Parachute 20 year limit

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

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

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=2Po...sult#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

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=2Po...sult#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%.

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

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=2Po...sult#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

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=2Po...sult#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%.

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

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=2Po...sult#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

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