in single seaters.
>
> Pretty much the same at my (US) club. But, you have to ask "How weird is
> that?".
>
> Tony V. LS6-b "6N"

I would say that with 3000 - 4000 ft cloudbases near the airfield and
2000 - 3000 ft terrain, our trial flights and training flights are
probably seldom high enough above the terrain for a parachute to be
any use to someone not intimately familiar with its use.

jcarlyle

December 8th 08, 03:52 PM

That's a great point, JJ.

The manual for my ASW-19 says "First push forward white canopy lock-
knobs, then pull red canopy release knob and push canopy upward."
Except for pulling the red knob, this is exactly how I always get out
of the cockpit! It's really easy to see how under stress I might do
the exact same thing this poor guy did.

It certainly makes a great deal of sense to practice exactly how you
would get out in the air, until it's second nature. I've read about
people who released their parachute straps before bailing out, simply
because they always get out of the plane that way...

-John

JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Several pilots watched as the ASW-20 pilot
> struggled to get out by trying to open the canopy the same way he
> always opened it..........unlatch the side locks and shove it up. He
> never did pull the jettison knob.
[...Snip...
> Old habits take over when under extreme stress.........there's a
> message here for all of us.
> JJ

kirk.stant

December 8th 08, 05:48 PM

> JJ Sinclair wrote:
> > Old habits take over when under extreme stress.........there's a
> > message here for all of us.

On just about every flight, and especially during a contest or XC with
friends, I make it a point to go through my "midair bailout"
procedure, while inflight: Tell myself "MIDAIR!", then touch
(carefully) the canopy jettison handles (both of them in my LS6) while
saying "pull handles push canopy away", then touch seatbelt buckle
"undo straps", then " get out of glider, pull ripcord".

Trying to get the old muscle memory up to speed....

Kirk
66

Tuno

December 8th 08, 06:34 PM

<snip> My position is there is no evidence the untrained glider pilot
will be
better off, and some chance the pilot might actually be worse off. </
snip>

Eric,

There is no such thing as an untrained glider pilot (one with a
license, of course) -- a ram-air parachute *is* a glider. Emergency
ram-air chutes are extremely docile and easy to use. Pull the left
handle to go left. Pull the right to go right. Pull both gently when
approaching the ground if you want to flare it (which is not mandatory
for a safe touchdown).

I fly mostly in the southwest, where the landscape can be most
unfriendly to someone under a round parachute instead of a square.
(The first is a passenger, the latter a pilot.) I don't want to
survive a mid-air or glider breakup only to land in trees, canyons,
power lines or water.

Definitely consider a square emergency chute if you are ever in the
market for a new one. And if you live near a skydiving center, go make
a tandem jump and see just how easy it is.

~ted/2NO

Eric Greenwell

December 8th 08, 09:55 PM

Tuno wrote:
> <snip> My position is there is no evidence the untrained glider pilot
> will be
> better off, and some chance the pilot might actually be worse off. </
> snip>
>
> Eric,
>
> There is no such thing as an untrained glider pilot (one with a
> license, of course) -- a ram-air parachute *is* a glider. Emergency
> ram-air chutes are extremely docile and easy to use.

That was not what I read on the websites of companies selling them, or
what I was told by a couple manufacturers of parachutes. They seemed
very sincere.

> Pull the left
> handle to go left. Pull the right to go right. Pull both gently when
> approaching the ground if you want to flare it (which is not mandatory
> for a safe touchdown).

Except for the flare part, isn't that how a round emergency works? How
fast is the ram-air emergency parachute? I'm told my Softie has about 5
mph forward speed and about 10 seconds to do a 360 degree turn, which
seems agile enough.

> I fly mostly in the southwest, where the landscape can be most
> unfriendly to someone under a round parachute instead of a square.
> (The first is a passenger, the latter a pilot.) I don't want to
> survive a mid-air or glider breakup only to land in trees, canyons,
> power lines or water.

There are hazards everywhere, yet it seems if the pilot gets out (in
time), he survives, usually without any injury.
>
> Definitely consider a square emergency chute if you are ever in the
> market for a new one. And if you live near a skydiving center, go make
> a tandem jump and see just how easy it is.

Too late! Bought a new Softie in March. I decided the potential
advantage of the ram-air was miniscule, and chance of mis-handling it
one way or the other was higher than miniscule. As far a tandem jump, I
decided the risk of that outweighed the fun and knowledge I'd get out it.

So far, 33 years, 6000 hours soaring, no jumps required. With luck and
good health, I'll be extremely annoyed in 20 years because no one will
repack my chute, and I have to buy a new one.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[email protected]

December 8th 08, 11:30 PM

On Dec 8, 11:48 am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> > JJ Sinclair wrote:
> > > Old habits take over when under extreme stress.........there's a
> > > message here for all of us.
>
> On just about every flight, and especially during a contest or XC with
> friends, I make it a point to go through my "midair bailout"
> procedure, while inflight: Tell myself "MIDAIR!", then touch
> (carefully) the canopy jettison handles (both of them in my LS6) while
> saying "pull handles push canopy away", then touch seatbelt buckle
> "undo straps", then " get out of glider, pull ripcord".
>
> Trying to get the old muscle memory up to speed....
>
> Kirk
> 66

Agree completely. I posted a message up-thread re: my bailout and what
you are talking about is just what saved my bacon. I do the drill
after every landing, before I get out of the cockpit.

Mike

Don Johnstone[_3_]

December 9th 08, 02:00 AM

At 15:52 08 December 2008, jcarlyle wrote: (snip)
I've read about
>people who released their parachute straps before bailing out, simply
>because they always get out of the plane that way...
>
>-John

I think you will find that this is an aeronautical myth. I have heard this
story as many others will have and it is often used as a reason not to get
out of your glider on the ground without the parachute. I have never seen
a proper account of any accident where it actually happened.

The square canopy v round canopy has been discussed on here before. As far
as I am aware, certainly in the UK, all emergency chutes are round canopy
for the very good reason that they open more reliable, faster opening and
pack into a smaller container. A sport chute is a completely different
design and if sport parachutists carry a reserve it is round canopy.

TonyV

December 9th 08, 02:16 AM

....if sport parachutists carry a reserve it is round canopy.

They do and they're not -
http://www.strongparachutes.com/pages/Skydive_stellar.php

Gregg Ballou

December 9th 08, 03:00 AM

One bailout where the pilot fell out of his rig(unknown if unfastened it
during egress or never fastened it on the ground) was an acro accident in
the states early 90's in a Pitts if anyone want to look for the accident.

Rounds are not more reliable, do not open faster and don't necessarily
pack any smaller(depends on the size of the square). All sport
parachutists (BASE is an exception, different sport) carry reserves and
all of the ones in at least the last 15 years or so have been square
reserves. The misinformation about parachutes among glider pilots is
astounding. If it is this hard to get pilots to consider square
parachutes I can only imagine how hard it was to get them to fly
fiberglass sailplanes...

At 02:00 09 December 2008, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 15:52 08 December 2008, jcarlyle wrote: (snip)
> I've read about
>>people who released their parachute straps before bailing out, simply
>>because they always get out of the plane that way...
>>
>>-John
>
>I think you will find that this is an aeronautical myth. I have heard
this
>story as many others will have and it is often used as a reason not to
get
>out of your glider on the ground without the parachute. I have never
seen
>a proper account of any accident where it actually happened.
>
>The square canopy v round canopy has been discussed on here before. As
far
>as I am aware, certainly in the UK, all emergency chutes are round
canopy
>for the very good reason that they open more reliable, faster opening
and
>pack into a smaller container. A sport chute is a completely different
>design and if sport parachutists carry a reserve it is round canopy.
>

Eric Greenwell

December 9th 08, 04:04 AM

Gregg Ballou wrote:
> One bailout where the pilot fell out of his rig(unknown if unfastened it
> during egress or never fastened it on the ground) was an acro accident in
> the states early 90's in a Pitts if anyone want to look for the accident.
>
> Rounds are not more reliable, do not open faster

That is not what I was told by the manufacturers and riggers I talked to
when I went looking for a new parachute in March. They all said a round
emergency parachute opens faster but more harshly. The "opens faster"
was definitely a factor in my choice of a round over a square.

Why do you think that's not true?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Tuno

December 9th 08, 04:38 AM

Eric,

I don't know what manufacturers or resellers you've been talking too,
but anyone who says that round chutes open faster than squares, or are
more reliable, is FOS. They are trying to sell what they stock.
(Shocking, I know.)

Round chutes inherently do not want to open. That's why the military
has to put anti-inversion skirts on them. That's why they open
slower.

Square parachutes inherently *want* to be open. That's why they need
reefing systems (i.e. "sliders"). That's why skydivers use them for
reserves. (Okay, one reason.)

As for control -- 5mph under a round is wishful thinking (unless it's
an old ParaCommander). The wind is almost always much more than that.
If you're pointed into the wind, you still have to look over your
shoulder to see where you're going to land, instead of choosing where
you're going to land. (Have you ever tried to look over your shoulder
while landing your glider?)

2NO (~4500 parachute decents -- about 50 under round, been there, done
that, don't ever wanna go back)

Andy[_1_]

December 9th 08, 01:44 PM

On Dec 8, 9:38*pm, Tuno > wrote:

> I don't know what manufacturers or resellers you've been talking too,
> but anyone who says that round chutes open faster than squares, or are
> more reliable, is FOS.

There was a similar discussion on RAS probably between 5 and 10 years
ago. I remember at that time that Reeter (71) who was an experienced
jumper said he would not use a square as a glider emergency rig. I
don't remember all his arguments, and I don't have time now to search
for the thread, but I think he pointed out that smoke jumpers were
still using rounds at that time.

Anyone know what smoke jumpers are using now?

Andy

Gregg Ballou

December 9th 08, 02:30 PM

Smoke jumpers switched to squares. Technology marches on. Rounds are
still the best parachute for those little estes model rockets.

At 13:44 09 December 2008, Andy wrote:
>On Dec 8, 9:38=A0pm, Tuno wrote:
>
>> I don't know what manufacturers or resellers you've been talking
too,
>> but anyone who says that round chutes open faster than squares, or are
>> more reliable, is FOS.
>
>There was a similar discussion on RAS probably between 5 and 10 years
>ago. I remember at that time that Reeter (71) who was an experienced
>jumper said he would not use a square as a glider emergency rig. I
>don't remember all his arguments, and I don't have time now to search
>for the thread, but I think he pointed out that smoke jumpers were
>still using rounds at that time.
>
>Anyone know what smoke jumpers are using now?
>
>Andy
>

[email protected]

December 9th 08, 03:27 PM

On Dec 9, 9:30*am, Gregg Ballou > wrote:
> Smoke jumpers switched to squares. *Technology marches on. *Rounds are
> still the best parachute for those little estes model rockets.

LOL, I gave up the rockets a long time ago.

Okay Gregg, I give, I goofed when I missed your last 'ground school'.
When's the next one?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Gregg Ballou

December 9th 08, 05:15 PM

Hi Evan. Most anytime, just get me an audience. I believe Tim wants to
take the class as well. Let Rick know that I said I'd teach the class
again and all are welcome maybe some other clubs would be interested.
We're moving in Jan. So late winter/early spring perhaps. For the rest
of the world Evan is asking about this:
http://flypmsc.blogspot.com/2008/04/lookreachpull.html
Class is free, I don't sell parachutes, I've packed reserves under
supervision but I'm not a rigger. Just a public service, and I only
pick on round parachutes a little bit.
Gregg
At 15:27 09 December 2008, wrote:
>On Dec 9, 9:30=A0am, Gregg Ballou wrote:
>> Smoke jumpers switched to squares. =A0Technology marches on. =A0Rounds
>ar=
>e
>> still the best parachute for those little estes model rockets.
>
>
>LOL, I gave up the rockets a long time ago.
>
>Okay Gregg, I give, I goofed when I missed your last 'ground school'.
>When's the next one?
>
>-Evan Ludeman / T8
>
>
>

Eric Greenwell

December 9th 08, 11:58 PM

Tuno wrote:
> Eric,
>
> I don't know what manufacturers or resellers you've been talking too,
> but anyone who says that round chutes open faster than squares, or are
> more reliable, is FOS. They are trying to sell what they stock.
> (Shocking, I know.)

Are there published tests for opening times?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Gregg Ballou

December 10th 08, 02:15 AM

http://books.google.com/books?id=2PopFBjLZV8C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=round+versus+ram+air+reserve+parachutes&source=web&ots=lcoZDdwV5Y&sig=poCRfMdp5K8_xF1aeaGtBjqo8EQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA235,M1
Hope the link works. Read pages 234 and 235. There is info on deployment
speed and reliability. I rest my case.
At 23:58 09 December 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Tuno wrote:
>> Eric,
>>
>> I don't know what manufacturers or resellers you've been talking
too,
>> but anyone who says that round chutes open faster than squares, or are
>> more reliable, is FOS. They are trying to sell what they stock.
>> (Shocking, I know.)
>
>Are there published tests for opening times?
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
>* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at
www.motorglider.org
>

Tuno

December 10th 08, 03:36 AM

Gosh, where to begin ...

Not a whole lot of direct comparison testing has been done to my
knowledge because it was always patently obvious to those using and
making parachutes that squares open a LOT faster than rounds. You can
pack a square parachute to open nearly instantly by leaving the slider
down -- this is what BASE jumpers do, for obvious reasons. It is
dangerous, and unhealthy, to deploy a square chute with the slider
down; it can break your neck.

Square chutes had only recently been around when I started jumping in
1980 and they were still perfecting the reefing systems. Broken
suspension lines and blown cells (in the canopy) were common problems.
If you wanted soft and slow openings, you jumped a military surplus
(round) T-10!

My third square chute, which I jumped from 1989 to 1993, was notorious
for opening fast. I tried every trick in the book to slow it down. It
wasn't diagnosed until 1994 but I did permanent damage to the nerve
channels in my neck over the 900 jumps I put on that canopy (4-way
team training will make you cut corners packing). (The neurosurgeon's
comment as he was looking at the x-rays and MRIs was classic. I had
not told him of my skydiving history. He stared at one image after
another and finally looked at me and said "You could not have been in
500 car crashes...")

Anyway, don't take my word for it that squares by their nature open
faster than rounds. Call any harness/container or parachute
manufacturer. My container was made by Rigging Innovations (the owner
is Sandy Reid, the same guy in the photo on the top left of page 236
in the book referenced by Gregg; he'll be happy to answer your
questions). My chute is a Performance Designs reserve; call their
factory in Florida. I believe Bill Coe, the company's founder, is
still the owner.

And ask yourself ... if you're going to jump off the New River Gorge
Bridge with the intention of surviving, would you choose to do so with
a round or square parachute?

Dang this eggnog is good

~ted/2NO

Tuno

December 10th 08, 04:00 AM

My comment at the end of the first paragraph applies only to
deployments at terminal velocity, of course.

2NO

Eric Greenwell

December 10th 08, 04:06 AM

Gregg Ballou wrote:

> At 23:58 09 December 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:

>> Are there published tests for opening times?
>
http://books.google.com/books?id=2PopFBjLZV8C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=round+versus+ram+air+reserve+parachutes&source=web&ots=lcoZDdwV5Y&sig=poCRfMdp5K8_xF1aeaGtBjqo8EQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA235,M1
> Hope the link works. Read pages 234 and 235. There is info on
deployment
> speed and reliability. I rest my case.

Now I'm confused. I don't have notes from my March 2008 calls, but
before I made my purchase, I talked to two major parachute
manufacturers, one of which makes a ram reserve, and also a well known
rigger. What I recall is they all encouraged me to stick with the round
parachute for my glider. One reason I recall was the round emergency was
more tolerant of body position during opening. These same people also
made similar comments to the ones made here about the advantages of the
round emergency for the untrained "jumper" (like me - I'm just a pilot).

Another issue I think recall correctly, was I could find only one
company supplying a ram air parachute that they claimed was suitable for
the "lightly" trained pilot looking for an emergency parachute. I wasn't
persuaded by what they said on their website that it's advantages were
small and might not actually exceed the disadvantages.

There was puzzling statement on page 235 of Poynters book:

"Round canopies blow up more often, possibly 30% in normal use."

This sounds incredible for certified emergency parachutes, and it makes
me wonder if he is even talking about the same thing I am, where "normal
use" is 20 years as a seat cushion, and very rarely, only one jump in
it's entire service life. My perception is round emergency parachutes
function properly with failure rates far less than 30%.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Tuno

December 10th 08, 04:47 AM

Eric,

Poynter's statement was about round parachutes in general, not
reserves, and by 30% he was comparing the malfunction rates to each
other; he did not mean to say that round parachutes malfunctioned 30%
of the time.

I would very like to know who you spoke to in March. Though I am not
surprised that a manufacturer would encourage you to stick with a
round chute -- they make money selling you either kind, and think that
they assume a liability risk if they do anything but tell an
"untrained jumper" to use a round parachute.

The fact is, "square parachutes require training". But consider the
target audiences -- just about anybody can go make a parachute jump.
Licensed glider pilots have a FAR higher general compentency level
than your average yahoo. (At least in Arizona :) And I can assure you
that operating square *reserve* parachutes is an EASY thing for glider
pilots to do.

2NO

Gregg Ballou

December 10th 08, 02:00 PM

I don't buy the stable body position argument either. Students have been
deploying square parachutes from all sorts of unimaginable body positions
for over 20 years. I've seen some doozies- the parachutes always
worked. It does have an effect but it is rather small and I doubt there
is an advantage round/square. Body position does matter for deploying
high wing loaded elliptical main parachutes used by experienced jumpers
but those are a different beast. FYI Skydiving students are taught:
1. To Pull
2. To pull at the proper altitude
3. To pull with stability(not to compromise #2)
I'm not saying burn your rounds but anyone in the market for a new
parachute should seriously consider going to a square.

At 04:06 10 December 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Gregg Ballou wrote:
>
>> At 23:58 09 December 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>>> Are there published tests for opening times?
> >
>http://books.google.com/books?id=2PopFBjLZV8C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=round+versus+ram+air+reserve+parachutes&source=web&ots=lcoZDdwV5Y&sig=poCRfMdp5K8_xF1aeaGtBjqo8EQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA235,M1
> > Hope the link works. Read pages 234 and 235. There is info on
>deployment
> > speed and reliability. I rest my case.
>
>Now I'm confused. I don't have notes from my March 2008 calls, but
>before I made my purchase, I talked to two major parachute
>manufacturers, one of which makes a ram reserve, and also a well known
>rigger. What I recall is they all encouraged me to stick with the round
>parachute for my glider. One reason I recall was the round emergency was

>more tolerant of body position during opening. These same people also
>made similar comments to the ones made here about the advantages of the
>round emergency for the untrained "jumper" (like me - I'm just a
pilot).
>
>Another issue I think recall correctly, was I could find only one
>company supplying a ram air parachute that they claimed was suitable for

>the "lightly" trained pilot looking for an emergency parachute. I
wasn't
>persuaded by what they said on their website that it's advantages were
>small and might not actually exceed the disadvantages.
>
>There was puzzling statement on page 235 of Poynters book:
>
>"Round canopies blow up more often, possibly 30% in normal use."
>
>This sounds incredible for certified emergency parachutes, and it makes
>me wonder if he is even talking about the same thing I am, where "normal

>use" is 20 years as a seat cushion, and very rarely, only one jump in
>it's entire service life. My perception is round emergency parachutes
>function properly with failure rates far less than 30%.
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
>* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at
www.motorglider.org
>

Jim Beckman[_2_]

December 10th 08, 02:30 PM

At 14:30 09 December 2008, Gregg Ballou wrote:
>Smoke jumpers switched to squares. Technology marches on. Rounds are
>still the best parachute for those little estes model rockets.

If I go to one of the local jump schools that does static line
jumps for beginners, what sort of chute should I expect?
I did that years (and years and years) ago, about the time
I started flying gliders, and did three static line jumps with
round parachutes that had panels removed to make them
steerable (as I recall). That was at Sky Manor in NJ.

Jim Beckman

Andy[_1_]

December 10th 08, 03:28 PM

On Dec 10, 7:30*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> If I go to one of the local jump schools that does static line
> jumps for beginners, what sort of chute should I expect?

You will receive instruction for, and jump, a ram air (square
parachute) and will have, but hopefully not use, a ram air reserve.
That assumes a USA USPA affiliated drop zone. Someone may find a
third world country where they'd give you a round.

Andy

sisu1a

December 10th 08, 05:25 PM

On Dec 10, 6:30*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 14:30 09 December 2008, Gregg Ballou wrote:
>
> >Smoke jumpers switched to squares. *Technology marches on. *Rounds are
> >still the best parachute for those little estes model rockets.
>
> If I go to one of the local jump schools that does static line
> jumps for beginners, what sort of chute should I expect?
> I did that years (and years and years) ago, about the time
> I started flying gliders, and did three static line jumps with
> round parachutes that had panels removed to make them
> steerable (as I recall). *That was at Sky Manor in NJ.
>
> Jim Beckman

Hope it goes better than it did for this guy:
http://news.aol.com/article/skydiver-survives-10000-foot-fall/272955 ,
but then again, he did survive after all...Hmmm, is that good luck or
bad luck. Cause if he were lucky, wouldn't his chute not have gotten
snagged on the jump plane?... But if he were unlucky, wouldn't...

In a vain attempt to maintain thread relevance, I have no idea if his
rig was 20yrs, but I bet it was square. Is a square more likely to get
snagged on your glider :-)

-Paul

Tuno

December 10th 08, 05:40 PM

I'm having trouble figuring out a couple of things about this story.

One -- why/how did his chute get caught on the jump ship?! That's
almost unheard of. Almost certainly it was an accidental deployment
that probably started inside the airplane when the door was open, or
when he was in the process of climbing out. Regardless, round or
square wouldn't make much difference -- blowing fabric will make its
way around anything.

Two -- there's no mention of his reserve or whether or how he tried to
use it.

Tuno Squarepants

HL Falbaum[_2_]

December 10th 08, 05:54 PM

"Tuno" > wrote in message
...
> Eric,
>
> Poynter's statement was about round parachutes in general, not
> reserves, and by 30% he was comparing the malfunction rates to each
> other; he did not mean to say that round parachutes malfunctioned 30%
> of the time.
>
> I would very like to know who you spoke to in March. Though I am not
> surprised that a manufacturer would encourage you to stick with a
> round chute -- they make money selling you either kind, and think that
> they assume a liability risk if they do anything but tell an
> "untrained jumper" to use a round parachute.
>
> The fact is, "square parachutes require training". But consider the
> target audiences -- just about anybody can go make a parachute jump.
> Licensed glider pilots have a FAR higher general compentency level
> than your average yahoo. (At least in Arizona :) And I can assure you
> that operating square *reserve* parachutes is an EASY thing for glider
> pilots to do.
>
> 2NO

OK--is there a way to get the needed training without jumping from a major
height?
i.e. risking your neck (literally, apparently) to learn to save it, may not
be the ideal equation.

Hartley Falbaum

Tuno

December 10th 08, 08:42 PM

HL,

Tandem jumping is extremely safe these days. (I’m assuming that’s what
you’re referring to by “training”; it should be.)

I know "extremely" is a bit of a weasel word, but believe me, the
parachuting equipment used these days is exceptionally reliable, and
tandem masters have to undergo a rigorous evaluation to get their
certificates.

I am a lot more nervous launching and landing gliders than I ever was
in all but my first dozen jumps (which were with surplus military gear
almost 30 years ago).

2NO

Tim Mara[_2_]

December 10th 08, 09:06 PM

all I know is.... I made 3 static line jumps years ago with old Military
round canopies....and survived ...I had the normal hour or so of ground
school then..I made one emergency jump out of an LS1f with an old Security
150 parachute (conical-round) 18 years ago also.....and survived....no
broken bones, walked away
I don't need a lot more reassurance that a round canopy can and will save my
life..knowing what to do is IMHO far more important than knowing what I
bought was the latest high tech sport parachute design
nuff said
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"HL Falbaum" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Tuno" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Eric,
>>
>> Poynter's statement was about round parachutes in general, not
>> reserves, and by 30% he was comparing the malfunction rates to each
>> other; he did not mean to say that round parachutes malfunctioned 30%
>> of the time.
>>
>> I would very like to know who you spoke to in March. Though I am not
>> surprised that a manufacturer would encourage you to stick with a
>> round chute -- they make money selling you either kind, and think that
>> they assume a liability risk if they do anything but tell an
>> "untrained jumper" to use a round parachute.
>>
>> The fact is, "square parachutes require training". But consider the
>> target audiences -- just about anybody can go make a parachute jump.
>> Licensed glider pilots have a FAR higher general compentency level
>> than your average yahoo. (At least in Arizona :) And I can assure you
>> that operating square *reserve* parachutes is an EASY thing for glider
>> pilots to do.
>>
>> 2NO
>
> OK--is there a way to get the needed training without jumping from a major
> height?
> i.e. risking your neck (literally, apparently) to learn to save it, may
> not be the ideal equation.
>
> Hartley Falbaum
>
>
>
>

Don Johnstone[_3_]

December 10th 08, 09:15 PM

Frankly I am a little concerned over the ignorance shown. The whole point
of an emegency chute is that all you need to know to save your life is how
to put it on and adjust it properly and how to pull the ripcord. You do not
have to concern yourself with stability, body position or indeed to
practice. The parachute will save your life, a broken ankle is a small
cross to bear.

I would rather put my faith in Irvin Airchute, now Airbourne Systems than
other less qualified people and if Martin Baker Ejector seats choose to
put a round canopy in the headbox of their seats then I for one am happy
to use the same canopy on my rig. I think it is called the KISS principle
and very much applies here.

To say that square chutes open quicker than round is total rubbish, watch
this

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=a5uEguTYq3U

Unless I am mistake that is a round chute not a square one and the seat
was way way out of it's safe limits, it still saved the pilot. He had to
be unlucky though as he broke his ankle when he landed on the only solid
object in the sea, his Harrier.
And if you are wondering, wrong lever.

At 14:00 10 December 2008, Gregg Ballou wrote:
>I don't buy the stable body position argument either. Students have
been
>deploying square parachutes from all sorts of unimaginable body
positions
>for over 20 years. I've seen some doozies- the parachutes always
>worked. It does have an effect but it is rather small and I doubt there
>is an advantage round/square. Body position does matter for deploying
>high wing loaded elliptical main parachutes used by experienced jumpers
>but those are a different beast. FYI Skydiving students are taught:
>1. To Pull
>2. To pull at the proper altitude
>3. To pull with stability(not to compromise #2)
>I'm not saying burn your rounds but anyone in the market for a new
>parachute should seriously consider going to a square.
>
>At 04:06 10 December 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>Gregg Ballou wrote:
>>
>>> At 23:58 09 December 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>
>>>> Are there published tests for opening times?
>> >
>>http://books.google.com/books?id=2PopFBjLZV8C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=round+versus+ram+air+reserve+parachutes&source=web&ots=lcoZDdwV5Y&sig=poCRfMdp5K8_xF1aeaGtBjqo8EQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA235,M1
>> > Hope the link works. Read pages 234 and 235. There is info on
>>deployment
>> > speed and reliability. I rest my case.
>>
>>Now I'm confused. I don't have notes from my March 2008 calls, but
>>before I made my purchase, I talked to two major parachute
>>manufacturers, one of which makes a ram reserve, and also a well known
>>rigger. What I recall is they all encouraged me to stick with the round

>>parachute for my glider. One reason I recall was the round emergency
was
>
>>more tolerant of body position during opening. These same people also
>>made similar comments to the ones made here about the advantages of the

>>round emergency for the untrained "jumper" (like me - I'm just a
>pilot).
>>
>>Another issue I think recall correctly, was I could find only one
>>company supplying a ram air parachute that they claimed was suitable
for
>
>>the "lightly" trained pilot looking for an emergency parachute. I
>wasn't
>>persuaded by what they said on their website that it's advantages were

>>small and might not actually exceed the disadvantages.
>>
>>There was puzzling statement on page 235 of Poynters book:
>>
>>"Round canopies blow up more often, possibly 30% in normal use."
>>
>>This sounds incredible for certified emergency parachutes, and it makes

>>me wonder if he is even talking about the same thing I am, where
"normal
>
>>use" is 20 years as a seat cushion, and very rarely, only one jump in
>>it's entire service life. My perception is round emergency parachutes
>>function properly with failure rates far less than 30%.
>>
>>--
>>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>>* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>
>>* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
>> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>>
>>* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at
>www.motorglider.org
>>
>

Tech Support

December 10th 08, 09:19 PM

Will use this post to add some data.

In 1968, when I had to use a military chute, they packed the chute by
folding the canopy and then pulling it into a long slim bag. Pilot
chute was attached to top end of bag. When rip cord was pulled, pilot
chute came out and pulled the bag, with the canopy in it, full
extended and then the shroud lines extended. When lines full out the
weight and air resistance of pilot let the pilot chute pull the bag
off the canopy which then deployed.

I had access to Air Force accident reports and never saw where a
canopy did not deploy properly. We were never told this packing system
delayed the full deployment of chute and reduced the altitude at which
it could be deployed safely.

Any idea why the round glider chutes are not packed this way?

Big John
************************************************** **************

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:06:44 GMT, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

>Gregg Ballou wrote:
>
>> At 23:58 09 December 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>>> Are there published tests for opening times?
> >
>http://books.google.com/books?id=2PopFBjLZV8C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=round+versus+ram+air+reserve+parachutes&source=web&ots=lcoZDdwV5Y&sig=poCRfMdp5K8_xF1aeaGtBjqo8EQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA235,M1
> > Hope the link works. Read pages 234 and 235. There is info on
>deployment
> > speed and reliability. I rest my case.
>
>Now I'm confused. I don't have notes from my March 2008 calls, but
>before I made my purchase, I talked to two major parachute
>manufacturers, one of which makes a ram reserve, and also a well known
>rigger. What I recall is they all encouraged me to stick with the round
>parachute for my glider. One reason I recall was the round emergency was
>more tolerant of body position during opening. These same people also
>made similar comments to the ones made here about the advantages of the
>round emergency for the untrained "jumper" (like me - I'm just a pilot).
>
>Another issue I think recall correctly, was I could find only one
>company supplying a ram air parachute that they claimed was suitable for
>the "lightly" trained pilot looking for an emergency parachute. I wasn't
>persuaded by what they said on their website that it's advantages were
>small and might not actually exceed the disadvantages.
>
>There was puzzling statement on page 235 of Poynters book:
>
>"Round canopies blow up more often, possibly 30% in normal use."
>
>This sounds incredible for certified emergency parachutes, and it makes
>me wonder if he is even talking about the same thing I am, where "normal
>use" is 20 years as a seat cushion, and very rarely, only one jump in
>it's entire service life. My perception is round emergency parachutes
>function properly with failure rates far less than 30%.

Tech Support

December 10th 08, 09:23 PM

Hartley

Do any of the resorts who give parachue rides behind a motor boat use
square chutes?

Don't get much time if you cut losse but someone may give square
training that way????

Big John

************************************************** ********************

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:54:27 -0500, "HL Falbaum"
> wrote:

>
>"Tuno" > wrote in message
...
>> Eric,
>>
>> Poynter's statement was about round parachutes in general, not
>> reserves, and by 30% he was comparing the malfunction rates to each
>> other; he did not mean to say that round parachutes malfunctioned 30%
>> of the time.
>>
>> I would very like to know who you spoke to in March. Though I am not
>> surprised that a manufacturer would encourage you to stick with a
>> round chute -- they make money selling you either kind, and think that
>> they assume a liability risk if they do anything but tell an
>> "untrained jumper" to use a round parachute.
>>
>> The fact is, "square parachutes require training". But consider the
>> target audiences -- just about anybody can go make a parachute jump.
>> Licensed glider pilots have a FAR higher general compentency level
>> than your average yahoo. (At least in Arizona :) And I can assure you
>> that operating square *reserve* parachutes is an EASY thing for glider
>> pilots to do.
>>
>> 2NO
>
>OK--is there a way to get the needed training without jumping from a major
>height?
>i.e. risking your neck (literally, apparently) to learn to save it, may not
>be the ideal equation.
>
>Hartley Falbaum
>
>
>

Gregg Ballou

December 10th 08, 10:00 PM

Ignorance? Clinging to outdated 50 year old technology is enlightened?
As for ejection seats their parachutes are dragged out by
explosives/reefed by computer fired pyrotechnics depending on
speed/altitude. The 50 year old round parachute design you sit on in your
glider doesn't have much in common with ejection seats. Tim why don't
you offer square pilot rigs and see what the market says? Instead of
arguing for obsolete stuff. Oh well everyone is free to chose for
themselves and I like it that way. I'm off to wind some barographs and
smoke some foil.
At 21:15 10 December 2008, Don Johnstone wrote:
>Frankly I am a little concerned over the ignorance shown. The whole
point
>of an emegency chute is that all you need to know to save your life is
how
>to put it on and adjust it properly and how to pull the ripcord. You do
>not
>have to concern yourself with stability, body position or indeed to
>practice. The parachute will save your life, a broken ankle is a small
>cross to bear.
>
>I would rather put my faith in Irvin Airchute, now Airbourne Systems
than
>other less qualified people and if Martin Baker Ejector seats choose to
>put a round canopy in the headbox of their seats then I for one am happy
>to use the same canopy on my rig. I think it is called the KISS
principle
>and very much applies here.
>
>To say that square chutes open quicker than round is total rubbish,
watch
>this
>
>http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=a5uEguTYq3U
>
>Unless I am mistake that is a round chute not a square one and the seat
>was way way out of it's safe limits, it still saved the pilot. He had
to
>be unlucky though as he broke his ankle when he landed on the only solid
>object in the sea, his Harrier.
>And if you are wondering, wrong lever.
>
>
>At 14:00 10 December 2008, Gregg Ballou wrote:
>>I don't buy the stable body position argument either. Students have
>been
>>deploying square parachutes from all sorts of unimaginable body
>positions
>>for over 20 years. I've seen some doozies- the parachutes always
>>worked. It does have an effect but it is rather small and I doubt
there
>>is an advantage round/square. Body position does matter for deploying
>>high wing loaded elliptical main parachutes used by experienced jumpers
>>but those are a different beast. FYI Skydiving students are taught:
>>1. To Pull
>>2. To pull at the proper altitude
>>3. To pull with stability(not to compromise #2)
>>I'm not saying burn your rounds but anyone in the market for a new
>>parachute should seriously consider going to a square.
>>
>>At 04:06 10 December 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>Gregg Ballou wrote:
>>>
>>>> At 23:58 09 December 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Are there published tests for opening times?
>>> >
>>>http://books.google.com/books?id=2PopFBjLZV8C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=round+versus+ram+air+reserve+parachutes&source=web&ots=lcoZDdwV5Y&sig=poCRfMdp5K8_xF1aeaGtBjqo8EQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA235,M1
>>> > Hope the link works. Read pages 234 and 235. There is info on
>>>deployment
>>> > speed and reliability. I rest my case.
>>>
>>>Now I'm confused. I don't have notes from my March 2008 calls, but
>>>before I made my purchase, I talked to two major parachute
>>>manufacturers, one of which makes a ram reserve, and also a well known

>>>rigger. What I recall is they all encouraged me to stick with the
round
>
>>>parachute for my glider. One reason I recall was the round emergency
>was
>>
>>>more tolerant of body position during opening. These same people also
>>>made similar comments to the ones made here about the advantages of
the
>
>>>round emergency for the untrained "jumper" (like me - I'm just a
>>pilot).
>>>
>>>Another issue I think recall correctly, was I could find only one
>>>company supplying a ram air parachute that they claimed was suitable
>for
>>
>>>the "lightly" trained pilot looking for an emergency parachute. I
>>wasn't
>>>persuaded by what they said on their website that it's advantages
were
>
>>>small and might not actually exceed the disadvantages.
>>>
>>>There was puzzling statement on page 235 of Poynters book:
>>>
>>>"Round canopies blow up more often, possibly 30% in normal use."
>>>
>>>This sounds incredible for certified emergency parachutes, and it
makes
>
>>>me wonder if he is even talking about the same thing I am, where
>"normal
>>
>>>use" is 20 years as a seat cushion, and very rarely, only one jump in

>>>it's entire service life. My perception is round emergency parachutes

>>>function properly with failure rates far less than 30%.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>>>* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>>
>>>* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
>>> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>>>
>>>* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at
>>www.motorglider.org
>>>
>>
>

Tim Mara[_2_]

December 10th 08, 10:35 PM

there are high speed parachutes and low speed parachutes.....we use low
speed parachutes for emergency parachutes in gliders....and everyone thinks
at first...."hey, I'm pretty fast I want a high speed parachute"
......wrong....
low speed parachutes (150MPH or less) mean they open quickly..High speed
parachutes (with delayed opening (150MPH or higher) so they don't explode or
rip themselves off your back along with appendages...when you suddenly bail
out of your F18....
tim

Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

<Tech Support> wrote in message
...
> Will use this post to add some data.
>
> In 1968, when I had to use a military chute, they packed the chute by
> folding the canopy and then pulling it into a long slim bag. Pilot
> chute was attached to top end of bag. When rip cord was pulled, pilot
> chute came out and pulled the bag, with the canopy in it, full
> extended and then the shroud lines extended. When lines full out the
> weight and air resistance of pilot let the pilot chute pull the bag
> off the canopy which then deployed.
>
> I had access to Air Force accident reports and never saw where a
> canopy did not deploy properly. We were never told this packing system
> delayed the full deployment of chute and reduced the altitude at which
> it could be deployed safely.
>
> Any idea why the round glider chutes are not packed this way?
>
> Big John
> ************************************************** **************
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:06:44 GMT, Eric Greenwell
> > wrote:
>
>>Gregg Ballou wrote:
>>
>>> At 23:58 09 December 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>
>>>> Are there published tests for opening times?
>> >
>>http://books.google.com/books?id=2PopFBjLZV8C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=round+versus+ram+air+reserve+parachutes&source=web&ots=lcoZDdwV5Y&sig=poCRfMdp5K8_xF1aeaGtBjqo8EQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA235,M1
>> > Hope the link works. Read pages 234 and 235. There is info on
>>deployment
>> > speed and reliability. I rest my case.
>>
>>Now I'm confused. I don't have notes from my March 2008 calls, but
>>before I made my purchase, I talked to two major parachute
>>manufacturers, one of which makes a ram reserve, and also a well known
>>rigger. What I recall is they all encouraged me to stick with the round
>>parachute for my glider. One reason I recall was the round emergency was
>>more tolerant of body position during opening. These same people also
>>made similar comments to the ones made here about the advantages of the
>>round emergency for the untrained "jumper" (like me - I'm just a pilot).
>>
>>Another issue I think recall correctly, was I could find only one
>>company supplying a ram air parachute that they claimed was suitable for
>>the "lightly" trained pilot looking for an emergency parachute. I wasn't
>>persuaded by what they said on their website that it's advantages were
>>small and might not actually exceed the disadvantages.
>>
>>There was puzzling statement on page 235 of Poynters book:
>>
>>"Round canopies blow up more often, possibly 30% in normal use."
>>
>>This sounds incredible for certified emergency parachutes, and it makes
>>me wonder if he is even talking about the same thing I am, where "normal
>>use" is 20 years as a seat cushion, and very rarely, only one jump in
>>it's entire service life. My perception is round emergency parachutes
>>function properly with failure rates far less than 30%.
>

Tuno

December 10th 08, 11:22 PM

< To say that square chutes open quicker than round is total rubbish >

Nonsense. If round chutes were faster than squares, BASE jumpers would
use them.

The video of the Harrier ejection shows a round deployment that square
reserves would laugh at!

But wtf do I know, 26 years in the parachuting industry and I'm still
ignorant.

2NO

Don Johnstone[_3_]

December 11th 08, 02:15 AM

With a zero/zero ejector seat the drogue gun bullet pulls out the drogue
chute, and pulls out the the main canopy. EB80, a spring ejects the drogue
which pulls out the main canopy. The firing of the gun is the same in all
conditions, the actual firing may be delayed by speed or altitude.
As for 50 year old parachute design, the I24 canopy fitted to my EB80 is
exactly the same canopy crammed into the headbox of a MB ejector seat, or
was until 12 months ago. The EB80 is now fitted with slightly different
design.
Base jumpers jump off clutching the drogue chute in their hand and let it
go to deploy the chute.
If square parachutes are so reliable why do parachutists feel the need to
carry a spare?
My post was in response to the attempt to rubbish round chutes, they have
been proven to work. If people want to go off and try an untested system,
well that is up to them. I have nothing against rectangular chutes, I am
sure they are excellent in a sport envoironment but personally I prefer
tried and tested if I have to rely on something which has to work first
time.

At 22:00 10 December 2008, Gregg Ballou wrote:
>Ignorance? Clinging to outdated 50 year old technology is enlightened?
>As for ejection seats their parachutes are dragged out by
>explosives/reefed by computer fired pyrotechnics depending on
>speed/altitude. The 50 year old round parachute design you sit on in
your
>glider doesn't have much in common with ejection seats. Tim why don't
>you offer square pilot rigs and see what the market says? Instead of
>arguing for obsolete stuff. Oh well everyone is free to chose for
>themselves and I like it that way. I'm off to wind some barographs and
>smoke some foil.
>At 21:15 10 December 2008, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>Frankly I am a little concerned over the ignorance shown. The whole
>point
>>of an emegency chute is that all you need to know to save your life is
>how
>>to put it on and adjust it properly and how to pull the ripcord. You do
>>not
>>have to concern yourself with stability, body position or indeed to
>>practice. The parachute will save your life, a broken ankle is a small
>>cross to bear.
>>
>>I would rather put my faith in Irvin Airchute, now Airbourne Systems
>than
>>other less qualified people and if Martin Baker Ejector seats choose to
>>put a round canopy in the headbox of their seats then I for one am
happy
>>to use the same canopy on my rig. I think it is called the KISS
>principle
>>and very much applies here.
>>
>>To say that square chutes open quicker than round is total rubbish,
>watch
>>this
>>
>>http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=a5uEguTYq3U
>>
>>Unless I am mistake that is a round chute not a square one and the seat
>>was way way out of it's safe limits, it still saved the pilot. He had
>to
>>be unlucky though as he broke his ankle when he landed on the only
solid
>>object in the sea, his Harrier.
>>And if you are wondering, wrong lever.
>>
>>
>>At 14:00 10 December 2008, Gregg Ballou wrote:
>>>I don't buy the stable body position argument either. Students have
>>been
>>>deploying square parachutes from all sorts of unimaginable body
>>positions
>>>for over 20 years. I've seen some doozies- the parachutes always
>>>worked. It does have an effect but it is rather small and I doubt
>there
>>>is an advantage round/square. Body position does matter for deploying
>>>high wing loaded elliptical main parachutes used by experienced
jumpers
>>>but those are a different beast. FYI Skydiving students are taught:
>>>1. To Pull
>>>2. To pull at the proper altitude
>>>3. To pull with stability(not to compromise #2)
>>>I'm not saying burn your rounds but anyone in the market for a new
>>>parachute should seriously consider going to a square.
>>>
>>>At 04:06 10 December 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>>Gregg Ballou wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> At 23:58 09 December 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Are there published tests for opening times?
>>>> >
>>>>http://books.google.com/books?id=2PopFBjLZV8C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=round+versus+ram+air+reserve+parachutes&source=web&ots=lcoZDdwV5Y&sig=poCRfMdp5K8_xF1aeaGtBjqo8EQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA235,M1
>>>> > Hope the link works. Read pages 234 and 235. There is info on
>>>>deployment
>>>> > speed and reliability. I rest my case.
>>>>
>>>>Now I'm confused. I don't have notes from my March 2008 calls, but
>>>>before I made my purchase, I talked to two major parachute
>>>>manufacturers, one of which makes a ram reserve, and also a well
known
>
>>>>rigger. What I recall is they all encouraged me to stick with the
>round
>>
>>>>parachute for my glider. One reason I recall was the round emergency
>>was
>>>
>>>>more tolerant of body position during opening. These same people also

>>>>made similar comments to the ones made here about the advantages of
>the
>>
>>>>round emergency for the untrained "jumper" (like me - I'm just a
>>>pilot).
>>>>
>>>>Another issue I think recall correctly, was I could find only one
>>>>company supplying a ram air parachute that they claimed was suitable
>>for
>>>
>>>>the "lightly" trained pilot looking for an emergency parachute. I
>>>wasn't
>>>>persuaded by what they said on their website that it's advantages
>were
>>
>>>>small and might not actually exceed the disadvantages.
>>>>
>>>>There was puzzling statement on page 235 of Poynters book:
>>>>
>>>>"Round canopies blow up more often, possibly 30% in normal use."
>>>>
>>>>This sounds incredible for certified emergency parachutes, and it
>makes
>>
>>>>me wonder if he is even talking about the same thing I am, where
>>"normal
>>>
>>>>use" is 20 years as a seat cushion, and very rarely, only one jump
in
>
>>>>it's entire service life. My perception is round emergency
parachutes
>
>>>>function properly with failure rates far less than 30%.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>>>>* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>>>
>>>>* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
>>>> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>>>>
>>>>* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at
>>>www.motorglider.org
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Tuno

December 11th 08, 02:52 AM

< Base jumpers jump off clutching the drogue chute in their hand and
let it go to deploy the chute. >

Right! And if a round opened faster than a square, they would do it
with a round at the other end of the "drogue" chute, which is not a
drogue chute, it's a *pilot* chute.

< If square parachutes are so reliable why do parachutists feel the
need to carry a spare? >

(1) Because they are not nearly as stupid as most people think --
neither square nor round parachutes are perfect enough to gamble your
life on.

(2) Because the law requires it!!!

I need to be careful ... if you argue with an idiot long enough,
people can't tell the difference.

~ted/2NO

Wayne Paul

December 11th 08, 03:17 AM

"Tuno" > wrote in message
...
>< Base jumpers jump off clutching the drogue chute in their hand and
> let it go to deploy the chute. >
>
> Right! And if a round opened faster than a square, they would do it
> with a round at the other end of the "drogue" chute, which is not a
> drogue chute, it's a *pilot* chute.
>

I am far from an expert on this subject. I have only used a chute once and
it was a round one. However, I live in Idaho not far from the "Perrine
Bridge." Having watched the base jumper I come to the conclusion that the
jumpers choose the "square" chute because of its' controllability. (You
don't want to end up in the water.)

The Perrine Bridge is one of the few places that is open to jumpers
24/7/365.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iYzChw0plc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU0q44RJsLg

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

Eric Greenwell

December 11th 08, 03:35 AM

Tuno wrote:
>
> I would very like to know who you spoke to in March.

Unfortunately, I tossed my contact notes when I bought my parachute in
April, and my memory of who said what is poor. I can tell you I
definitely spoke to Strong, Paraphernalia, Tim Mara (who's offered
opinions here already), and I am pretty sure National, and I know I had
some contact with Allen Silver (but possibly not about ram-airs).

I also looked closely at this parachute:

http://www.parachuteshop.com/aviator_pilot_parachute.htm

but this note (and also from reading the manual, as I remember), put me
off the idea:

"Because of the advanced characteristics of these canopy designs, the
Sport Aviator model may only be used by individuals who either have
ram-air jumping experience such as skydiving, or have received special
training in the use and performance of these canopies."

I also looked at Performance Design reserves, but they seemed to be for
even more experienced jumpers, and not people looking for "pilot
emergency parachutes".

> Though I am not
> surprised that a manufacturer would encourage you to stick with a
> round chute -- they make money selling you either kind, and think that
> they assume a liability risk if they do anything but tell an
> "untrained jumper" to use a round parachute.

I can't assess that factor. They all seemed sincere, cautious, and
offered what seemed like sensible reasons for their recommendations.

>
> The fact is, "square parachutes require training". But consider the
> target audiences -- just about anybody can go make a parachute jump.
> Licensed glider pilots have a FAR higher general compentency level
> than your average yahoo. (At least in Arizona :) And I can assure you
> that operating square *reserve* parachutes is an EASY thing for glider
> pilots to do.

I believe you, but I'm not interested in learning, and I'm not sure I'd
remember it all a few years later, anyway. My final analysis that each
had some advantages for my situation, leading it to be a wash overall,
so I went with price and known comfort to pick the mini-Softie.

And, while all this is interesting discussion, my guess is getting
everyone to switch to ram-airs would not increase "emergency bail-out
safety" near as much as getting everyone to install a Roeger hook. But
that's another thread...

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

toad

December 11th 08, 03:47 AM

But from the manufacturor's website:
http://www.rigginginnovations.com/products/aviator.htm

"The 246 and 280 sq ft canopies have a unique modulated control
system, which allows for their use by aircrew personnel with minimal
additional training required over and above what they receive on
current round parachute systems."

That doesn't sound like a big barrier to use.

The only real barrier (IMHO) is the price difference.

Todd Smith
3S

sisu1a

December 11th 08, 04:13 AM

> but this note (and also from reading the manual, as I remember),
put me
> off the idea:
>
> "Because of the advanced characteristics of these canopy designs, the
> Sport Aviator model may only be used by individuals who either have
> ram-air jumping experience such as skydiving, or have received special
> training in the use and performance of these canopies."

While they do recommend that for the Sport Aviator Model, that is not
the case for them all. They have two different control systems for
their 6 canopy options for the P-124. Four of them require jumping
experience but Two do they just say "minimum additional training"
Calling Rigging Innovations would answer exactly what that means.
http://www.rigginginnovations.com/products/aviator.htm

FWIW, I'm waiting for my new Softie to show up, with a good ole'
roundie under the hood. I would however like to do some jumps in the
future (not in my Softie!), at least enough to competently jump solo
since a broken airplane makes a terrible classroom...no matter how old
your chute is, how fast it opens, or whether it is square or round.
Training seems to be the answer to most of aviation's other ills...

-Paul

Nyal Williams[_2_]

December 11th 08, 04:15 AM

This has been an interesting discussion, but it is easy to become confused
by the fact that a high speed chute is designed to delay opening, and a
low speed chute is designed to open quickly, if I understand correctly.
Apparently the word speed refers to aircraft speed at egress and has
nothing to do with rapidity of deployment. Did I get that right?

At 03:47 11 December 2008, toad wrote:
>But from the manufacturor's website:
>http://www.rigginginnovations.com/products/aviator.htm
>
>"The 246 and 280 sq ft canopies have a unique modulated control
>system, which allows for their use by aircrew personnel with minimal
>additional training required over and above what they receive on
>current round parachute systems."
>
>That doesn't sound like a big barrier to use.
>
>The only real barrier (IMHO) is the price difference.
>
>Todd Smith
>3S
>

Tuno

December 11th 08, 04:16 AM

< I come to the conclusion that the jumpers choose the "square" chute
because of its' controllability. >

Wayne,

You make a good point, but they don't "choose" the square any more
than we "choose" to use a calculator instead of an abacus. The square
is an overwhelming winner in both controllability and speed-of-
opening. For BASE jumpers there is no "choice" to be made.

There are many BASE jump locations that could only be done safely with
a square (more arguments for the square!), but for the ones safe for a
round (e.g. downwind from most antennae), BASE jumpers would still
choose a square parachute, packed with the slider down.

But in this discussion, the speed of opening is only relevant if you
anticipate leaving a mal-assembled glider during a winch launch. For
most glider pilots, it falls solidly into the "doesn't matter"
category; deployments below the standard deviation of pull altitudes
still average above a safe altitude. (At least the ones I've read
about.)

In the context of glider pilots choosing round vs square parachutes,
to me the deciding factor is probably *where* the pilot does most of
his flying. East or midwest, over largely flat terrain? Again,
probably "don't care" territory (for the average pilot, not me, I
would still choose square). But in the southwest, where terrain can be
very unfriendly and help remote, it's a no-brainer.

Not that I have any opinion on the matter ... I still can't get fuses
straight.

2NO

Eric Greenwell

December 11th 08, 04:27 AM

Tuno wrote:

> In the context of glider pilots choosing round vs square parachutes,
> to me the deciding factor is probably *where* the pilot does most of
> his flying. East or midwest, over largely flat terrain? Again,
> probably "don't care" territory (for the average pilot, not me, I
> would still choose square). But in the southwest, where terrain can be
> very unfriendly and help remote, it's a no-brainer.

That does remind me of something one of the people I talked to said,
along the lines of "landing in trees is easier and safer with a round
than a square, unless you are experienced with the square".

Not that trees are an issue for Tuno, I suppose!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Tuno

December 11th 08, 04:30 AM

Nyal -- not quite. "High speed" refers to the maximum velocity when
opening for which the parachute was designed, not for how fast they
open (i.e., strength, not speed). There are high speed mains, high
speed reserves; high speed rounds, well, you get the picture. The
military T-10 is an example of a round, non-high-speed canopy.

Sport reserves are high-speed, but designed for fast opening at any
velocity, the anticipation being that a skydiver might have anything
between a terminal velocity and a low speed deployment, which may
happen after a canopy collision (or for canopy formation skydivers,
the dreaded wrap).

I don't know of any parachutes made today that are not "high speed"
rated. And the square ones, yes, they open FAST.

Tech Support

December 11th 08, 04:31 AM

Your right about high and low speed bail outs. I did not get any
crotch burns during my bail out with a canopy in a bag.

I was addressing the comments about round canopy inversion which I
never saw with the round chutes in a bag.

Big John
************************************************** *****

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:35:33 -0500, "Tim Mara"
> wrote:

>there are high speed parachutes and low speed parachutes.....we use low
>speed parachutes for emergency parachutes in gliders....and everyone thinks
>at first...."hey, I'm pretty fast I want a high speed parachute"
>.....wrong....
>low speed parachutes (150MPH or less) mean they open quickly..High speed
>parachutes (with delayed opening (150MPH or higher) so they don't explode or
>rip themselves off your back along with appendages...when you suddenly bail
>out of your F18....
>tim
>
>Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com
>
><Tech Support> wrote in message
...
>> Will use this post to add some data.
>>
>> In 1968, when I had to use a military chute, they packed the chute by
>> folding the canopy and then pulling it into a long slim bag. Pilot
>> chute was attached to top end of bag. When rip cord was pulled, pilot
>> chute came out and pulled the bag, with the canopy in it, full
>> extended and then the shroud lines extended. When lines full out the
>> weight and air resistance of pilot let the pilot chute pull the bag
>> off the canopy which then deployed.
>>
>> I had access to Air Force accident reports and never saw where a
>> canopy did not deploy properly. We were never told this packing system
>> delayed the full deployment of chute and reduced the altitude at which
>> it could be deployed safely.
>>
>> Any idea why the round glider chutes are not packed this way?
>>
>> Big John
>> ************************************************** **************
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:06:44 GMT, Eric Greenwell
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Gregg Ballou wrote:
>>>
>>>> At 23:58 09 December 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Are there published tests for opening times?
>>> >
>>>http://books.google.com/books?id=2PopFBjLZV8C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=round+versus+ram+air+reserve+parachutes&source=web&ots=lcoZDdwV5Y&sig=poCRfMdp5K8_xF1aeaGtBjqo8EQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA235,M1
>>> > Hope the link works. Read pages 234 and 235. There is info on
>>>deployment
>>> > speed and reliability. I rest my case.
>>>
>>>Now I'm confused. I don't have notes from my March 2008 calls, but
>>>before I made my purchase, I talked to two major parachute
>>>manufacturers, one of which makes a ram reserve, and also a well known
>>>rigger. What I recall is they all encouraged me to stick with the round
>>>parachute for my glider. One reason I recall was the round emergency was
>>>more tolerant of body position during opening. These same people also
>>>made similar comments to the ones made here about the advantages of the
>>>round emergency for the untrained "jumper" (like me - I'm just a pilot).
>>>
>>>Another issue I think recall correctly, was I could find only one
>>>company supplying a ram air parachute that they claimed was suitable for
>>>the "lightly" trained pilot looking for an emergency parachute. I wasn't
>>>persuaded by what they said on their website that it's advantages were
>>>small and might not actually exceed the disadvantages.
>>>
>>>There was puzzling statement on page 235 of Poynters book:
>>>
>>>"Round canopies blow up more often, possibly 30% in normal use."
>>>
>>>This sounds incredible for certified emergency parachutes, and it makes
>>>me wonder if he is even talking about the same thing I am, where "normal
>>>use" is 20 years as a seat cushion, and very rarely, only one jump in
>>>it's entire service life. My perception is round emergency parachutes
>>>function properly with failure rates far less than 30%.
>>
>

Tuno

December 11th 08, 05:07 AM

Big John,

The long slim bag you're referring to is called a "sleeve". Iirc their
primary purpose was to prevent inversions, which have long plagued
round parachutes. (The military also uses nets around the skirts of
their parachutes to prevent this type of malfunction.)

I believe Dan Poynter's book has a better explanation.

2NO

Surfer!

December 11th 08, 07:02 AM

In message >, Don Johnstone
> writes
<snip>
>
>To say that square chutes open quicker than round is total rubbish, watch
>this
<Snip>

We had a talk from a local parachute instructor and were told that an
emergency chute is packed in a completely different way to a main jump
chute, so that it starts to fill as soon as it is out of the bag.

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

Nyal Williams[_2_]

December 11th 08, 08:15 AM

At 04:30 11 December 2008, Tuno wrote:
>Nyal -- not quite. "High speed" refers to the maximum velocity when
>opening for which the parachute was designed, not for how fast they
>open (i.e., strength, not speed).

That's what I thought I said.

So what is it that these high-speed chutes do to prevent a hideous shock
to the jumper that the low speed chutes don't do?

>There are high speed mains, high
>speed reserves; high speed rounds, well, you get the picture. The
>military T-10 is an example of a round, non-high-speed canopy.
>
>Sport reserves are high-speed, but designed for fast opening at any
>velocity, the anticipation being that a skydiver might have anything
>between a terminal velocity and a low speed deployment, which may
>happen after a canopy collision (or for canopy formation skydivers,
>the dreaded wrap).
>
>I don't know of any parachutes made today that are not "high speed"
>rated. And the square ones, yes, they open FAST.
>

Tuno

December 11th 08, 02:42 PM

Nyal, both high- and low-speed parachutes (talking emergency type
squares here) use the same kind of reefing system for deployment. It's
called a slider, a small rectangle of fabric with the chute's
suspensions lines going through a grommet in each corner. The slider
is pulled up and stowed at the top of the suspension lines when packed
(unless you're a BASE jumper). On deployment, it prevents the
parachute from opening instantly; the force of the chute opening
pushes the slider down to the riders (hence the term "slider").
Squares are so good at opening that emergency/reserve squares, which
are packed to open quickly, must have the slider.

2NO

Don Johnstone[_3_]

December 12th 08, 12:15 AM

At 02:52 11 December 2008, Tuno wrote:
>(1) Because they are not nearly as stupid as most people think --
>neither square nor round parachutes are perfect enough to gamble your
>life on.

If this answer refers to BASE jumpers, my response is, Oh yes they are.

and while we are on the subject the only way I ever want to leave a
perfectly serviceable aircraft is when it is stationary on the ground and
if the door happens to be more than a couple of feet off the ground I will
wait until they bring steps.
I do not alight from moving omnibuses or boats not tied up to land or
another boat either.
>

Gregg Ballou

December 12th 08, 02:15 AM

Yes yes everyone braver than you is an idiot and anyone less brave than you
is a coward.
>
>If this answer refers to BASE jumpers, my response is, Oh yes they are.
>
>and while we are on the subject the only way I ever want to leave a
>perfectly serviceable aircraft is when it is stationary on the ground
and
>if the door happens to be more than a couple of feet off the ground I
will
>wait until they bring steps.
>I do not alight from moving omnibuses or boats not tied up to land or
>another boat either.
>>
>

Tech Support

December 12th 08, 05:38 AM

2NO

I jumped about 10K and 150 mph in controlled flight over a snow storm
cloud bank (Greenland).

Upon return to home base I took a bottle of 'Hooch' down to the packer
of my chute, which is an old time custom, and while there I watched
them pack the same model chute I used and saw how they folded the
canopy and put in bag/sleve to assure good deployment.

Not sure what the USAF uses today but is pretty good. Am sure most
have seen the ejection of the Thunderbird pilot about 2 seconds before
the bird hit the ground and exploded and burned several years ago.

Bottom line. I had a safe chute deployment and landing with a round
chute in 1968.

Advice. Get a good chute and take care of it as your life may depend
on it.

Big John
Back to a lurker status.

**********************************************

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:07:10 -0800 (PST), Tuno >
wrote:

>Big John,
>
>The long slim bag you're referring to is called a "sleeve". Iirc their
>primary purpose was to prevent inversions, which have long plagued
>round parachutes. (The military also uses nets around the skirts of
>their parachutes to prevent this type of malfunction.)
>
>I believe Dan Poynter's book has a better explanation.
>
>2NO

JJ Sinclair

December 12th 08, 02:03 PM

> I jumped about 10K and 150 mph in controlled flight over a snow storm
> cloud bank (Greenland).

There's got to be a good story there, Big John..........tell us more!

I jumped a (round) chute sooooo close to impact that I could feel the
heat from the fireball as 8 million taxpayer dollers slammed into the
side of a hill a few miles north of Mt. Home, ID (June, 1967).
JJ

Fred Blair

December 12th 08, 02:32 PM

There has to be a story there, also JJ .............tell us more.
FB

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> I jumped about 10K and 150 mph in controlled flight over a snow storm
>> cloud bank (Greenland).
>
> There's got to be a good story there, Big John..........tell us more!
>
> I jumped a (round) chute sooooo close to impact that I could feel the
> heat from the fireball as 8 million taxpayer dollers slammed into the
> side of a hill a few miles north of Mt. Home, ID (June, 1967).
> JJ

Wayne Paul

December 12th 08, 02:57 PM

Fred,

I am sure there are stories with all of the Black Ace's chute uses, and I
bet they all involved a "round" chutes.

Wayne
-----------------------
Harold Wayne Paul
http://www.soaridaho.com/Family_Pictures/Wayne/Cat_Club.jpg (round chute)

"Fred Blair" > wrote in message
...
> There has to be a story there, also JJ .............tell us more.
> FB
>
> "JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>>> I jumped about 10K and 150 mph in controlled flight over a snow storm
>>> cloud bank (Greenland).
>>
>> There's got to be a good story there, Big John..........tell us more!
>>
>> I jumped a (round) chute sooooo close to impact that I could feel the
>> heat from the fireball as 8 million taxpayer dollers slammed into the
>> side of a hill a few miles north of Mt. Home, ID (June, 1967).
>> JJ
>
>

Fred Blair

December 12th 08, 04:17 PM

I used a round chute when I had to bail out of my Open Cirrus, it just
wasn't an $8 million dollar crash.
"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
m...
> Fred,
>
> I am sure there are stories with all of the Black Ace's chute uses, and I
> bet they all involved a "round" chutes.
>
> Wayne
> -----------------------
> Harold Wayne Paul
> http://www.soaridaho.com/Family_Pictures/Wayne/Cat_Club.jpg (round chute)
>
> "Fred Blair" > wrote in message
> ...
>> There has to be a story there, also JJ .............tell us more.
>> FB
>>
>> "JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> I jumped about 10K and 150 mph in controlled flight over a snow storm
>>>> cloud bank (Greenland).
>>>
>>> There's got to be a good story there, Big John..........tell us more!
>>>
>>> I jumped a (round) chute sooooo close to impact that I could feel the
>>> heat from the fireball as 8 million taxpayer dollers slammed into the
>>> side of a hill a few miles north of Mt. Home, ID (June, 1967).
>>> JJ
>>
>>
>
>

Eric Greenwell

December 12th 08, 07:03 PM

Fred Blair wrote:
> I used a round chute when I had to bail out of my Open Cirrus, it just
> wasn't an $8 million dollar crash.

No fireball, either.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

JJ Sinclair

December 12th 08, 09:13 PM

> There has to be a story there, also JJ .............tell us more.
> FB

Not much of a story, just a couple of Lieutenants trying to learn how
to fly the damned thing. I learned to worry more about aviating and
less about the radar. My pilot learned he shouldn't try to pull 6 G's
with the power at idle! We punched out at the last minute and
everything worked as advertised. They issued us another bird and we
finished up our recee training and got an all-expense-paid senior trip
to south east asia.
JJ

rlovinggood

December 12th 08, 09:50 PM

On Dec 12, 4:13*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> > There has to be a story there, also JJ .............tell us more.
> > FB
>
> Not much of a story, just a couple of Lieutenants trying to learn how
> to fly the damned thing. I learned to worry *more about aviating and
> less about the *radar. My pilot learned he shouldn't try to pull 6 G's
> with the power at idle! We punched out at the last minute and
> everything worked as advertised. They issued us another bird and we
> finished up our recee training and got an all-expense-paid senior trip
> to south east asia.
> JJ

JJ,

Was that in F-100, F-101, F-105, or F-4? Or something else?

And what extras were you afforded with a "senior" trip to SE Asia?

By the way, my Strong chute is a 1987 model. And, since it's a round
'chute, I'll get a-round to sending it to Strong in late winter ...

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

Tech Support

December 12th 08, 11:09 PM

JJ

I had a flight of T-33's just out of overhaul, being ferried to
Iceland to replace old ones. TAC Ferry Command launched us out of
Goose Bay (VFR) and Sondy (Sondrestrom) went IFR after we passed
point of no return. Held over an hour to let two flights of F-5's
land.

When we started approach (minimum fuel) GCA lost radio and I went to
Guard.. They vectored us around for a new approach and forgot we were
on Guard and let us overshoot final and sent us around with 12 gallons
of fuel. Climbed to over 10K to be sure would clear Ice Pack and
punched on a heading of east to be sure were over land. No survival if
we had landed in water. When I hit the frozen ground and rocks all I
could see momentarily was red due to impact. With winter and survial
gear probaly grossed out between 225-250 lbs. Was picked up by a
Danish Chopper and when we landed back at Sondy it went dark walking
to ambulance.

Lots of little things more but not enough time, without writing a
book, to cover them and might not be of interest to the gravity
powered pilots.

Three airplanes and valued about $55K each due to deprecation. All
four pilots walked using round chutes :o)

Aircraft discussion way off this soaring news group but talking chutes
probably ok.

Big John
************************************************
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:03:28 -0800 (PST), JJ Sinclair
> wrote:

>
>
>> I jumped about 10K and 150 mph in controlled flight over a snow storm
>> cloud bank (Greenland).
>
>There's got to be a good story there, Big John..........tell us more!
>
>I jumped a (round) chute sooooo close to impact that I could feel the
>heat from the fireball as 8 million taxpayer dollers slammed into the
>side of a hill a few miles north of Mt. Home, ID (June, 1967).
>JJ