Older Gear

[riggerrob 558]

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.

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

Ask Carl Nelson ....

[skycat 0]

Quote

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

Jon

Actually I think cars without front and side impact air bags put the driver at an increased risk for injury or death in the event that they are needed. Just like your example of riser covers or lack there of, not having them puts you at an increased risk to have certain malfunctions. Now if the chain of events that lead to injury or death never occurs then they are as "un-needed" as the airbags in the car that never go off.

Personally I perfer to mitigate my risks, such as I would never buy a car without front and side impact air bag, actually in the car I just bought I paid extra to have side impact airbags. I even see a day in the not to distant future where they will be required to be installed in all new cars just like front airbags.

As for Onstar well that is kind of like the sky hook, it only comes on certain models and while it has been proven to aid in an emergency situation it's just not that easily available yet.

Fly it like you stole it!

[PhreeZone 15]

>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.

So there I was, videoing a formation that had a jumper with an ROL on their rig... Huge funnel comes along and about 3 people crash on top of them. Next thing I know I'm looking at about 1/2 their PC hanging outside the pouch just flapping in the wind. That ended my stay above the formation for that jump.

I had asked the jumper about their ROL on the ground before the jump. "Its lasted me X years with out an issue. I'm not going to change just for fashion" was basically the reply. They were completely unaware of the PC flapping on that jump and was saying something about the poor video till I point that out to them. It was a premature deployment waiting to happen. A BOC or pull out could have completely avoided the risk.

In a funnel someone can grab anything, do you want them grabing your risers and pulling?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

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.

I am not a "non-jumper". I have been at this longer then you have and will probably be at it long after you are done. You are not interested in listening to the logic of what anyone has to say and lack the knowledge to understand the dangers of the sport.

I suggest you take you rig, jump the dog shit out of it and enjoy. In between jumps, if you have time, look up the word, Troll.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Fab 0]

hmm....This is starting to be a pointless discussion if I may be so bold. Airman's opinion is obviously not going to change so why not close the subject? I'm starting to see some agression here...Can't we all just get along?

*Edited because not everyone can see the humor appearantly*

_______________________________________

[slotperfect 7]

So, if you feel this way:

Quote

hmm....This is starting to be a pointless discussion if I may be so bold. Airman's opinion is obviously not going to change so why not close the subject? I'm starting to see some agression here...Can't we all just get along?

Then why make this comment to egg it on?

Quote

Hmmm...I have a brandnew rig but a 12 year old car without airbags....so may I assume that skydiving is a lot safer now then driving my car??

Arrive Safely

John

[Fab 0]

Don't take it so seriously slotperfect...I was referring to skycat's post...

_______________________________________

[slotperfect 7]

Quote

Don't take it so seriously slotperfect...I was referring to skycat's post...

If you wanted to reply to skycat's post, you need to click the "Reply" link from her post. Your input was pointed at mjosparky's post in the header.

As for taking it seriously, this is a serious thread. Your initial reply was right on - I agree with it. Both sides have made their point, and it appears that emotions are running high.

Your other comment was contradictory.

Arrive Safely

John

[Airman1270 0]

Hey guys:

I don't mean to give the impression that I'm ignoring your experience/advice, but I take exception to using words such as "unsafe", "dangerous", "not airworthy", etc. to describe a well-maintained rig in good shape that works the way it was designed to work.

If you take a safe rig, and add features which make it a little safer, this does not mean the original version is no longer safe.

Many examples have been provided here that do not apply to my situation. The most recent had to do with an ROL system in which a pilot chute was not properly secured in its pouch.

As for the video guy's comment about getting out of the way, we learned years ago the wisdom of avoiding any position directly above or below another jumper. Premature deployments can happen for a wide variety of reasons. This fact is not limited to older gear. AAD's are very reliable, but are not perfect.

Some people claim I'm not respecting their experience. I feel the same way. My years of experience, as well as that of a number of riggers (who presumeably have received the same training as the folks in this thread) who have affirmed the integrity of my rig, are being dismissed by people who cannot quantify their claims that it's dangerous, other than to point out improvements made in recent years.

Many factors have to do with one's safety. Added together, my situation does not justify hysterical alarm. (In fact, in a recent risk-assessment exercise in PARACHUTIST, I scored in the lower risk category.)

I concede that my old rig may, in & of itself, lack certain features recently incorporated in gear design which add an extra measure of peace-of-mind. This added margin is statistically insignificant, given several other factors. (For example, I don't do much head-down or sit flying.) I also use a larger canopy, and have recently "downsized" to a 220 sq. ft. main.

In the 70's & 80's we did not have an epidemic of people dying under well-maintained, properly operated gear. Most fatalities involved people going in with at least one parachute still in the container. As for asking Carl Nelson, I can't - he's dead. I don't know the circumstances, but I was told this was some sort of drug situation.

Meanwhile, today we have no shortage of people dying under the best gear money can buy. Some of you won't touch my rig because you think if I use it I'll surely die, yet you'll eagerly work for someone who jumps an 80 sq.ft. canopy and approaches the ground so fast a dropped toggle can mean the difference between life & death.

I was hoping someone could prove that older gear becomes more dangerous as it ages, but I defer to the guy who has more time in the sport than do many of us combined, who said he's been asking this question for many years and has yet to receive a suitable explanation.

If the FAA has really concluded that gear that is 20+ years old is no longer reliable, I'm ready to consider the information.

In the meantime, where can I get some vacuum tubes?...

Thanks,
Jon

[mr2mk1g 10]

I suspect this amazingly cyclic argument is mainly due to difficulties in the explanation of the riggers reasoning. Being entirely unqualified on the rigging front I shall try to explain things already discussed a little clearer. I apologise if I’m sticking my oar in where it’s neither wanted nor needed.

What I think these people are trying to say here is that they feel the bar has been raised with regard to gear safety. Whilst your rig is just as safe is the day it was made, that level of safety is today no longer considered to be “safe enough” by a significant slice of the rigging community.

Nothing is “safe” in this game... just “safe enough”. Something that was considered “safe enough” 20 years ago is still just as safe as it was back then… it’s just the world around it has moved on so that that same piece of gear no longer falls into that ever so important “safe enough“ category... at least in the consideration of those riggers posting here.

If it’s still “safe enough” for you then that’s your personal choice. What riggers here are trying to tell you is that your old gear is in their opinion, significantly less safe than your new gear. That significant difference in the safety level afforded, for them at least, places your old rig outside the “safe enough” category.

Were you to walk into their loft they would express that concern by refusing to pack your rig for you.

Simply put; in their opinion the design of your gear does not meet the modern standards for “safe enough”. The FAA doesn’t issue directives to tell people where that “safe enough” line lies – it delegates that authority to certified riggers who make that call for them.

The riggers on this board have given their opinion about the design of your rig. They have told you which side of the “2004 safe enough line” they feel it falls. They’ve explained that they think the 2004 safe enough line is different to the “1984 safe enough line”.

If you want to take that advice on board that is your personal choice. If you want to keep looking for a second opinion who will tell you your rig [I]is[/I] “safe enough” by today’s standards again that is your choice entirely... but if you were to simply discount the choir of voices you’ve found here who express their concern for your safety, that would indeed be foolish.

[slotperfect 7]

I removed my confusing reference to Roger Nelson's death. Thanks y'all for setting me straight. Remind me not to get on my PC before I have coffee!

Edited to add: I misread Airman1270's reference to Carl Nelson's death. I incorrectly posted a link to Roger Nelson's Incident thread. Two kind sharp-eyed folks pointed that out to me and I removed my post and it's reply.

Arrive Safely

John

[wmw999 2,120]

Quote

As for asking Carl Nelson, I can't - he's dead. I don't know the circumstances, but I was told this was some sort of drug situation.

Carl died at the 1979 Herd Labor Day Boogie; I was at the boogie, but I wasn't on the jump. A friend who was told me about it shortly afterwards -- it was his first close touch with a fatality.

There was a toggle flying loose from his rig, and it did get tangled with something from his main. Folks on the jump were trying to get his attention and it didn't work.

Might drugs have been involved? Possibly. But, well, a loose toggle definitely was.

First generation Wonderhogs didn't have much in the way of either riser or toggle protection. I had a second-generation Wonderhog (about 2" of riser protection just for the toggles), and there are plenty of pictures of me with my risers hanging off my shoulders, and my main pin cover flapping in the breeze.

Modern canopies are a whole different thing -- I'm in the technology is advancing faster than learning crowd.

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)

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I would be uncomfortable packing YOUR 25+ year-old rig, not because it's old, but because I have no way of knowing it's history with any certainty.

But would you be uncomfortable packing a 5 year old rig belonging to the transient jumper who showed up for the first time at your dz with an out of date reserve? How would you be able to tell if that rig has been cared for any better or worse than your dad's old rig? Personally I don't see the difference.

If an experienced jumper with older gear knows the limitations of their gear (and therefore likely knows the risks s/he is taking by jumping it), and chooses to jump it today why is their choice any different than an experienced jumper choosing to jump an overloaded reserve? Would you refuse to pack said overloaded reserve?

My level of risk acceptance is likely to be different from yours (that's a generic "yours", not referring to any one person). That fact doesn't make either of us wrong.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

why is their choice any different than an experienced jumper choosing to jump an overloaded reserve?

Because the if the rig is safe, then it's safe. A rigger doesn't certify that it will be used in a safe manner, they certify the rig is safe.

Quote

Would you refuse to pack said overloaded reserve?

Yes, I would, if the rig was safe. That is where the rigger's responsibility ends.

If I pack a small rig and the owner loans it to a 300-lb 50-jump wonder, I am not responsible if the guy femurs trying to land the reserve.

I feel that if I put a rig that isn't safe in the air, I can and should be held responsible if there is a problem.

It's my ticket and if I don't want to risk it on 20-year old gear, I have every right not too.

What some people consider 'a little safer' I consider 'a lot safer'. I don't think a rig with adequate riser protection, pin protection, poor bridle protection, and a poor reserve system is safe enough for me to put my seal on. It's that simple, the difference between "a little" and "a lot". I may be wrong and nothing will ever happen with a 20+ year-old rig, but I'm not willing to risk it or find out I'm right the hard way. It's not worth the risk for $35.00, or $350.00.

Derek

[skybytch 259]

Quote

If I pack a small rig and the owner loans it to a 300-lb 50-jump wonder, I am not responsible if the guy femurs trying to land the reserve.

But what if the overloaded reserve fails when that 50 jump wonder has a premature (read "terminal") deployment? Not your responsibility since you can't control the usage of the gear once it leaves your hands, but if your seal is on it guaranteed you'll be talking to whoever investigates the incident.

I know of a rigger who lost a (manufacturer issued) tandem rating because a tandem reserve pack job that he supervised (done by a riglet), a reserve that wasn't even deployed in the incident that caused the investigation, had a rubber band for slider stowage on the wrong suspension line. The reserve pack job, and therefore the rigger who sealed it, had nothing to do with the incident... but he lost anyway.

I'd jump my 1984 Vector with the Phantom 20 foot reserve tomorrow if I had a main that would fit in the container and a table to pack the reserve on. Would I freefly with it? Not a chance - I know the limitations of the gear. If it's airworthy (based on a rigger's assessment of it's condition, not based on it's date of manufacture) then it's safe. I'd pack a 25 year old rig if it was airworthy. I'd be sure the gear owner knows the limitations of the equipment before I put my name on the pack job though... just as I would for someone pushing the weight limits on their modern square reserve.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Would you pack a like-new, 1930's silk main and chest mount reserve?

Quote

I know of a rigger who lost a (manufacturer issued) tandem rating because a tandem reserve pack job that he supervised (done by a riglet), a reserve that wasn't even deployed in the incident that caused the investigation, had a rubber band for slider stowage on the wrong suspension line. The reserve pack job, and therefore the rigger who sealed it, had nothing to do with the incident... but he lost anyway.

Exactly why I am cautious with my rigging.

Quote

I'd jump my 1984 Vector with the Phantom 20 foot reserve tomorrow

A Vector is a long way from a Wonderhog. It's also different if you pack it and jump it, then you are the one taking all the risk. I would pack and jump a lot of stuff I wouldn't pack for anyone else.

Derek

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Carl died at the 1979 Herd Labor Day Boogie; I was at the boogie, but I wasn't on the jump.

***

Gulp.....
Ah..gee Wendy...ME TOO!

(at the boogie, not on the jump)

I...ah..er ...ahem...
Sure hope we haven't
met before!

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

[wmw999 2,120]

OMG!!!!!
That was you??????

I'll never tell

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)

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Would you pack a like-new, 1930's silk main and chest mount reserve?

I did. Once. Reserve only and it wasn't jumped.

One of the benefits of learning to rig from a gear pack rat/skydiving history buff.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I did. Once. Reserve only and it wasn't jumped.

I guess I should have said, "Willing to pack and seal for a customer".

So you agree that there is a line that at some point gear, regardless of the condition, is simply too old?

Derek

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Quote

Would you pack a like-new, 1930's silk main and chest mount reserve?

I did. Once. Reserve only and it wasn't jumped.

One of the benefits of learning to rig from a gear pack rat/skydiving history buff.

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

Yes, I have repacked a couple of silk parachutes, but since they were headed straight to a museum/collector, I never sealed them.

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

Quote

would you be uncomfortable packing a 5 year old rig belonging to the transient jumper who showed up for the first time at your dz with an out of date reserve? How would you be able to tell if that rig has been cared for any better or worse than your dad's old rig? Personally I don't see the difference.

You make a valid point, and I can't say I have an absolute answer for you. I disagree, however, about seeing a difference: the difference is 20 years. Is it possible that a 5-year-old rig would be so misused and abused that it would be unsafe to jump? yes. But when was the last time you heard about someone going in under their 5 year old rig, jumped within weight and speed limits, because of catastrophic failure? (that is, other than the recent issues with adjustable main lift webs...) Furthermore, the kind of abuse that would be necessary to make a 5 year old rig unairworthy would surely be apparent upon inspection, no? Over 25 years, it just seems to me that the laws of entropy start to take over unless you are very careful. Problems might not be apparent to the backyard rigger. Ultimately, all riggers have the right to draw a line wherever they want, and well... this particular example is past my line. As you said, that doesn't make either party wrong. If I refuse, the jumper can simply find another rigger who is willing. Or, they can avoid the whole situation, and become a rigger themself (interesting that I haven't seen anyone suggest this yet...)

Quote

If an experienced jumper with older gear knows the limitations of their gear (and therefore likely knows the risks s/he is taking by jumping it), and chooses to jump it today why is their choice any different than an experienced jumper choosing to jump an overloaded reserve? Would you refuse to pack said overloaded reserve?

Actually, the difference is huge! The first is an educated decision made by a knowledgeable person, and the second *could* be a blatant disregard for personal saftey. Having known a heavier man (280ish) who went in under his girlfriends rig after a premature head-down delpoyment... the main blew up, and then when he chopped, dumped the (120 sq ft) reserve, and blew it up too, I am NOT a supporter of overloaded reserves. As to whether I would pack an overloaded reserve, that's very individual. Technically, my own reserve is overloaded (a microraven 150 is placarded to 150 lbs exit weight, and I'm around 165). Am I worrled? no... I know the history of the reserve, and I know that it had to pass TSO, which means the design was tested at least to 254 lbs at 150 knots. On the other hand, there is a newer jumper I know (who shall remain nameless) who weighs 300+ and is jumping a 26 ft round for a reserve. Would I pack that? absolutely not!

The key words of your question are "experienced jumper," who "knows the limitations of their gear" and "knows the risks they are taking by jumping it." in the case of someone from out of town, I don't know that said jumper is any of those things. They most likely are, but I've seen some older former jumpers walk in who are none of the above. To give an extreme example, I was evesdropping on a conversation in the hanger a couple months back... this guy came back to the DZ after a 30ish year period of not jumping, looked around for about 10 minutes, and said, in all seriousness "well, it doesn't look like anything has really changed... the only difference for me would be that the reserve is on my back instead of in the front." I SWEAR I'm not making this up... couldn't if I tried. Point is that if some guy I've never seen walks in with a 25 year old rig, he might not be so knowledgable as he claims, or even believes. On the other hand, if someone I trust knows him from way back and vouches for him, then I might consider working on his reserve.

I guess this has been a pretty long-winded stand on my soapbox, but as DZ brat who saw his first DZ at two weeks old and was packing tandems by 13, I dislike being called a predjudiced young kid just because I don't necessarily trust a rig I've never seen that's older than I am owned by someone who could be my grandfather.

"Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Or, they can avoid the whole situation, and become a rigger themself (interesting that I haven't seen anyone suggest this yet...)

From the 6th. post on this thread, Nov. 16.

Quote

If you feel the gear is airworthy, take the time and get your riggers ticket and sign it off yourself. Problem solved.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I guess I should have said, "Willing to pack and seal for a customer".

So you agree that there is a line that at some point gear, regardless of the condition, is simply too old?

At that time I was still a riglet so I couldn't have sealed it.

I'd have jumped it if the owner would have let me. I was younger and more bulletproof then though.

[mizzkinky 0]

For those of you who are bitching that new riggers aren't being taught the old gear......

I'd first like to say that I took a rigger's course when I was 16. Now, in the US you need to be 18 to actually get your license. We didn't do much research or anything before we decided to send me to a rigging course. So after talking with the instructor and the FAA, it was decided that I had a choice. I could wait until I turned 18 to take the course, or I could take the course at 16, do all my rigging like any other unlicense person (under the supervision of a licensed rigger) and get my license when I turned 18, automatically. So I chose to take the course at 16.

Next, I'd like to say that the rigging course I took was instructed/run/owned by Dave DeWolf. He had other instructors there of course, but Dave DeWolf is the main name known. Now, from what I've been told, that is one of the best, if not the best, rigging course in the country. Furthermore, my class was the first to have every person get their license.

Next, Dave DeWolf's rigging course is about a week long, and the first half of the week is STRICTLY round reserves. So, at age 16, I knew how to pack and inspect a round reserve. I also knew how to do the acid mesh test.

Finally, knowing how to pack round reserves is a very important concept to me because the DZ I spend the most time at is run at the airport that has the regional glider championships for two weeks every year. Every single glider pilot uses a pilot rig containing a round. Also, they do still make rounds. (for those of you who think rounds are gone for good) In fact, last spring I had the honor of repacking a practically brand new rig. I think it had only been packed once or twice before that, and was made either earlier that year, or the end of the year before.

So, if you think the knowledge isn't being passed onto the new riggers, you either didn't go to the right course, or you were taught by a rigger who wasn't taught the old stuff.