0
Airman1270

Older Gear

Recommended Posts

Yep I got a 26ft strong lopo in my 1977 wonderhog
that is diaper free and the line stowed in the tray.
And I'm not worried about having to hang it out.
Chance of being a terminal pretty slim, I got a MK-1
in it for a main in a pod, so somthing going to come out of that bad boy and if it don't open there will be a lot of drag out there.:)After all it's on my back not yours...

Would you pack and jump a "death wrap diaper"?

.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you pack and jump a "death wrap diaper"?

.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you are referring to Pioneer's "line-over prevention device" - with a steel pin - no I will not repack them.
I vaguely remember them falling out of fashion in the early 1980s.

My minimum standard is a 2-bite diaper.

While I may have jumped them "back in the day," I no longer want anything to do with non-diapered, non-steerable round reserves.

For example, three faded, frayed and filthy pilot rigs - containing non-diapered, non-steerable T-10R canopies - I laughed at the guy. I bluntly told him that I would never repack those rigs, then gave him a sales pitch on a pair of FFE Preserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


What I meant was if it does not have a diaper the lines are usually stowed in the bottom of the container.

You remember how it was done on an old chest mount, stow the lines in stow bands attached to the container and S-fold the canopy on top of the lines. There is no method of staging the deployment in an orderly manner.



Quote



Interesting AND educational!B|;)

When I was down in Sandy Eggo last week,
I was using my ole Wonder Dog for hanging harness
and general gear familiarization stuff for those
two newbies.

We dumped the reserve..Strong 26 lopo.
It had 4 (I think) stows on the diaper,
the remaining suspension lines of course in the
pack tray.

Since the rig was already attached to he garage rafters,
I slowly pulled / deployed the canopy...explaining how the
Rip cord...loops...MA1...canopy work.

As I was walking backward pulling the MA1,
the diaper stows and the tray stows were coming undone
at about the same time.
The diaper stows completely free..
with 2-3 tray stows still remaining.

After the discussion in this thread...
that sequence does give me pause to
rethink the technology.:)


So....just screwing around when I go back home here,
I did the same thing with my bailout rig..
ALL the diaper stows came undone prior to the pack tray stows even beginning to come free.:|

Things that make ya go HUMMMMMMM![:/]












~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was that with all of the lines going through the diaper stows, or with the (Pioneer at least) lines coming out in two groups -- one riser group going through the diaper stows, and the other riser group taking an extra bight or two in the pack tray?

That was to prevent exactly that sort of thing, and keep the diaper on until the canopy and lines were completely extended.

Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yep I got a 26ft strong lopo in my 1977 wonderhog
that is diaper free and the line stowed in the tray.
And I'm not worried about having to hang it out.
Chance of being a terminal pretty slim



Why say, "Chance of being a terminal pretty slim"? Are you worried about a reserve deployment at terminal? I would be.

Quote

After all it's on my back not yours...



Yep, and it's your seal, not mine, have fun. If it was my seal, doesn't matter whose back it was going on, I wouldn't seal it. I wouldn't be responsible for it and I believe a rigger is reponsible for the gear he/she seals.

Quote

Would you pack and jump a "death wrap diaper"?



I'm guessing that is witht he pin, like Rob described, so no, I wouldn't. I would think that systems w/ "Death" in their nicknames wouldn't be used anymore, like "Death Straps" for CReW. They are still killing people. The term "Death" got into the nickname somehow, most likely because the system was killing people.

You'll pack gear that I won't and that is fine. I don't call you reckless or harsh on you for it. Regardless if I understand why. I feel the same courtesy should be extended to others.

When gear is replaced because "It was time", it was replaced because of the passage of time, merely because it was old. Everything wears out or becomes obsolete.

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'll pack gear that I won't and that is fine. I don't call you reckless or harsh on you for it. Regardless if I understand why. I feel the same courtesy should be extended to others.
(quote)

same here, I don't recall doing so, if I did I'm sorry.:)
.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

No...just the first few stows nearest the skirt
were in the diaper.
The groups were not split.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sounds like the last rigger forgot to read the manual.




Quote



GREAT!

Just what I wanted to hear![:/]












~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...And you have not backed up your claim that it is not dangerous...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Actually, I have. I described the relatively low number of jumps on the rig, as well as the manner in which it's been stored. I also noted that a number of local riggers have had no problem servicing the gear for me.

If you insist (sight unseen) that my old rig is a hole in the ground waiting to happen, than you are making slanderous accusations against the integrity of the Relative Workshop, as well as the riggers who have known this gear more intimately than anyone participating in this discussion.

Jon



Actually, you haven't! I think it has already been established that what you think does not count, in the eyes of the FAA that is. So repeating your own claims about how great the gear is does not prove it is not dangerous.

One thing you are very good at is putting words in someone's mouth. No where have I said your "old rig is a hole in the ground waiting to happen". And could you tell me where it is that I made "slanderous accusations against the integrity" of anyone? If you wish to discuss the facts of any subject, you first have to understand what is fact and what is made up nonsense.
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

...And you have not backed up your claim that it is not dangerous...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Actually, I have. I described the relatively low number of jumps on the rig, as well as the manner in which it's been stored. I also noted that a number of local riggers have had no problem servicing the gear for me.

If you insist (sight unseen) that my old rig is a hole in the ground waiting to happen, than you are making slanderous accusations against the integrity of the Relative Workshop, as well as the riggers who have known this gear more intimately than anyone participating in this discussion.

Jon



Actually, you haven't! I think it has already been established that what you think does not count, in the eyes of the FAA that is. So repeating your own claims about how great the gear is does not prove it is not dangerous.

One thing you are very good at is putting words in someone's mouth. No where have I said your "old rig is a hole in the ground waiting to happen". And could you tell me where it is that I made "slanderous accusations against the integrity" of anyone? If you wish to discuss the facts of any subject, you first have to understand what is fact and what is made up nonsense.


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Okay, if you insist...

I have a fine piece of equipment here, well cared for with relatively low milage.

Some riggers say it's dangerous, some do not.

The riggers who have actually worked on it say it's not.

Riggers who claim this rig is unsafe have never seen it.

The opinions of riggers who have worked with this rig trump those of riggers who have not.

In seeking opinions as to why some riggers won't service the gear, I hear unfounded fears about what might possibly happen, rather than what is likely to happen. Furthermore, many of the votes against the rig are based on the fact that better gear has since been invented. For example, the Wonderhog, the best rig on the market when it was introduced, did not suddenly become dangerous because, in later years, riser covers and RSL's became standard features.

If anyone actually has evidence that the rig is dangerous, they'll be able to explain why without citing irrelevant facts, such as design updates made in later years, or the fact that they have a lot of jumps and hold an instructor rating.

Repeating your own claims about how dangerous the gear is does not make it so.

If the FAA has accumulated information indicating that this rig is no longer reliable, per the standards to which it was manufactured, I'd like to see it. It certainly has not been posted here.

A week or so back, when I said I got new gear because "it was time," I was referring to the household budget, not the reliability of the rig. I've wanted to update my gear for many years, but with three kids and a non-jumping wife there were so many other demands on the family income.

I intend to keep jumping Old Faithful at times, and don't appreciate this hysterical atitude poisoning the thinking of the sport's future riggers, who are being trained to regard old gear as dangerous despite the lack of any solid evidence to back up the claim.

Jon S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The opinions of riggers who have worked with this rig trump those of riggers who have not.



No, not at all, a rigger’s opinion trumps YOUR opinion.

Quote

I hear unfounded fears



See above.

Quote

For example, the Wonderhog, the best rig on the market when it was introduced, did not suddenly become dangerous because, in later years, riser covers and RSL's became standard features.



For example, vacuum tubes in aircraft radios did not suddenly become dangerous in the mid 90’s, but the FAA won’t let them be used in aircraft radios anymore.

Quote

If anyone actually has evidence that the rig is dangerous, they'll be able to explain why without citing irrelevant facts, such as design updates made in later years, or the fact that they have a lot of jumps and hold an instructor rating.



That is the problem, what you call irrelevant facts are not irrelevant. Those design updates are safety features, which your rig lacks.

I mentioned my experience beyond just my rigger’s certificate to give you a little background that I’m not a 50-jump wonder (no offense to anyone w/ 50 jumps) and I‘ve been there done that, more than you. I have practical experience, not just a rigger’s certification to back up my opinion.

Quote

Riggers who claim this rig is unsafe have never seen it.



I don’t need to see a silk reserve to say it isn’t airworthy either.

Quote

Repeating your own claims about how dangerous the gear is does not make it so.



And not believing what you call “irrelevant facts” actually are not irreverent, does not make your rig safe.

Quote

If the FAA has accumulated information indicating that this rig is no longer reliable, per the standards to which it was manufactured, I'd like to see it. It certainly has not been posted here.



If you are relying on the FAA to keep you safe, let me explain something to you. You are placing your faith in the wrong people.

I received a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin a couple of days ago from the FAA regarding Sun Path’s SP03. The SAIB is dated November 10, 2004. SP03 is dated July 19, 2004. All the FAA did is copy SP03 and mail it out, which took 4 months and this issue concerns harness failures, which by the way, the FAA has not made mandatory by making it a Advisory Directive. So, again, you are placing your faith in the wrong people.

Quote

A week or so back, when I said I got new gear because "it was time," I was referring to the household budget, not the reliability of the rig. I've wanted to update my gear for many years, but with three kids and a non-jumping wife there were so many other demands on the family income.

I intend to keep jumping Old Faithful at times, and don't appreciate this hysterical atitude poisoning the thinking of the sport's future riggers, who are being trained to regard old gear as dangerous despite the lack of any solid evidence to back up the claim.



If you old rig is so great and money so tight, why spend all that jump money on a new rig? Especially when, “Meanwhile, my wife bitches about all the time/money I spend at the DZ.”

The cost of that new rig far exceeds the cost of a rigger rating. You could have skipped the new rig, apent some of that money on your rigger’s certificate, and had plenty left over to take your family out for a nice dinner. Then you could pack your own reserve, avoid dealing with the issue of some riggers not being willing to pack it, and had your family happy with you. Seems like a much better solution to me.

And I don’t appreciate being called “prejudiced”,

“If you're going to quibble over riser covers or round vs. square reserves” “He also says rounds are dangerous”

This is an example of how you do not listen, even when it is written out for you. I never said anything about comparing round to square reserves. Not sure where you got that. I never said rounds are dangerous. Not sure where you got that either. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

“You have not backed up your claim that my old classic rig is dangerous. You have simply explained why you "think" it's dangerous”

What else are you looking for? I don’t have anything besides that to explain why a WWII silk reserve isn’t safe, even in new condition. Would not you believe that? What do you have to back up that it airworthy?

Quote

I questioned his judgement, but not his competence.



In rigging, you can’t have one without the other, so yes, you did question my competence.

I think you are prejudiced against younger jumper with more jumps than you. That is what this is all really about. You are getting up there in years and expect younger jumper to revere your experience, but too many of them have more jumps than you and you feel you aren’t getting the respect you deserve. 36 jumps a year is barely maintaining currency much less improving your skills. Maybe your are self-conscience about your skills with 22 years of experience. Maybe that’s why you don’t care how many jumps I have, or the ratings I held, or my rigger’s rating. You feel that number of years is more important than anything else and anyone with less years in the sport isn’t s knowledgeable as you. Maybe you are prejudiced against anyone with more jumps but less years in the sport than you. I don’t know what it is, but you don’t listen and you only hear what you want to hear. Maybe should listen to some more experienced, younger jumpers. They have a lot they could teach you.

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If anyone actually has evidence that the rig is dangerous, they'll be able to explain why without citing irrelevant facts, such as design updates made in later years



This is where you lose me.

The rig did not suddenly become "dangerous." It is exactly as dangerous as it was the day it was made (assuming it's in like-new shape). Those later design updates came about because of the hazards inherent in the old designs.

"Dangerous" and "airworthy" are not black and white. It's all about risk assessment. What risks do you take by jumping old gear? I'm guessing you understand them a whole lot better than I do, so I won't even try to go there. But surely you recognize that there are hazards associated with the lack of all those modern safety features, right? What's the severity of each hazard, and what's the probability that it will occur? Do you know? If not, you don't fully understand the risk you're taking by jumping that rig.

I know that by jumping my Vector 3, equipped with a skyhook, I have mitigated many hazards that someone jumping an original wonderhog has not. I've also added some hazards. But I think if you looked at the overall risk level, it would be significantly lower.

I don't care if you're jumping a bedsheet packed in an LL Bean backpack. If you can find a rigger to pack it up for you, have a good time. But you're always gonna have to deal with dirty looks and riggers that don't want to touch it. Why argue with em?

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You continue to push the boundaries of "ridiculous" to new heights.

By "competence," I mean I trust you to pack, repair, etc. any gear brought to you. You may not want to, but I know you can do it.

By "judgement," I mean your claim, without evidence, that my rig is dangerous.

By "intelligence," I mean your ability to discern the difference.

Not only are you prejudiced against older gear, without offering any evidence that it's dangerous, but you're apparently prejudiced against people who don't make a lot of jumps.

True, my learning curve is not as dramatic as that of someone who spends every weekend at the DZ and makes 200+ jumps per year. (I suppose you're next going to attempt to redefine "current" so as to suggest I'm a high-risk jumper.)

One of the problems facing the sport today is a sub-culture that believes that one cannot participate safely without immersing oneself totally into DZ life. The sport is not set up to accomodate those of us who have other things to do with our lives besides skydive.

I've reached a fair balance between skydiving and real life, and am quite comfortable with it. I don't understand why it's an issue to you. In my many years I've known many people who make many more jumps than I do. This is not news.

When evaluating the integrity of a piece of equipment your number of jumps and your instructor rating are irrelevant. It's scary that you fail to understand this.

I'm not asking to have my ass kissed; I'm asking not to be treated like crap.

My original question struck a nerve with you; you've responded by treating me harshly without justifying your claim that my rig is unsafe.

You only hear what you want to hear. ;)

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>For example, the Wonderhog, the best rig on the market when it was
> introduced, did not suddenly become dangerous because, in later years,
>riser covers and RSL's became standard features.

Right. And blast handles did not become more dangerous when D-handles came out. Blast handles are still dangerous, though. Four-pin, no-PC rigs did not become any more dangerous when modern gear came out, but that doesn't mean they are safe to use by any standards we use today.

The issue here is that standards evolve. There is a lot of gear I wouldn't let my students use, even though students used it once. There is even some gear that I wouldn't allow on a load I was organizing, because the odds of it opening in the door (or in freefall) is too high, and that could endanger the other people on my load.

Riggers don't just have a responsibility to follow the manufacturer's guidelines. They have a responsibility to ensure gear is acceptably safe to use, under guidelines that change with time. Some gear requires modification to be safe, even though it was jumped without the modification for a long time. Some gear simply becomes unsafe after a while, because standards have evolved and the gear has not.

If you can find a good rigger who is willing to repack the gear and sign it off, great. But "it was safe once" is not an argument that works to prove "therefore it's safe now."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, you need to try and keep things straight in your own mind.
Quote

Repeating your own claims about how dangerous the gear is does not make it so.


I did not make any claims about how dangerous your gear is. Stop putting words in my mouth. I don't like the taste.

Try and come out of the fog long enough to understand a few simple facts.
You wrote:
Quote

If anyone actually has evidence that the rig is dangerous, they'll be able to explain why without citing irrelevant facts, such as design updates made in later years,


And:
Quote

In seeking opinions as to why some riggers won't service the gear, I hear unfounded fears about what might possibly happen, rather than what is likely to happen.



These irrelevant design updates you refer to were made because of what did happen, not unfounded fears. These change were made to address problems with function that were not readily apparent in the original design.

Like Pilotdave posted, your rig may not be any more dangerous then it was when it was manufactured. But no matter what condition it is in, it is less safe then the current gear manufactured by the same company. I can make this statement without ever seeing the rig and know it to be true.

I made my first 100 or so jumps on a military surplus rig converted to sports use. At the time, the risk level was considered acceptable. Today that level of risk is not only unacceptable but foolish.

You say
Quote

The riggers who have actually worked on it say it's not

How many riggers have worked on this rig since you have owned it?

One final point.
Quote

but with three kids and a non-jumping wife there were so many other demands on the family income.


You seem rather cavalier with your own safety considering the people depending on you. That is not meant as a flame, just an observation.
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is anybody going to do a nostalgia jump if you can't get it packed? A lot of people could avoid a lot of senseless risk if more riggers took this stand. :)
Would your choice to not pack such a rig be affected depending on it being a rig that would be used once on the "gut gear" day, hopefully to not be a yearly tradition?

What if you know and respect the owner and their experience very well, might this matter? For instance some riggers have admitted to agreeing to pack a 5-cell swift only for certain well known customers that had some experience with it. If such a person asks you to repack some old, but well preserved system for a stupid nostalgia jump, do you ask them to find another rigger?
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Would your choice to not pack such a rig be affected depending on it being a rig that would be used once on the "gut gear" day, hopefully to not be a yearly tradition?

What if you know and respect the owner and their experience very well, might this matter? For instance some riggers have admitted to agreeing to pack a 5-cell swift only for certain well known customers that had some experience with it. If such a person asks you to repack some old, but well preserved system for a stupid nostalgia jump, do you ask them to find another rigger?



No, I either sign it off or not. I tell them if it isn't airworthy and I won't pack it. There are riggers out there that will pack ANYTHING.

For example, I don't think it is my responsibility to ensure that the person is with the weight limits for the reserve. I note the max weight and speed on the checklist that I give the customer. Doesn't matter if I know them or they are only jumping it once, if it isn't airworthy, it isn't airworthy.

Good questions.

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But is it possible for classic old (well preserved) gut gear to be OK with you or not?

If yes, why? (Compared to an old wonderhog)
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the round reserve doesn't have a diaper, I won't pack it. They open out of sequence, increasing the malfunction rate.

I haven't seen any sport gear older than 20 years that I'd be willing to pack and I've seen old rigs that were brand new.

Same reason a brand new vacuum tube are worthless for use in aircraft radios.

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I haven't seen any sport gear older than 20 years that I'd be willing to pack and I've seen old rigs that were brand new.



Clearly stated. Thanks.
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right. And blast handles did not become more dangerous when D-handles came out. Blast handles are still dangerous, though. Four-pin, no-PC rigs did not become any more dangerous when modern gear came out, but that doesn't mean they are safe to use by any standards we use today... There is even some gear that I wouldn't allow on a load I was organizing, because the odds of it opening in the door (or in freefall) is too high, and that could endanger the other people on my load....

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

None of these "worst case" situations apply here. The rig does not have a blast handle, a four-pin & cone ripcord arrangement, or vacuum tubes. In addition, the reserve DOES have a diaper and worked fine when I needed it. Pin protection is secure. Furthermore, about a dozen years ago I had the canvas pilot chute pouch replaced with spandex.

It works the same way my Infinity does. The lack of riser covers are nothing to be concerned about, as I don't do the type of skydiving in which this would pose a problem.

The rig works exactly as it was designed to do. If it were truly dangerous I would likely have had a problem with it sometime during the past two decades.

I can think of at least six riggers who have maintained it over the past dozen or so years, including one particularly well-respected "elder statesman" of the sport in this area. None have had a problem with it, and a few have commented favorably on it's above-average condition.

To claim that I have a cavalier attitude toward my safety is absurd. Non-jumpers can easily make the same accusation toward all of us.

By this logic, any automobile that does not have an air-bag and an ONSTAR system is dangerous.

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0