Forums: Skydiving: Incidents:
Two canopy out - Multiple locations

 

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

Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Jan 28, 2013, 6:50 AM
Post #1 of 52 (4256 views)
Shortcut
Two canopy out - Multiple locations Can't Post

Its been floating around Facebook for a little while so it might as well be brought up here that in the last 2 months there have been multiple reported instances of two canopy out situations arising from complications with Apache Wingsuits. The issue has been documented at least once on video that due to the placement of the handles now being inside the rig and needing modification to reach the handles at deployment this can result in an accidental pull of the reserve handle just at deployment. In one instance the canopies entered a downplane close to the ground.

This Apache suit style was originally designed for the BASE environment where there are no handles to pull and was later modified to try and get it to work in the skydiving environment. There were previous issues that a modification that was proposed to allow this suit to be used for skydiving had increased the pull force on the reserve handles to a level above TSO certification levels.

At least one West Coast DZ has now put out a ban on that particular style of wingsuit due to the issues that have been identified with it, all other wingsuits seem st still be allowed at this time at that DZ.


Tony-tonysuits  (D 1460)

Jan 28, 2013, 10:03 AM
Post #2 of 52 (3994 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, its the tie being above the chest strap is the problem, the tie has the below the chest strap so as the chest strap goes up on opening the suit stays with it,


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Jan 28, 2013, 12:30 PM
Post #3 of 52 (3791 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Its been floating around Facebook for a little while so it might as well be brought up here that in the last 2 months there have been multiple reported instances of two canopy out situations arising from complications with Apache Wingsuits. The issue has been documented at least once on video that due to the placement of the handles now being inside the rig and needing modification to reach the handles at deployment this can result in an accidental pull of the reserve handle just at deployment. In one instance the canopies entered a downplane close to the ground.

This Apache suit style was originally designed for the BASE environment where there are no handles to pull and was later modified to try and get it to work in the skydiving environment. There were previous issues that a modification that was proposed to allow this suit to be used for skydiving had increased the pull force on the reserve handles to a level above TSO certification levels.

At least one West Coast DZ has now put out a ban on that particular style of wingsuit due to the issues that have been identified with it, all other wingsuits seem st still be allowed at this time at that DZ.


The referenced online videos:

Two-out/Apache
Reserve pull test/Apache


normiss  (D 28356)

Jan 28, 2013, 3:16 PM
Post #4 of 52 (3622 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Tony-tonysuits] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Can you explain what you said?
In English?


It makes no sense the way it's written.


yoink

Jan 28, 2013, 3:26 PM
Post #5 of 52 (3612 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post



wow. That looks like sport death just waiting to happen...


miconar  (D 1084)

Jan 28, 2013, 7:38 PM
Post #6 of 52 (3320 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

The tie should have very little to no slack at all in it. The suit loop, tie point on the rig, Velcro on the suit, Velcro on the rig, hard housing on the rig and the tie itself should all coincide as much as possible. Anything else would introduce slack into the system. That is how I read it at least.


(This post was edited by miconar on Jan 28, 2013, 7:53 PM)


Premier Remster  (C License)

Jan 29, 2013, 6:41 AM
Post #7 of 52 (3031 views)
Shortcut
Re: [miconar] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

The fact that anyone, never mind a manufacturer, would think that any amount of messing with the handles and rigging around the cables is acceptable in a skydiving situation is mind boggling. Especially with the amount of mounting evidence of major issues.




chuckakers  (D 10855)

Jan 29, 2013, 11:48 AM
Post #9 of 52 (2821 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The fact that anyone, never mind a manufacturer, would think that any amount of messing with the handles and rigging around the cables is acceptable in a skydiving situation is mind boggling. Especially with the amount of mounting evidence of major issues.

yup.


QuickDraw  (C License)

Jan 29, 2013, 11:50 AM
Post #10 of 52 (2821 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Was that downplane induced by trying to bring his main to the front?
It looked pretty landable before the riser-work.


Helmet mounted tersh anyone? Wink


(This post was edited by QuickDraw on Jan 29, 2013, 12:05 PM)


FB1609  (C 1409)

Jan 29, 2013, 12:56 PM
Post #11 of 52 (2754 views)
Shortcut
Re: [QuickDraw] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Hopefully a full ban on the suit without a base rig until they resolve this. Anyways, I'm pretty sure nobody who has one would jump it with a normal rig for now if they saw those vids. A link should be sent to all who bought or jump one. Good of you to get the word out before the inevitable.

That hardpull vid was crazy.


(This post was edited by FB1609 on Jan 29, 2013, 1:04 PM)


miconar  (D 1084)

Jan 29, 2013, 1:13 PM
Post #12 of 52 (2731 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FB1609] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

When properly rigged I have yet to see the issue with these. People want to put something half assed together without consulting a rigger/mfg and doing the research, or ignore the plain to see fact that the rig they have doesn't match the suit they got, they gonna get bitten. If they think they can just throw it all together and find out if it works properly for the first time in the air, they gonna find out for the first time in the air for sure.

This is a mod, not a commercial product. It should be treated as such. It doesn't always work out of the box and modifications on the suit/rig are sometimes needed, which is why it's not sold as sky gear. Accept it before you buy it or get the x3. For Christ sake it's the same damn suit minus some cool factor. The only reason to get one of these is if you are actually competing, which makes youa big boy, or should at least. YMMV.

And FYI - the setup shown in the hard pull video is now banned and not in use. I understand why Spot is still showing it - he is trying to show what can happen when you start playing with things and have a bad system/suit/rig combo. It is meant as a deterrent for the uninformed that just want the biggest coolest thing out there. How ever some of you are reacting to that vid as though that setup is still considered airworthy. It is not. The fact they jumped that setup many times before ever trying a pull test on the ground speaks more to the understanding they have for the gravity of the craft they chose for themselves then the validity of the setup.


(This post was edited by miconar on Jan 29, 2013, 1:35 PM)


gzimmermann  (D 31852)

Jan 29, 2013, 1:53 PM
Post #13 of 52 (2672 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Tony-tonysuits] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yes, its the tie being above the chest strap is the problem, the tie has the below the chest strap so as the chest strap goes up on opening the suit stays with it,
Did somebody steal your user and password here? Sorry, Tony... The next big thing coming up is not so experienced jumpers using the BASE pouch for their pilot chute on regular WS skydives out of Otters without questioning the risks and rules by saying "I am just getting used to the pull sequence for the one and only true grip". Just like the other very much experienced wingsuiters jumping the Apache with no access to the handles with the argument "I jump BASE, no worries". WTF!?


normiss  (D 28356)

Jan 29, 2013, 1:55 PM
Post #14 of 52 (2666 views)
Shortcut
Re: [miconar] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

I find it more of a violation of the TSO.
It's just downright stupid and deadly.


GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Jan 29, 2013, 2:19 PM
Post #15 of 52 (2632 views)
Shortcut
Re: [miconar] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
When properly rigged I have yet to see the issue with these. People want to put something half assed together without consulting a rigger/mfg and doing the research, or ignore the plain to see fact that the rig they have doesn't match the suit they got, they gonna get bitten. If they think they can just throw it all together and find out if it works properly for the first time in the air, they gonna find out for the first time in the air for sure.

This is a mod, not a commercial product. It should be treated as such. It doesn't always work out of the box and modifications on the suit/rig are sometimes needed, which is why it's not sold as sky gear. Accept it before you buy it or get the x3. For Christ sake it's the same damn suit minus some cool factor. The only reason to get one of these is if you are actually competing, which makes youa big boy, or should at least. YMMV.

And FYI - the setup shown in the hard pull video is now banned and not in use. I understand why Spot is still showing it - he is trying to show what can happen when you start playing with things and have a bad system/suit/rig combo. It is meant as a deterrent for the uninformed that just want the biggest coolest thing out there. How ever some of you are reacting to that vid as though that setup is still considered airworthy. It is not. The fact they jumped that setup many times before ever trying a pull test on the ground speaks more to the understanding they have for the gravity of the craft they chose for themselves then the validity of the setup.

Has anyone actually gone ahead and done testing that quantifies the actual advantages of having the MLW covered vs exposed?


diablopilot  (D License)

Jan 29, 2013, 2:49 PM
Post #16 of 52 (2593 views)
Shortcut
Re: [miconar] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
When properly rigged I have yet to see the issue with these.

When you get a container manufacturer to utter these words it may be true, un till then it is a null statement.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jan 29, 2013, 9:58 PM
Post #17 of 52 (2338 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The fact that anyone, never mind a manufacturer, would think that any amount of messing with the handles and rigging around the cables is acceptable in a skydiving situation is mind boggling. Especially with the amount of mounting evidence of major issues.

Bingo!


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jan 29, 2013, 10:02 PM
Post #18 of 52 (2332 views)
Shortcut
Re: [QuickDraw] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Was that downplane induced by trying to bring his main to the front?
It looked pretty landable before the riser-work.

He mishandled the entire EP for two-out side-by-side.
Got lucky that the downplane didn't happen higher.

The downplane was induced by him yanking on the risers.


The111  (D 29246)

Jan 29, 2013, 10:33 PM
Post #19 of 52 (2315 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GobbleGobble] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Has anyone actually gone ahead and done testing that quantifies the actual advantages of having the MLW covered vs exposed?

It's easier to zip your suit up with the chest strap inside. Wink


sky12345

Jan 30, 2013, 1:01 AM
Post #20 of 52 (2275 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The111] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Has anyone actually gone ahead and done testing that quantifies the actual advantages of having the MLW covered vs exposed?

It's easier to zip your suit up with the chest strap undone inside. Wink

here, fify


johnmatrix  (D 9999)

Jan 30, 2013, 1:27 AM
Post #21 of 52 (2257 views)
Shortcut
Re: [miconar] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The fact they jumped that setup many times before ever trying a pull test on the ground speaks more to the understanding they have

That in it itself is possibly the most insane part of this whole saga.
Why the hell wouldn't you do a pull test on the ground?
I think it's only a matter of time until someone gets killed skydiving one of these suits.

Further to that, I don't even know how they're allowed to be jumped if they violate the TSO - if you can jump gear that violates the TSO then why can't you jump with the BASE gear that they were actually designed for?


johnmatrix  (D 9999)

Jan 30, 2013, 1:34 AM
Post #22 of 52 (2256 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GobbleGobble] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Has anyone actually gone ahead and done testing that quantifies the actual advantages of having the MLW covered vs exposed?

That's something I've asked before on these forums and I don't think I got a response.

I reckon the difference is minimal, at best. It stands to reason that there would be some performance gain but I reckon it's not a lot.
On top of that I'd imagine that most people skydiving it bought it because it is the biggest suit on the market, not because the chest strap is inside the suit.
If you were that worried about the chest strap I don't see why you couldn't just put some tape across the top of it when you put your gear on.


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Jan 30, 2013, 12:05 PM
Post #23 of 52 (2147 views)
Shortcut
Re: [johnmatrix] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi john,

Quote:
I don't even know how they're allowed to be jumped if they violate the TSO

Not trying to argue, trying to find out what leads you to conclude this.

Elaborate, please.

JerryBaumchen


GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Jan 30, 2013, 1:35 PM
Post #24 of 52 (2060 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hi john,

Quote:
I don't even know how they're allowed to be jumped if they violate the TSO

Not trying to argue, trying to find out what leads you to conclude this.

Elaborate, please.

JerryBaumchen

Depends. TSO-C23F refers to PIA TS-135 for minimum performance standards. I'd argue that the thumb loops violate the TSO cert due to the increase in pull force above acceptable limits.

TS-135 states clearly the "types" of systems that are subject to the standard (single harness reserve assembly, single harness emergency assembly, dual harness reserve assembly). The testing and certification is done on the rig. I'd argue that when you relocate the handles from the designed location(s) on the harness and install them on the suit. You've just added the suit to the system. The suit was not part of the system when certified. Therefore I don't see how you can still be in compliance. There doesn't seem to be anything in the document to cover this corner case but I believe a couple comments illustrate the intent. Section 4.3.3 lists testing requirements for reserve ripcord. First few words are "Under normal design operating conditions". I don't think ANY skydiving container with the handles relocated meet that standard. It's not the way they were designed, nor how they were tested during certification.


(This post was edited by GobbleGobble on Jan 30, 2013, 1:37 PM)


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Jan 30, 2013, 3:26 PM
Post #25 of 52 (1976 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GobbleGobble] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Gobble,

Nicely put if I may say so.

I tend agree but remember, I do not speak for the FAA. It would probably be very successfully argued that relocating the reserve ripcord handle would put the 'alteration' outside of the design parameters, i.e., would no longer comply with the TSO.

Thanks, always good to get a thought or two,

JerryBaumchen


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

Forums : Skydiving : Incidents

 


Search for (options)