Question for Mirage - SB 12-04

[skymedic 0]

I had problems with one of my riser flaps coming open after owning my rig for about a year. henry custom sized me a new container for my massive reserve and smaller main...and then made the entire container with tye dye in less than 10days from when i sent him mine I had a new rig on my back....THAT is customer service...oh by the way...at absolutely no cost to me!!!!!

Iwill never buy a different kind of container for as long as I skydive.

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[skymedic 0]

Quote

Thanks, John. I didn't know Feisty was a Master Rigger. I'll pass that on.

Tom Dolphin isn't too far from ya also up in KC area. he is a very good master rigger you could check into.

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

I wouldn't have a problem if they issued a notice on how to pack Mirages (basically like the manual says) to prevent this issue in place of the SB. That would make my life a whole lot easier. No containers to mod and it wouldn't make small Mirages harder to pack, as the SB does.

How does the SB make small Mirages harder to pack?

Is the Mirage issue understood well enough to know if this concern is more likely to cause an actual problem for small reserve containers compared to large?

I am surprised that nobody is offering opinions about whether similarly designed (cutter placement) rigs might deserve a similar change.

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

[FrogNog 1]

I want to take a second to thank Mirage for coming out with this SB. They didn't have to. The fact they did shows one or more of 1. ethical consideration for other humans they don't care about, 2. care for fellow skydivers, or 3. concern that not doing this could affect them in court. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the first two.
I thought about the price and what I decided is it would be nice if nobody had to pay, but at that price it's still cheap.

We pay to maintain and replace parts that wear out or break due to time, operation, or accident. This is something that was engineered and constructed in good faith to the best standard available at the time of manufacture. Now it's "broken" because the standard moved up.

I'm not telling other people what to complain about. And I don't have a Mirage. But if I did, I'd suck it up and call it just another maintenance cost like risers, PCs, linesets & brakes, Cypres batteries / 4-year inspection, and repacks.

(And everyone can vote with their dollars going forward. Nothing wrong with that - it's not insulting, it's honest.)

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

How does the SB make small Mirages harder to pack?

By moving the cutter, the loop has to be made longer since the cutter can't 'burrow into a flap, making it harder to sink in the pilot chute.

Quote

Is the Mirage issue understood well enough to know if this concern is more likely to cause an actual problem for small reserve containers compared to large?

Yes, they are.

Quote

I am surprised that nobody is offering opinions about whether similarly designed (cutter placement) rigs might deserve a similar change.

I'm sure it is being looked at. Remember, the reserve has to be packed very poorly for this to occur. I am sill a bit fuzzy on how a bit of extra closing that has been cut can lock up a Mirage reserve container. But, apparently, combined with poor rigging, it can. Hence the reason I would be happier if Mirage posted a bulltine explaining the issue and skip the SB.

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

They didn't have to.

If they sat on the info and some went on with this problem, they would negligent.

Quote

This is something that was engineered and constructed in good faith to the best standard available at the time of manufacture. Now it's "broken" because the standard moved up.

That is not true. The rig had this 'issue' when new. The standard of the reserve deploying when the AAD fires has not moved up. The reserve has always been expected to deploy when the AAD fires.

Quote

I'm not telling other people what to complain about. And I don't have a Mirage. But if I did, I'd suck it up and call it just another maintenance cost like risers, PCs, linesets & brakes, Cypres batteries / 4-year inspection, and repacks.

If you had a Ford Explorer with Firestone tires that were prone to come apart, causing the vehicle to loose control and roll over, would you suck it up and replace the tires out of pocket? Or would you expect Ford to sell you tires that didn't fall apart before they needed replacing and expect them to replace the tires?

This isn't a maintanence issue, it's a design issue.

Derek

[polarbear 1]

I'm also a bit fuzzy on how extra closing loop could cause it to lock up, even on small containers. I'm especially fuzzy on it since in the Mirage owner's manual they specify a closing loop length for every size of reserve, then say that the loop has to be +/- 1/4 inch from that length. That's 1/2 inch tolerance! If extra loop causes the reserve to lock up, how much extra loop is necessary? Mirage pilot chutes are seriously stiff...something would have to get pinched pretty tight to hold one down.

"Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

[Hooknswoop 19]

Apparently if the loop is way too long and too much of the bulk is packed into the earts, the reserve container can lock up if the AAD fires. I find it hard to believe with how strong the reserve PC spring is, but it happened, so........

Derek

[skymedic 0]

Quote

1. ethical consideration for other humans they don't care about, 2. care for fellow skydivers, or 3. concern that not doing this could affect them in court.

I'd take number three here...although Mr.Hallet did leave there so maybe not.

Quote

We pay to maintain and replace parts that wear out or break due to time, operation, or accident. This is something that was engineered and constructed in good faith to the best standard available at the time of manufacture. Now it's "broken" because the standard moved up.

It's broken not because of an increase in standards it's broken because of a lack engineering in the first place. They created this issue when they engineered the cutter placement in the first place....

We will now have to fork over 100bucks at least for the disassembly, shipping, "fix", reassembly and reserve repack. kinda crappy if ya ask me...but I wouldn't expect anything less from Mirage. they have repetitively proven to be a royal pain in the ass to us when we have issue's with Anne's rig.

I am still frustrated with the whole Dash-m issue. Which both Anne and I have in our rigs. We continue to jump them and have had successfull rides on them. But that doesn't excuse the way it was handled. We wont buy a precision product because of the way they handled that for us. And in my opinion we will no longer support Mirage for this reason.

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[polarbear 1]

What got locked up? If the pilot chute material got locked up under the flaps, then AAD activation wouldn't be the only issue...it would happen if you pulled the ripcord. If the fix is to move the cutter between the pilot chute cap and the #3 flap, that indicates to me that what got locked up is the portion of closing loop that would be between the old cutter location (under flap #1) and the new location (under flap #3). Are they saying that that piece of closing loop got pinched somewhere with enough force to hold down that massive PC? How did they determine this?

Incidentally, I've been having trouble getting the side flaps of mirages with the new cutter location to pack up tightly...they keep coming out wrinkly. Is anyone else having that problem WITH THE NEW MODIFIED RIGS?

"Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Are they saying that that piece of closing loop got pinched somewhere with enough force to hold down that massive PC?

I think so, yes.

Quote

How did they determine this?

Packing them then cutting the loop.

Quote

Incidentally, I've been having trouble getting the side flaps of mirages with the new cutter location to pack up tightly...they keep coming out wrinkly.

I haven't packed one with the SB applied yet, but I understand it makes it harder to close, especially the smaller containers.

Derek

[skymedic 0]

Quote

Incidentally, I've been having trouble getting the side flaps of mirages with the new cutter location to pack up tightly...they keep coming out wrinkly. Is anyone else having that problem WITH THE NEW MODIFIED RIGS?

Conversations with riggers that have packed them up POST MOD said this is what they keep getting. I dont know if they have been able to fix this since, but they were working on figuring out how to best minimize the wrinkling. I guess this goes under the "with only minimal aesthetic cost" bit that is in the SB. I kind of figured this would happen when I read the SB. Hope it can be figured out. Not that aesthetics should even be worried about in this case but is something that people are concerned with.

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[MWGemini 0]

A lot of people are complaining about the cost involved here. Firstly, this SB could save your life. If you ever need the improved performance this SB supposedly offers, you'll gladly pay any price. Secondly, it really isn't that much of an added cost. My normal repack fee is $45. For me to have Mirage do it, it's $60. That's only $15 extra, plus shipping, so say $40 tops. That's two jump tickets. Big deal. It's less of a concern for me since I was planning on sending my rig down to Mirage at my next repack time to get some custom embroidering done anyways. I just had my reserve repacked a few weeks ago, and I'm not going to rush out and have the mod done immediately, because I feel the rig is still perfectly safe as it is.

I have read the SB, and although I am far from being a rigger, it seems like the design of the mod may cause new problems if I understand it correctly (cutter being on the flap instead of inside). I'll take their word on it though, since they know far more than I ever will about the system.

So the only possible complaint is the aesthetic change. While it sucks that the rig won't look as nice, as long as it does it's job when it needs to, does anything else really matter?

Mike

Edit: My wife agrees with me and thinks this attachment is applicable to some of the posters here.

[FrogNog 1]

Quote

Quote

They didn't have to.

If they sat on the info and some went on with this problem, they would negligent.

Quote

This is something that was engineered and constructed in good faith to the best standard available at the time of manufacture. Now it's "broken" because the standard moved up.

That is not true. The rig had this 'issue' when new. The standard of the reserve deploying when the AAD fires has not moved up. The reserve has always been expected to deploy when the AAD fires.

Quote

I'm not telling other people what to complain about. And I don't have a Mirage. But if I did, I'd suck it up and call it just another maintenance cost like risers, PCs, linesets & brakes, Cypres batteries / 4-year inspection, and repacks.

If you had a Ford Explorer with Firestone tires that were prone to come apart, causing the vehicle to loose control and roll over, would you suck it up and replace the tires out of pocket? Or would you expect Ford to sell you tires that didn't fall apart before they needed replacing and expect them to replace the tires?

This isn't a maintanence issue, it's a design issue.

Derek

All these things are differences in point of view.

* Perhaps they would have been negligent if they knew but didn't issue an SB. A lot of waivers I sign say that negligence happens and I can't sue over it. There is some other term that's worse than negligence that people can't waive in the U.S., but I don't think failing to release this SB would make that level. And even if knowing about but not issuing this SB were a "sue-able" offense, that doesn't mean they have to issue it. They could still do nothing and take their chances. Or quit the company, break it up, and sell its assets to someone else, then all move to Pakistan. I'm happier they issued the SB but it was still optional depending on how you look at it.

* The rig did have this issue when it was knew. We agree on that. However, people were still selling and buying these rigs when it had this problem. Why is that? I assume it's because the sellers didn't know, and the buyers didn't know. I assume at the times of sale, both sides thought the reserve would be as likely as possible to deploy when the AAD fired. But then new evidence comes to light, the engineering is reexamined, and now a rig that was fine before, as far as anyone knew, is not up to par. Yet, no stitches popped, no metal rusted, no moveable pieces suddenly moved where they shouldn't. The rig didn't change; the manufacturer's and owners' opinions of the rig changed.

If I had a Ford Exploder that I learned had tire issues, the first thing I'd do is check the inflation. That's sort of like a "ground until inspected" SB, and it's something I should have been doing all along (similar to rigger inspects at the time of repack), and it's something that would almost certainly have prevented the problem from biting me, in the Firestone case. (And yet, two months after that story broke, I saw a Ford Explorer with grossly underinflated tires parked outside a daycare as I rode to work....)

Would I want them to pay for the tires? Sure. Unless I had just about used mine up - then I'd see if they offered, but otherwise I'd just buy another manufacturer's tires and be done with it. But if they didn't pay, what would I do? I'd get tires I felt were good enough. If I thought the ones I had were still fine, I'd keep riding them. If the SB implied they could fail with no prior notice, I wouldn't trust them and I'd replace them before driving much more. And I'd consider that $500 and some inconvenience, on a dozens-of-thousands of dollars vehicle, was a pain but wasn't the end of the world.

* It started out as a design issue but it's a maintenance issue now, as far as current rig owners are concerned. The cause is imperfect engineering that resulted in their rig. The fix is cutting and sewing, which is the style of maintenance repairs. And I was just saying I would personally label it a maintenance issue, pay and get it done, and move on. Labeling it is just my way of dealing.

-=-

I stand by my appreciation that Mirage, despite having to choose between 1. giving away a lot of rigging effort for free (for an imperfection, flaw, fault, inferiority, goof, mistake, screwup, or stupidity - reader's choice - in their engineering) and 2. risking pissing off their customers, still released the SB, instead of searching for a third option like burying their heads in the sand.

Obviously it's better customer service if a manufacturer stands behind their work in a bigger, more glowing way. But I'd rather hear "you're unsafe, for $60 plus shipping we can make it better" than nothing.

I will have to eat some of my words if it comes to light that they knew or should have known about this issue a significant time ago. But I don't consider the fact that the engineering was imperfect a de facto indication that they should have known about the problem as soon as they shipped their first paid rig.

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Obviously it's better customer service if a manufacturer stands behind their work in a bigger, more glowing way. But I'd rather hear "you're unsafe, for $60 plus shipping we can make it better" than nothing.

I'd just like to point out that the manufacturer IS offering to do the mod for free. It's your responsibility to get the product to them.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[BIGUN 1,095]

Quote

Edit: My wife agrees with me and thinks this attachment is applicable to some of the posters here.

You and your wife would be mistaken.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[FineHavanas 0]

I think it is important in this thread to remember that Mirages do/did not have a design flaw when used correctly. This SB actually only serves to help save your butt in the unanticipated event when you use your rig incorrectly (read – when the rigger you choose packs your rig incorrectly). If you use your rig correctly there is no issue. Thanks to Mirage for their effort to correct potential problems in cases when their product might be used incorrectly.

[polarbear 1]

Hmmm....this still seems strange to me, but it appears Airtec has seen the same phenomenon. I wonder, though...they say that the portion of loop above the cutter has to 'weave its way through the grommets' after an AAD activation. Wouldn't it have to do that anyway after a manual activation?

"Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!"

[Tonto 1]

Good point...

If it were not for those damn deadly AAD's - this rig would be perfect! Maybe Cypres should pay for the mods!

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[skycat 0]

Quote

Hmmm....this still seems strange to me, but it appears Airtec has seen the same phenomenon. I wonder, though...they say that the portion of loop above the cutter has to 'weave its way through the grommets' after an AAD activation. Wouldn't it have to do that anyway after a manual activation?

So how come Javelin has never had a problem? Their cutter is located on the backpad about as far away from the pin as possible, and a Javelin spring compared to a mirage spring isn't as strong.

Fly it like you stole it!

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I was also thinking of automobile mfr recalls as I was reading this. It's a good, and fair analogy.

No it's not. Car manufacturers have multi million dollar budgets and make multi million dollar profits. Skydiving equipment manufacturers don't.

I'd bet Mirage would like to cover the cost of doing the mod on every rig out there but I'd also bet their bottom line won't allow it. Would you rather pay $100 or so for the mod and have the manufacturer be around next year when you need a new reserve handle or would you rather they do the mod (including shipping) for you for free and then go out of business because there's no more money/credit left?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

No it's not. Car manufacturers have multi million dollar budgets and make multi million dollar profits. Skydiving equipment manufacturers don't.

The manufacturer’s budget doesn’t change the analogy. It cost Ford a lot more to replace all those intake manifolds on all those Mustangs that it will cost Mirage to apply the SB to every Mirage. The income AND expense numbers are smaller.

Quote

I'd bet Mirage would like to cover the cost of doing the mod on every rig out there but I'd also bet their bottom line won't allow it.

They are willing to do them for free, which costs them money. Why can't they offer to reimburse riggers for rig they apply the SB to? That would save Mirage and the owner shipping costs. That shipping cost would probably off set the higher cost of reimbursing riggers to do the SB. If it cost Mirage any more than doing it themselves, it wouldn’t be much.

Say it costs Mirage $15.00 + shipping (say another $20.00) to do the SB. If they offer $20.00 to each rigger that does the SB (using S/N’s to prevent abuse), that would actually save Mirage $15.00 and eliminate the time spent in shipping that the owner is without their rig.

Derek

[BIGUN 1,095]

Quote

If you use your rig correctly there is no issue.

I'm not sure I follow. The SB affects the specified series of rigs whether the rig is used correctly or not - and is mandatory. If it were a matter of correct usage, Mirage would have issued the SB to have them checked to ensure they were done correctly and safely - not unlike the Capewell Pins of last year.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[GravityGirl 0]

As a dealer, I fully appreciate the efforts that Mirage Systems has made in an effort to maintain high standards in our sport.

They were the first ones out with the Capwell SB. And they are the first ones out with this SB.

It is my understanding that this bulletin was issued as a result of mis-rigging in the field. If the possiblitiy exsists of a rigger making an error, then Mirage has found a better way to prevent any incident.

It takes courage to make a bold and aggressive move like Mirage has done. It could damage their reputation and bottom line. But their concern here is serve and protect their customers! GOOD JOB MIRAGE!

This from a statement by Airtec:

We appreciate the action Mirage is taking with this PSB because it
eliminates possible side effects from a lot of field rigging errors which no
manufacturer can prevent. We encourage other manufacturers of containers with
internal pilotchutes to evaluate this cutter location and take similar action as is
appropriate.
Our testing work and cooperation with rig manufacturers concerning CYPRES
installations will continue in the future as in the past 15 years.
Airtec GmbH

IMHO $60 is a small price to pay for continued progression in our sport. For youself and for the future of out sport.

I have set up assistance for my customers to help offset the immidiate cost of getting the mods done. Perhaps your dealer/s have done the same.

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

[riggerrob 561]

Who should pay?

When I worked at Rigging Innovations, I did hundreds of Service Bulletins, updates, etc. for free because that was Sandy's policy. I even did a bunch of minor repairs and non-mandatory updates (i.e. reserve toggle hoods) for free. I did not bill much of that work because the paperwork would have taken longer than the sewing.

Now that I am a field rigger, I charge for my time to do any Service Bulletins, Airworthiness Directives, etc. I bill customers directly. I do not bother trying to get reimbursed by the factory, because billing the factory would take longer than the sewing.