Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Whats missing?

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Electronaut  (C 38872)

Jul 24, 2012, 7:04 PM
Post #51 of 100 (1839 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Both are violations of the rig manufacturer TSO.

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.


pms07  (D 7571)

Jul 24, 2012, 7:29 PM
Post #52 of 100 (1832 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
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.


theonlyski  (D License)

Jul 24, 2012, 8:00 PM
Post #53 of 100 (1824 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Both are violations of FARs.
Both are violations of the rig manufacturer TSO.

How so? What CFR states that you can't have your handles covered by clothing?


smoothflyin  (D 32423)

Jul 24, 2012, 8:24 PM
Post #54 of 100 (1814 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

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.


MakeItHappen

Jul 25, 2012, 8:03 AM
Post #55 of 100 (1745 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pms07] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

[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.

.


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Jul 25, 2012, 9:49 AM
Post #56 of 100 (1722 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

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.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Jul 25, 2012, 10:11 AM
Post #57 of 100 (1710 views)
Shortcut
Re: [smoothflyin] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
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.


Southern_Man  (C License)

Jul 25, 2012, 10:22 AM
Post #58 of 100 (1707 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
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.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jul 25, 2012, 11:24 AM
Post #59 of 100 (1688 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Southern_Man] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

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


Southern_Man  (C License)

Jul 25, 2012, 11:33 AM
Post #60 of 100 (1685 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
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.


theonlyski  (D License)

Jul 25, 2012, 11:40 AM
Post #61 of 100 (1681 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
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)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jul 25, 2012, 11:59 AM
Post #62 of 100 (1668 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The suit was designed for BASE, not for skydiving. No need for handles on a BASE rig.

Thanks that never occurred to me....duh.

Sparky






chuckakers  (D 10855)

Jul 25, 2012, 1:50 PM
Post #65 of 100 (1615 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
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.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Jul 25, 2012, 1:51 PM
Post #66 of 100 (1615 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
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.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 25, 2012, 2:04 PM
Post #67 of 100 (1608 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

>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.


Southern_Man  (C License)

Jul 25, 2012, 2:11 PM
Post #68 of 100 (1602 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
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?


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Jul 25, 2012, 2:28 PM
Post #69 of 100 (1595 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>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".


Arvoitus  (D 3917)

Jul 25, 2012, 2:53 PM
Post #70 of 100 (1585 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
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.


pms07  (D 7571)

Jul 25, 2012, 4:56 PM
Post #71 of 100 (1554 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?

Lack of good judgement?


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jul 25, 2012, 5:09 PM
Post #72 of 100 (1548 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Southern_Man] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
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.


Southern_Man  (C License)

Jul 25, 2012, 6:50 PM
Post #73 of 100 (1532 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
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.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jul 25, 2012, 10:31 PM
Post #74 of 100 (1512 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
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.


piisfish

Jul 26, 2012, 1:01 AM
Post #75 of 100 (1501 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pms07] Whats missing? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?

Lack of good judgement?
reducing the drag to compensate for the extra Go-pro's Laugh


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)