There are some DZ's that allow jumpers to have non-accessible reserve and cutaway handles. Unzip the zipper and reach in there. As one DZO commented "It's less of a challenge than flipping open a pair of Capewells."
There are some DZ's that allow jumpers to have non-accessible reserve and cutaway handles. Unzip the zipper and reach in there. As one DZO commented "It's less of a challenge than flipping open a pair of Capewells."
Seems a bit risky, since we have seen some pretty high speed mals that made it difficult to reach handles.
There are some DZ's that allow jumpers to have non-accessible reserve and cutaway handles. Unzip the zipper and reach in there. As one DZO commented "It's less of a challenge than flipping open a pair of Capewells."
There are some DZ's that allow jumpers to have non-accessible reserve and cutaway handles. Unzip the zipper and reach in there. As one DZO commented "It's less of a challenge than flipping open a pair of Capewells."
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard (and it apparently never occurred to that DZO that there's a reason we don't jump capewells any more).
It may be easy to unzip a jumpsuit under routine conditions, but it may be very difficult or even impossible under a malfunction that might be flinging the jumper around like a rag doll or one that is spinning so rapidly that it's tough to even reach up with an arm.
Beyond that, cutaway and reserve handles are EMERGENCY handles. The vast majority of the time, they are needed at the worst possible moment - the bottom of the skydive when the jumper is under the greatest amount of stress and has the least amount of time to take action.
It makes ZERO sense to intentionally create a condition under which those handles are more difficult or time-consuming to use.
There are some DZ's that allow jumpers to have non-accessible reserve and cutaway handles. Unzip the zipper and reach in there. As one DZO commented "It's less of a challenge than flipping open a pair of Capewells."
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard (and it apparently never occurred to that DZO that there's a reason we don't jump capewells any more).
It may be easy to unzip a jumpsuit under routine conditions, but it may be very difficult or even impossible under a malfunction that might be flinging the jumper around like a rag doll or one that is spinning so rapidly that it's tough to even reach up with an arm.
Beyond that, cutaway and reserve handles are EMERGENCY handles. The vast majority of the time, they are needed at the worst possible moment - the bottom of the skydive when the jumper is under the greatest amount of stress and has the least amount of time to take action.
It makes ZERO sense to intentionally create a condition under which those handles are more difficult or time-consuming to use.
well in this particular case the wingsuit will probably only be jumped by the pilot testing it out before it is brought into a base environment...the 'lifespan' of the suit will be shortlived as a skydiving suit (there are MUCH better options for flocking than apache haha!).
i suppose there's something to be said for not hacking up your suit to have easy access to handles if it will never be flown out of a plane again after that month?
well in this particular case the wingsuit will probably only be jumped by the pilot testing it out before it is brought into a base environment...the 'lifespan' of the suit will be shortlived as a skydiving suit (there are MUCH better options for flocking than apache haha!).
i suppose there's something to be said for not hacking up your suit to have easy access to handles if it will never be flown out of a plane again after that month?
Your logic sounds remarkably like that of the teenagers who think they can't possibly get pregnant because they only had sex one time.
well in this particular case the wingsuit will probably only be jumped by the pilot testing it out before it is brought into a base environment...the 'lifespan' of the suit will be shortlived as a skydiving suit (there are MUCH better options for flocking than apache haha!).
i suppose there's something to be said for not hacking up your suit to have easy access to handles if it will never be flown out of a plane again after that month?
Your logic sounds remarkably like that of the teenagers who think they can't possibly get pregnant because they only had sex one time.
Its pretty accepted in risk theory that exposure time to risk is a relevant factor to consider when making decisions.
Would you, using your example, say a teenager that engages in sexual intercourse one time carries as much risk as a teenager that engages in sexual intercourse ten times?
Of course you can go in without being able to get your handle in time on the FIRST JUMP you do with the reserve under your zipper. But pointing that out is just being pedantic
(This post was edited by 5.samadhi on Jul 22, 2012, 4:12 PM)
"Why would you want your hobby to be a ticking time bomb (sooner or later kind of thing)."
Are you going to heed your own advise or not. It makes absolutely no sense on any jump. Fine it is one of the names in the sport, but what kind of example is that setting to those who are up and coming?
"Why would you want your hobby to be a ticking time bomb (sooner or later kind of thing)."
Are you going to heed your own advise or not. It makes absolutely no sense on any jump. Fine it is one of the names in the sport, but what kind of example is that setting to those who are up and coming?
whatcha talkin bout willis???
I am just disagreeing with NWflyer and pointing out her lack of reasonable thinking because it is so fun to disagree with somebody who will no matter what you say disagree with you.
I am just disagreeing with NWflyer and pointing out her lack of reasonable thinking because it is so fun to disagree with somebody who will no matter what you say disagree with you.
nu uh!
As for your argument, it only takes once for that main to not open properly and it could very likely be a death sentence.
(This post was edited by theonlyski on Jul 22, 2012, 8:05 PM)
It is sorta funny that the Tony website says that the Apache is to be a base wingsuit only, they don't recommend modifications to allow access to a normal rig's handles, but their website shows pics of it with a Mirage skydiving rig.
"Why would you want your hobby to be a ticking time bomb (sooner or later kind of thing)."
Are you going to heed your own advise or not. It makes absolutely no sense on any jump. Fine it is one of the names in the sport, but what kind of example is that setting to those who are up and coming?
whatcha talkin bout willis???
I am just disagreeing with NWflyer and pointing out her lack of reasonable thinking because it is so fun to disagree with somebody who will no matter what you say disagree with you.
Not sure I'd call a different approach to "risk analysis" a lack of reasonable thinking. Could just be that I don't have mad skillz and prefer to treat every skydive as the one that might kill or maim me.
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Jul 22, 2012, 8:21 PM
Post #24 of 100
(3854 views)
Shortcut
There are some DZ's that allow jumpers to have non-accessible reserve and cutaway handles. Unzip the zipper and reach in there. As one DZO commented "It's less of a challenge than flipping open a pair of Capewells."
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard (and it apparently never occurred to that DZO that there's a reason we don't jump capewells any more).
It may be easy to unzip a jumpsuit under routine conditions, but it may be very difficult or even impossible under a malfunction that might be flinging the jumper around like a rag doll or one that is spinning so rapidly that it's tough to even reach up with an arm.
Beyond that, cutaway and reserve handles are EMERGENCY handles. The vast majority of the time, they are needed at the worst possible moment - the bottom of the skydive when the jumper is under the greatest amount of stress and has the least amount of time to take action.
It makes ZERO sense to intentionally create a condition under which those handles are more difficult or time-consuming to use.
There are some DZ's that allow jumpers to have non-accessible reserve and cutaway handles. Unzip the zipper and reach in there. As one DZO commented "It's less of a challenge than flipping open a pair of Capewells."
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard (and it apparently never occurred to that DZO that there's a reason we don't jump capewells any more).
It may be easy to unzip a jumpsuit under routine conditions, but it may be very difficult or even impossible under a malfunction that might be flinging the jumper around like a rag doll or one that is spinning so rapidly that it's tough to even reach up with an arm.
Beyond that, cutaway and reserve handles are EMERGENCY handles. The vast majority of the time, they are needed at the worst possible moment - the bottom of the skydive when the jumper is under the greatest amount of stress and has the least amount of time to take action.
It makes ZERO sense to intentionally create a condition under which those handles are more difficult or time-consuming to use.
I don't know, but is that guy behind him in the plane holding a machine gun?
Skydive Perris does a lot of training for the military. The guy in the background is one of those people. The training includes jumping with all the equipment that will be needed when doing a real military jump.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 23, 2012, 10:39 AM
Post #27 of 100
(1522 views)
Shortcut
>Its pretty accepted in risk theory that exposure time to risk is a relevant factor to >consider when making decisions.
True. Come to think of it, we could take the reserves out of the rigs we use for first time jumpers. Lower exposure time = less risk, and let's face it, those mains are pretty reliable. (And wouldn't it be nice to not have to teach, or worry about, a main/reserve entanglement?)
If they continue in the sport, we could give em a rig with a reserve, since the odds of them having a mal go up.
"Why would you want your hobby to be a ticking time bomb (sooner or later kind of thing)."
Are you going to heed your own advise or not. It makes absolutely no sense on any jump. Fine it is one of the names in the sport, but what kind of example is that setting to those who are up and coming?
whatcha talkin bout willis???
I am just disagreeing with NWflyer and pointing out her lack of reasonable thinking because it is so fun to disagree with somebody who will no matter what you say disagree with you.
If you are going to go against NWflyer on "reasonable thinking" I'll take NWflyer and give you 10 points.
"Why would you want your hobby to be a ticking time bomb (sooner or later kind of thing)."
Are you going to heed your own advise or not. It makes absolutely no sense on any jump. Fine it is one of the names in the sport, but what kind of example is that setting to those who are up and coming?
whatcha talkin bout willis???
I am just disagreeing with NWflyer and pointing out her lack of reasonable thinking because it is so fun to disagree with somebody who will no matter what you say disagree with you.
If you are going to go against NWflyer on "reasonable thinking" I'll take NWflyer and give you 10 points.
"Why would you want your hobby to be a ticking time bomb (sooner or later kind of thing)."
Are you going to heed your own advise or not. It makes absolutely no sense on any jump. Fine it is one of the names in the sport, but what kind of example is that setting to those who are up and coming?
whatcha talkin bout willis???
I am just disagreeing with NWflyer and pointing out her lack of reasonable thinking because it is so fun to disagree with somebody who will no matter what you say disagree with you.
If you are going to go against NWflyer on "reasonable thinking" I'll take NWflyer and give you 10 points.
"Why would you want your hobby to be a ticking time bomb (sooner or later kind of thing)."
Are you going to heed your own advise or not. It makes absolutely no sense on any jump. Fine it is one of the names in the sport, but what kind of example is that setting to those who are up and coming?
whatcha talkin bout willis???
I am just disagreeing with NWflyer and pointing out her lack of reasonable thinking because it is so fun to disagree with somebody who will no matter what you say disagree with you.
If you are going to go against NWflyer on "reasonable thinking" I'll take NWflyer and give you 10 points.
And? This is the original factory mod to the suit, and how the handles worked in that mod. Perhaps doing away with access altogether is the thought in the instance shown in the OP's question.
This is the original factory mod to the suit, and how the handles worked in that mod. Perhaps doing away with access altogether is the thought in the instance shown in the OP's question. Just curious, not a wingsuiter or anything. How hard would it be to get to the handles under the zippers (unzip the wing)?
What effect would this have on the wing in flight?
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Jul 23, 2012, 12:08 PM
Post #35 of 100
(1455 views)
Shortcut
Imagine yourself spinning violently after a problematic deployment. Maybe you're even a bad-ass and you've taken it to 2K before deploying. Rather than gripping a handle that you're familiar with, you have to find the zipper tab and pull it fairly well down, then reach inside a potentially tensioned suit with a definitely pressurized wing, and find a cutaway handle. Maybe you have an RSL or Skyhook, maybe you don't. Without those, you're going to need to unzip the other zipper too, and gain access to the reserve ripcord. All while experiencing an increase in rotational speed. It has worked in the past.
Imagine yourself spinning violently after a problematic deployment. Maybe you're even a bad-ass and you've taken it to 2K before deploying. Rather than gripping a handle that you're familiar with, you have to find the zipper tab and pull it fairly well down, then reach inside a potentially tensioned suit with a definitely pressurized wing, and find a cutaway handle. Maybe you have an RSL or Skyhook, maybe you don't. Without those, you're going to need to unzip the other zipper too, and gain access to the reserve ripcord. All while experiencing an increase in rotational speed. It has worked in the past.
knowing how skydivers and basejumpers use and cross use their gear - especially the expensive bits.....I'm a bit surprised that a wing suit is offered that would have no access in the design. A warning label on usage does not equal safety, only very thin legal coverage.
Tell you what though. I'll leave that question to the wingsuiters and the builders. It's not my area.
(This post was edited by rehmwa on Jul 23, 2012, 12:32 PM)
This is the original factory mod to the suit, and how the handles worked in that mod. Perhaps doing away with access altogether is the thought in the instance shown in the OP's question. Or perhaps the designer should re-think the mod entirely. Fixing a bad design with a bad idea is...well...bad.
In addtion to the things already mentioned, there is some gun safety missing - that gun barrel held by the guy on the left is pointed right at the head of the guy on the right. Doh!
This is the original factory mod to the suit, and how the handles worked in that mod. Perhaps doing away with access altogether is the thought in the instance shown in the OP's question.
Or perhaps the designer should re-think the mod entirely. Fixing a bad design with a bad idea is...well...bad.
With the tests done by DSE out in Socal, it seems that the safest option on this suit may be to not have the factory mod installed if using it for skydiving. The pull forces that were measured in those tests would more than likely require the mod handles to be abandoned and the suit to be unzipped anyway so that the normal handles could be pulled. If you are going to have to unzip it anyway, may as well get rid of the extra material and rapide links that would be in the way.
Not saying it is a good idea to jump the suit with skydiving gear (at least until an acceptable solution is in place) but if you are going to jump it, this would almost seem like the safer option...What do you think DSE?
This is the original factory mod to the suit, and how the handles worked in that mod. Perhaps doing away with access altogether is the thought in the instance shown in the OP's question.
Or perhaps the designer should re-think the mod entirely. Fixing a bad design with a bad idea is...well...bad.
With the tests done by DSE out in Socal, it seems that the safest option on this suit may be to not have the factory mod installed if using it for skydiving. The pull forces that were measured in those tests would more than likely require the mod handles to be abandoned and the suit to be unzipped anyway so that the normal handles could be pulled. If you are going to have to unzip it anyway, may as well get rid of the extra material and rapide links that would be in the way.
Not saying it is a good idea to jump the suit with skydiving gear (at least until an acceptable solution is in place) but if you are going to jump it, this would almost seem like the safer option...What do you think DSE? Actually the safest option would be to only jump suits that work properly for the application.
The safest option would be to not screw with the manufacturer's TSO by hiding the handles. TSO is there for a reason, and will be one of the first things looked at by the FAA. Read pages 12/13 of AD105-2D
FAA: Where are the cutaway and reserve handles installed by the manufacturer? DZO: This is a special circumstance where we allow people to use a system that doesn't permit access to handles in a standard method. FAA: Uhh, why?
The safest option would be to not screw with the manufacturer's TSO by hiding the handles.
Yes....I agree...
But.........
Let's assume (just for the sake of discussion) for a moment that people are going to fly these suits with skydiving gear, would this not be safer than having the modded handles?
(edited to sound less "snarky")
(This post was edited by smoothflyin on Jul 24, 2012, 9:45 AM)
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Jul 24, 2012, 11:01 AM
Post #49 of 100
(1103 views)
Shortcut
The safest option would be to not screw with the manufacturer's TSO by hiding the handles.
Yes....I agree...
But.........
Let's assume (just for the sake of discussion) for a moment that people are going to fly these suits with skydiving gear, would this not be safer than having the modded handles?
(edited to sound less "snarky")
Using a system where one has to unzip the suit under stressful conditions, or using a loop that may or may not deploy if it's not pulled at the correct angle? I can't judge one better than the other if that's the answer you're pushing for.
Both are violations of FARs. Both are violations of the rig manufacturer TSO. Both are significantly greater risk for the jumper. Both could cause insurance companies to say "Sorry, not in legal compliance," therefore they won't pay out. Both open up the DZ and WS manufacturer to greater exposure in a lawsuit. The manufacturer is well aware of the problem with the loops, and has issued a statement telling people to not use them. Allowing either system to exit an aircraft demonstrates poor decision-making on the part of an S&TA or DZO, in my opinion.
There are handle mods for this one particular wingsuit that are in compliance with manufacturer TSO; they're just not "cool" looking, even if they are perfectly functional.
I can see that you don't like the situation, and there are plenty of reasons for that, but why would it technically be a violation of any TSO? Wouldn't it be the same if I jumped with my handles duct taped to my rig? Nothing to do with the rig TSO, just not very smart?
Maybe an FAA violation if one argued that in functional terms, I was no longer jumping a 2-canopy rig (but I'd have to check the wording to be sure)?
I can see that you don't like the situation, and there are plenty of reasons for that, but why would it technically be a violation of any TSO? Wouldn't it be the same if I jumped with my handles duct taped to my rig? Nothing to do with the rig TSO, just not very smart?
Maybe an FAA violation if one argued that in functional terms, I was no longer jumping a 2-canopy rig (but I'd have to check the wording to be sure)?
The pilot is ultimately responsible for letting you enter and exit the aircraft in their command and one those responsibilities is that those intending to jump have rigs that are in compliance.
There are some DZ's that allow jumpers to have non-accessible reserve and cutaway handles. Unzip the zipper and reach in there. As one DZO commented "It's less of a challenge than flipping open a pair of Capewells."
That DZO comment seems absurd to me and I've done multiple actual cutaways with capewells; I say BS. I also think choosing to jump with handles under the wingsuit is a really bad idea...for fairly obvious reasons...
Curious though, can someone explain how that would violate the TSO of the rig being worn? I don't get that part of the discussion.
Using a system where one has to unzip the suit under stressful conditions, or using a loop that may or may not deploy if it's not pulled at the correct angle?
Thanks for the response Douglas....I think based on your tests we can safely assume that regardless of the angle, unless the suit is unzipped, the reserve handle is not able to be pulled using anything close to normal pull forces. In fact, it appeared that in order for the handle to actually travel far enough to pull the pin, that it would have actually had to come through the fabric of the wingsuit.
I don't know about you, but im not sure that I could get anywhere near 50+ lbs of pull force in any direction on those loops.....Seems to me like either you are sitting there trying to yank the reserve handle through the fabric, or you unzip the suit and pull them.
Not meaning to be an ass, that is just the way that it appeared to me in your tests. Feel free to point me in the right direction if I am missing something.
[reply Curious though, can someone explain how that would violate the TSO of the rig being worn? I don't get that part of the discussion. I don't see it as a TSO violation either. You can go look at that recent SL military re-enactment jump and say that they had their cutaway mechanisms hidden too.
I don't care how many jumps you have or what kind of MadSkills you have, jumping with your emergency handle hidden away because of accessory equipment is just plain stupid.
.
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Jul 25, 2012, 9:49 AM
Post #56 of 100
(1056 views)
Shortcut
My understanding (possibly a misunderstanding) after speaking with several PIA manufacturers, is anything that hinders or modifies the container and release systems from "manufacturer-defined means of operation" is a violation of the TSO. Perhaps Bill Booth or John Sherman can kick in on this one. There are manufacturers who specifically said they could not be held responsible in the event of one of these systems failing; it is a use of their equipment in a method other than as designed.
The safest option would be to not screw with the manufacturer's TSO by hiding the handles.
Yes....I agree...
But.........
Let's assume (just for the sake of discussion) for a moment that people are going to fly these suits with skydiving gear, would this not be safer than having the modded handles?
(edited to sound less "snarky")
You keep using the word "safer". If option 1 is not safe and option 2 is also not safe, there is no "safer" option.
You know, if this discussion was in the "incidents" forum people would be calling the jumper an idiot for jumping using either option.
My understanding (possibly a misunderstanding) after speaking with several PIA manufacturers, is anything that hinders or modifies the container and release systems from "manufacturer-defined means of operation" is a violation of the TSO. Perhaps Bill Booth or John Sherman can kick in on this one. There are manufacturers who specifically said they could not be held responsible in the event of one of these systems failing; it is a use of their equipment in a method other than as designed.
This does not make sense to me. The TSO certifies the equipment. Anything that modifies the equipment could certainly violate the TSO. The two parts of the TSO cover performance standards of the system and production approval.
Maybe it is a semantic argument but I don't see "proper use" as covered by the TSO.
I think Douglas may be referring to this. AC 105-2D
13. PARACHUTE EQUIPMENT RULES.
h. Extra Equipment. The FAA does not consider the attachment of an instrument panel, knife sheath, or other material to the exterior of the parachute assembly an alteration. If attaching any extra equipment, take care not to impair the functional design of the system. While it may not technically be a violation of a TSO the FAA will take a dim view of the practice. Plus it is just plain stupid to put yourself in that position.
Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?
I think Douglas may be referring to this. AC 105-2D
13. PARACHUTE EQUIPMENT RULES.
h. Extra Equipment. The FAA does not consider the attachment of an instrument panel, knife sheath, or other material to the exterior of the parachute assembly an alteration. If attaching any extra equipment, take care not to impair the functional design of the system. While it may not technically be a violation of a TSO the FAA will take a dim view of the practice. Plus it is just plain stupid to put yourself in that position.
Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?
Sparky
Thanks for the reference, Sparky. I agree that it is a stupid practice.
I think Douglas may be referring to this. AC 105-2D
13. PARACHUTE EQUIPMENT RULES.
h. Extra Equipment. The FAA does not consider the attachment of an instrument panel, knife sheath, or other material to the exterior of the parachute assembly an alteration. If attaching any extra equipment, take care not to impair the functional design of the system. While it may not technically be a violation of a TSO the FAA will take a dim view of the practice. Plus it is just plain stupid to put yourself in that position.
Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?
Sparky
The suit was designed for BASE, not for skydiving. No need for handles on a BASE rig.
It's pretty stupid to do but there's always 'that guy'.
(This post was edited by theonlyski on Jul 25, 2012, 11:42 AM)
I think Douglas may be referring to this. AC 105-2D
13. PARACHUTE EQUIPMENT RULES.
h. Extra Equipment. The FAA does not consider the attachment of an instrument panel, knife sheath, or other material to the exterior of the parachute assembly an alteration. If attaching any extra equipment, take care not to impair the functional design of the system. While it may not technically be a violation of a TSO the FAA will take a dim view of the practice. Plus it is just plain stupid to put yourself in that position.
Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?
Sparky
The mod being discussed goes well beyond "attaching" something to the "exterior of the parachute assembly". It fundamentally changes the operation of the emergency handles, which sounds like a "functional design alteration" to me.
I think Douglas may be referring to this. AC 105-2D
13. PARACHUTE EQUIPMENT RULES.
h. Extra Equipment. The FAA does not consider the attachment of an instrument panel, knife sheath, or other material to the exterior of the parachute assembly an alteration. If attaching any extra equipment, take care not to impair the functional design of the system. While it may not technically be a violation of a TSO the FAA will take a dim view of the practice. Plus it is just plain stupid to put yourself in that position.
Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?
Sparky
The suit was designed for BASE, not for skydiving. No need for handles on a BASE rig.
It's pretty stupid to do but there's always 'that guy'.
Angling for a Darwin award no doubt. If he bounced, would the pilot not cop some flak for allowing someone on the plane with modified gear, who is not carrying out a test jump.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 25, 2012, 2:04 PM
Post #67 of 100
(942 views)
Shortcut
>You keep using the word "safer". If option 1 is not safe and option 2 is also not safe, >there is no "safer" option.
I think there is, but you can have a safer option even if neither one is safe. (i.e. it's safer for the pilot to drink only 8 beers instead of 10 before flying; but still neither is OK.)
I think it's an important distinction to make because there WAS a way to do this that was safe enough; they just didn't choose that method of doing it. It was not "safe" but to most skydivers it was safe enough.
The mod being discussed goes well beyond "attaching" something to the "exterior of the parachute assembly". It fundamentally changes the operation of the emergency handles, which sounds like a "functional design alteration" to me.
My understanding (which could well be wrong) is that the wingsuit covers the hangles. It is not attached to them at all and doesn't fundamentally alter the original piece of TSO'ed equipment. It does prevent its intended operation and is stupid, but since it does not alter the original eqiupment, I still fail to see how it could void the TSO?
>You keep using the word "safer". If option 1 is not safe and option 2 is also not safe, >there is no "safer" option.
I think there is, but you can have a safer option even if neither one is safe. (i.e. it's safer for the pilot to drink only 8 beers instead of 10 before flying; but still neither is OK.)
I think it's an important distinction to make because there WAS a way to do this that was safe enough; they just didn't choose that method of doing it. It was not "safe" but to most skydivers it was safe enough.
Guess it depends on what you consider "safe enough".
I think Douglas may be referring to this. AC 105-2D
13. PARACHUTE EQUIPMENT RULES.
h. Extra Equipment. The FAA does not consider the attachment of an instrument panel, knife sheath, or other material to the exterior of the parachute assembly an alteration. If attaching any extra equipment, take care not to impair the functional design of the system. While it may not technically be a violation of a TSO the FAA will take a dim view of the practice. Plus it is just plain stupid to put yourself in that position.
Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?
Sparky
The suit was designed for BASE, not for skydiving. No need for handles on a BASE rig.
It's pretty stupid to do but there's always 'that guy'.
Angling for a Darwin award no doubt. If he bounced, would the pilot not cop some flak for allowing someone on the plane with modified gear, who is not carrying out a test jump.
Modified how? He made the use of his skyrig harder then the manufacturer intended but as far as I can tell there is no modification to the skyrig.
My understanding (which could well be wrong) is that the wingsuit covers the hangles. It is not attached to them at all and doesn't fundamentally alter the original piece of TSO'ed equipment
That's not what it looks like to me. Watch DSE's demo video, and you'll see that there are loop handles mounted to the outside of the suit with a lanyard that threads through the zipper pocket and then attaches to the cutaway or reserve ripcord cable with a rapide link.
The idea is that pulling the loop handle will in-turn pull on the cutaway/ripcord cable, and enact the cutaway and reserve ripcord pull. In my opinion, that alters the operation of the rig.
The design of the rig provides for the jumper being able to remove the handles from the MLW, and pull with leverage in the opposite direction of the cables allowing for the easiet possible extraction.
Consider a rig where the reserve activation involved pulling a soft loop attached to a cable, and the only direciton of force you could apply would be perpendicular to the direction of the cable, forcing the jumper to pull the cable sideways to enact a reserve deployment. Do you think such a design would pass a TSO test?
The video clearly shows pull forces in excess of 50lbs, which is way over the standard currently used in skydiving. The suit alters the basic function of the rig such that it's well outside the standard. and no longer functional.
My understanding (which could well be wrong) is that the wingsuit covers the hangles. It is not attached to them at all and doesn't fundamentally alter the original piece of TSO'ed equipment
That's not what it looks like to me. Watch DSE's demo video, and you'll see that there are loop handles mounted to the outside of the suit with a lanyard that threads through the zipper pocket and then attaches to the cutaway or reserve ripcord cable with a rapide link.
The idea is that pulling the loop handle will in-turn pull on the cutaway/ripcord cable, and enact the cutaway and reserve ripcord pull. In my opinion, that alters the operation of the rig.
The design of the rig provides for the jumper being able to remove the handles from the MLW, and pull with leverage in the opposite direction of the cables allowing for the easiet possible extraction.
Consider a rig where the reserve activation involved pulling a soft loop attached to a cable, and the only direciton of force you could apply would be perpendicular to the direction of the cable, forcing the jumper to pull the cable sideways to enact a reserve deployment. Do you think such a design would pass a TSO test?
The video clearly shows pull forces in excess of 50lbs, which is way over the standard currently used in skydiving. The suit alters the basic function of the rig such that it's well outside the standard. and no longer functional.
I was not talking about the mod with the loop handles. That i would much more readily concede could be interpreted as a modification to the rig (although even that could be debatable). I was talking about the video in the original post, where the handles are zippered up inside of the suit. Doesn't alter the rig in any way, as far as I can see. That, to me, may be stupid but I don't think it changes the TSO on the rig.
Consider a rig where the reserve activation involved pulling a soft loop attached to a cable, and the only direciton of force you could apply would be perpendicular to the direction of the cable, forcing the jumper to pull the cable sideways to enact a reserve deployment. Do you think such a design would pass a TSO test?
That is exactly what is required to pass TSO performance tests but it can't exceed 22 lbf.
Sparky SAE AS8015 Revision B
4.3.2.4 Primary Actuation Device/Ripcord, Actuation Force Tests: A load at the ripcord handle, or equivalent, of not less than 5 lbf (22.2 N), applied in the direction giving the lowest pull force, nor more than 22 lbf (97.9 N), applied in the direction giving the highest pull force under normal design operations, shall result in a positive and quick deployment initiation on all tests. A minimum of 10 pull tests is required. For chest type parachute assemblies, the maximum pull force shall be 15 lbf (66.7 N).
4.3.2.5 Main Canopy Release, Actuation Force Tests: While in a suspended harness (with additional ballast as required to equal twice the maximum operating weight), a force at the main canopy release handle, or equivalent (if used), of not less than 5 lbf (22.2 N) (applied in the direction requiring the least force), nor more than 22 lbf (97.9 N) (applied in the direction requiring the greatest force under normal design operations), shall result in a positive and quick release of the main canopy on all tests. A minimum of 12 pull tests is required.
This is the original factory mod to the suit, and how the handles worked in that mod. Perhaps doing away with access altogether is the thought in the instance shown in the OP's question.
Or perhaps the designer should re-think the mod entirely. Fixing a bad design with a bad idea is...well...bad. Watch the video, it's showing that the reserve handle mod it is a death trap. A fine example of a "great" idea that just doesn't work and could kill someone.
Beyond this it seems to me like it is modifying TSO'd gear and a great illustration of why this it is illegal for unqualified idiots to do so.
Thank goodness zippers never fail either. I mean, once you find and grab the zipper tab your handle is hidden behind you can trust your life 100% to a zipper opening in a fraction of a second in 120 mph wind with fabric flapping away. Nobody has ever had a zipper jam on them!
AMAZING! Some people are determined to find ways to kill themselves.
Thank goodness zippers never fail either. I mean, once you find and grab the zipper tab your handle is hidden behind you can trust your life 100% to a zipper opening in a fraction of a second in 120 mph wind with fabric flapping away. Nobody has ever had a zipper jam on them!
Do you want to bet your life on that? I have seen jumpsuit zippers jam on several occasions.
Dorbie would never, ever, in a million billion years use sarcasm to make a point. But I just did. As he did. So yes, dorbie is saying the same thing as you, that zippers fail.
(This post was edited by pchapman on Sep 25, 2012, 8:46 PM)
Dorbie would never, ever, in a million billion years use sarcasm to make a point. But I just did. As he did. So yes, dorbie is saying the same thing as you, that zippers fail.
I realized that after I hit the post key. When you have to much of the Goose things appear different. Sorry.
Looks like the guy behind him is holding a dummy M4 Rifle. Pointed right at the other guys face LOL. Regardless of if it's fake or real with no magazine...not supposed to point it at peoples faces Thats how that soldier with the hiccups got shot in the face. His buddy being stupid.
Thank goodness zippers never fail either. I mean, once you find and grab the zipper tab your handle is hidden behind you can trust your life 100% to a zipper opening in a fraction of a second in 120 mph wind with fabric flapping away. Nobody has ever had a zipper jam on them!
Do you want to bet your life on that? I have seen jumpsuit zippers jam on several occasions.
Thank goodness zippers never fail either. I mean, once you find and grab the zipper tab your handle is hidden behind you can trust your life 100% to a zipper opening in a fraction of a second in 120 mph wind with fabric flapping away. Nobody has ever had a zipper jam on them!
Do you want to bet your life on that? I have seen jumpsuit zippers jam on several occasions.
It's all about the marketing necessity of wringing the last hypothetical ounce of performance out of a design. Enclosing as much of the harness as you can reduces drag, but at what cost? Well, you can no longer access you cutaway and reserve handles in an emergency. Not a consideration for a base rig, but bad news for a standard rig. Maybe that suit shouldn't be used out of an airplane with a standard rig.
I would never bet my life on a zipper working quickly.
1.jpg
Thats how that soldier with the hiccups got shot in the face. His buddy being stupid. 
