Capewell Pin #2 problem, be carefull.

[Rdutch 0]

2 Capewell reserve pins have broken recently. One on a Mirage rig, and one on a Jumpshack Tandem rig. (jumpshack makes their own pins now, and I have seen a Jumpshack made pin bent 360 degrees proving that jumpshack made pins are safe, but the pin on the jumpshack tandem was an older capewell made pin).

Both pins have had the Capewell test done (cw03-01)on them once and they both broke, the pin on the mirage broke when the Capewell test was done the second time by accident, but the second break, (The scary one) happened when the rigger pulled the ripcord. The reserve fired, but the pin broke.

Jumpshack now makes their own pins, and a lot of manufacturers use Jumpshack pins. So I.M.O. this is a Capewell problem. The pins that broke were "CAPEWELL" Pins.

The pin's that broke had nothing to do with the rig's they were on. Capewell stated that the batch of pins that were questionable were from a huge batch of pins, the mandatory test was issued and pins are still breaking.

I don't know if this scares you, but it scares the hell out of me, the thought of pulling my reserve and having the pin break and nothing happening doesn't make me happy, the thought of my reserve firing when I dont want it to makes me also unhappy.

How do we fix this? I dunno? Capewell has a website and a contact info, if we as skydivers take a minute to think about what happens if a pin breaks, we can all send an Email and ask Capewell what is causing this and how they can "PROVE" this wont happen again. Especially if the rig you are jumping might have a pin that can break! My solution 100% recall of all questionable pins. The test was offered, the test failed. In skydiving there is no second chance, your pin breaks when you pull it, when you need it, you die. Please dont die because a manufacturer wants to save money!

It confuses the hell out of me how Mcdonalds now sells coffee colder so they wont get sued, when skydive manufacturers know they have a problem that can kill people and dont fix it immediately.

All I can say is if you have a capewell pin cw03-01 contact your manufacturer, and also contact Capewell
MAKE SURE YOUR PIN IS SAFE.
The most important life you can save is your own.

Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!

[billvon 2,475]

>(jumpshack makes their own pins now, and I have seen a
>Jumpshack made pin bent 360 degrees proving that jumpshack
> made pins are safe.

It proved that one was safe at least. 99.9% of Capewell pins are safe too; the great majority of them have been tested by this time.

>How do we fix this? I dunno? Capewell has a website and a contact
>info, if we as skydivers take a minute to think about what happens if
> a pin breaks, we can all send an Email and ask Capewell what is
> causing this and how they can "PROVE" this wont happen again.

I think that might be an unrealistic goal. How can you PROVE Jumpshack will make good pins? John Sherman has a long history of disregarding common wisdom in rig design. (He may have retired since the last time I talked to him.) How can you prove that the rings on your 3-ring release are annealed properly? You can have good quality control procedures, and you can do your very best to balance quality vs. cost vs. reliability. But there is always a tradeoff, and there is always the chance (however small) that 1 out of 60,000 rigs has a latent defect.

>when skydive manufacturers know they have a problem that can kill
>people and dont fix it immediately.

I can list ten gear failure problems that manufacturers know can kill you. Rigs that don't have RSL's can result in low cutaways without enough time to open the reserve. Rigs with RSL's can have main/reserve entaglements. Cypreses can misfire near RF sources; if you don't have a cypres, a no pull can kill you. The Racer RSL has killed people; one sided RSL's can kill you if the wrong riser breaks. You can twist the reserve PC on a Reflex and bend the pin. You can tighten a Reflex or Racer PC too much and bend the pins, resulting in a hard pull. There are still rigs out there with soft housings; they can result in a hard (or failed) cutaway. Soft reserve handles often fail the pull test and can get stuck under jumpsuits and harnesses. Hard handles can get pulled while head-down and result in rig or reserve failure. Harness webbing that fails can kill you; risers that do NOT fail can kill you by exceeding your body's limit for deceleration.

Why don't manufacturers fix these problems? Because often it's not a black and white issue; it's a matter of opinion. A freeflyer might have a very different idea as to what the right kind of reserve handle is vs a belly flyer. A jumper might choose a cheaper rig with the brass grommets all around, even though they can wear through and/or dent and cause pack closures or malfunctions.

>Especially if the rig you are jumping might have a pin that can break!

Your rig DOES have a pin that can break. It's incredibly rare, but it can happen.

Capewell makes a lot of ripcords. That makes them liable to the PD phenomenon. Back at my old DZ, 90% of the canopies were PD's, with a few Monarchs and Falcons around. And when you looked at which canopies malfunctioned, it seemed like 90% of the time it was a PD! Would it be wise to avoid PD canopies because they malfunction ten times more often than other canopies?

So by all means, send your Capewell ripcord back if you want. But getting a brand new south african one to replace it may not make you safer; it may turn you into a bit of a test jumper.

[sundevil777 94]

I posted a poll a while back asking "are 'good-tested' pins good enough?"

A very small percentage answered "no". I was quite suprised.

Why is it that the main pin is so much more rigid than the reserve? Just because it needed to pass through the small hole of a hard cone 30 years ago! Bullshit!

I don't care if it has to be made of composite poly-razmatazz-kryptonite alloy, or just larger in diameter. When Aerodyne makes new 3-ring hardware, etc, I can't believe that the tooling would be prohibitive. Who among us would not pay a small amount more to have the reserve pin that would withstand 100 pounds instead of the wimpy 10-15 now? What mfg. would continue to offer the old pin when such an obvious improvement was available?

Sounds like a market opportunity that needs to be filled. Perhaps the demand will only be there when it is actually available, or when someone dies because of it.

Is it just me?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Tonto 1]

Mmm.

You had me conviced there - right up to the second last line..

(But I jump a Mirage - so I'm in your risk pool now..)

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[councilman24 36]

As said in a previous thread. A ripcord pin intended to be SWAGED onto a cable, not sewn onto a bridle, must be soft enough to cold flow into the cable. It has to be hard enough not to bend. Someone could make a harder pin, but you couldn't put it on a cable.

We have a design that has worked for decades. Could it be better. Yes, because the current pins were not designed for much of their current use. But, drastically changing the materials and design of reserve deployment is a serious undertaking. Many of the innovations on main systems took years of field experience, and sometimes deaths, to optimize.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[councilman24 36]

This is the first I've heard of Jump Shack, or related companies, making pins. I understand that they make ripcords, and cable / pin assemblies, but as far as I know they don't forge pins. I believe the very first pin that broke was a capewell pin on a Jump Shack (I never remember the other company name) assembly.

I don't remember who the Jump Shack employees are on here. But please correct us about whether Jump Shack makes pins from scratch.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[Rdutch 0]

Jumpshack makes pins from scratch, I have seen the machine. They have for some time. Mike showed me a pin they made bent 360 degrees. Also the Jumpshack pins are made to a larger diameter than the industry standard. Hopefully someone with the Number knowledge will reply, but just the minimal amount bigger adds a lot of breaking strength.

Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!

[Rdutch 0]

***
It proved that one was safe at least. 99.9% of Capewell pins are safe too; the great majority of them have been tested by this time.

Quote

Both pins that broke recently had been tested. 99% safe maybe? 7 known breaks out of all the pins sold in that batch might be a 99% success rate. Its that 1% that can kill you or possibly everyone on the plane that I dont like.

What does the test prove? Obviously nothing. Two breaks in such a short time is a problem, maybe you don't see it that way, but I do. Especially when there has been a string of breaks previously.

Pulling low and not having an Rsl is a JUMPER induced problem, having your reserve pin break when you pull it is a MANUFACTURER problem.

Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!

• Quote

[GravityGirl 0]

This leads me to ask, "Were the two previously tested pins, tested by the same person or company?" What were the conditions of the test. Was the test done properly?

Not pointing fingers, but trying to find the weak link. If we need to retest every pin that comes through our door, we will. But I would like to find out were the original test failed to show the defect.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[NightJumper 0]

Quote

How can you PROVE Jump Shack will make good pins?

Well Ray not be able to “PROVE” that Jump Shack will make good pins but I can. Jump Shack has never had a single failure in either production testing or in the field of a reserve pin under the current manufacturing process. We do 100% pin testing in addition to the normal batch destructive, metallurgy, optical comparison and electron microscope testing and analyses.

Quote

You can tighten a Reflex or Racer PC too much and bend the pins, resulting in a hard pull.

This is true of any rig not just the ones you listed.

Quote

So by all means, send your Capewell ripcord back if you want. But getting a brand new south african one to replace it may not make you safer; it may turn you into a bit of a test jumper.

Again, the are other manufactures in the states.

Quote

Someone could make a harder pin, but you couldn't put it on a cable.

This is not true as there are pins that are harder. The issue is the pin being brittle vs. malleable.

Quote

But, drastically changing the materials and design of reserve deployment is a serious undertaking. Many of the innovations on main systems took years of field experience, and sometimes deaths, to optimize.

I agree, that is why the only parameter we used was that the pin had to meet the mil spec for size and shape of the various customers. The manufacturing process, materials, testing etc. we totally changed when making our pins.

Quote

I understand that they make ripcords, and cable / pin assemblies, but as far as I know they don't forge pins.

Yes, we make the actual pins (in various shapes and sizes) in addition to the handles and complete assemblies.

Quote

This leads me to ask, "Were the two previously tested pins, tested by the same person or company?" What were the conditions of the test. Was the test done properly?

No, they were properly conducted test at the manufactures and the one was a failure when the ripcord was pulled for a repack.

Quote

Not pointing fingers, but trying to find the weak link. If we need to retest every pin that comes through our door, we will. But I would like to find out were the original test failed to show the defect.

There is an issue here that is beyond the manufactures control and that is what happens to it once it leaves the manufacture. It should also be noted that you can over test a product. I have seen pins bent from rigs being thrown on the floor, over tightened, improperly tested etc. I personally went up to one rigger who was having a lot of pin failures last year at Rantoul and tested their pull scale that they were using to perform the pin test and found it to have 6.2 lbs. more pull at 15 lbs. than my certified calibrated digital scale.

[kallend 1,679]

Not being a rigger or an expert on pins, this is not directed specifically to that

BUT

I am an expert on the mechanical properties of metals and alloys, and failure analysis.

There are many modes of failure of a mechanical component. Just because something may be bent 360 degrees means only that brittle failure is unlikely. It should not be used, by itself, as an indicator of suitability for purpose.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sundevil777 94]

Damn, we sure have low expectations!

In my opinion, the bending of a pin should not be possible by having too tight a closing loop.

Think about it! Do you really think the strength standard is adequate? I have found a bent (early 90's) while doing a gear check. You simply should not be able to bend a pin by having it too tight, throwing it on the ground, leaning as hard as you can on a door frame, catching a reserve flap on the door, etc. I think the standard should be in the range of hundreds of pounds, not 10 or 15!

There is a serious lack of imagination if we dismiss doing something better because of the way pins are currently swaged on the cable.

Is it just me? It would appear so.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[NightJumper 0]

Quote

There are many modes of failure of a mechanical component. Just because something may be bent 360 degrees means only that brittle failure is unlikely. It should not be used, by itself, as an indicator of suitability for purpose.

You are absolutely right. The issue here though is exactly that, brittle vs. malleable. The Capewell pins that have failed have done so at 5-6lbs. pressure. And this is why Jump Shack has specifically used different material and manufacturing process.

Quote

Damn, we sure have low expectations!

No "we" don’t. Personally I think that a 0% failure rate so far is pretty good, and hopefully it will continue.

Quote

Think about it! Do you really think the strength standard is adequate?

For our pins right now with the data we have, yes. Are the manufactures trying to improve products? Yes. Is this the best pin that will ever be built? I hope not. And seeing as we are already testing new versions I would say no.

Quote

You simply should not be able to bend a pin by having it too tight, throwing it on the ground, leaning as hard as you can on a door frame, catching a reserve flap on the door, etc. I think the standard should be in the range of hundreds of pounds, not 10 or 15!

Then get the rules that we are governed by changed. A lot of people cannot begin to fathom what we as manufactures fight with every day to make our products better. We have to meet mil. Specs, FAA, TSO’s, foreign country requirements and manufactures standards. We do not always have the ability to make what we want. As an example, we recently submitted a reserve handle for certification for the military. It is required to pass a 40lb. pull test and it finally failed at 1830lbs. yet the military rejected it because they said that our AWS certified weld might corrode in 40-50 years and we had to change the weld to a crimp fitting that fails a 900lbs. So now we have to make an inferior product that has 50% less strength. And while you are at it change the laws of physics and metallurgy to help us out, it would save us a lot of time. By the way, we don't use the 10-15lb. standard.

[sundevil777 94]

If regulations (TSO spec?) are stopping manufacturers from making a pin that can't be bent even if you were to lean or smash your rig up against a hard corner, or put so much tension on a rig that the closing loop breaks, that is very interesting and should be brought to the front of this discussion.

I think you should be able to do abusive things such as this and at least be confident that the pin will not bend.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[mjosparky 3]

This issue was addressed by Para Inovators in the early eighties. The rip cords for the Streamlite container used a SS sleeve silver soldered to the the end of the cable. It was half again larger in diameter then the regular pin and about 1 1/2 inches long. It would take 100 pounds on the 90 degree load test and not bend.
As was stated before, the current pins were designed over 40 years ago and were meant for cones not soft loops. Comparing it to reserve failure, harness webbing failure or an RSL problem is comparing apple to oranges. This is a part that is being used in a way it was never intended to be. Nothing else on a modern sports rig is that way.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals