metalslug 31 #51 November 17, 2010 QuoteI think you know exactly what I mean and you are just trying to argue. No students don’t have to learn advanced rigging skills but they should have a basic understanding of the gear and how each part works. For this to happen it takes time invested by both the student and the instructor. In today’s puppy mills time is hard to come by. We need to take the time to teach students to take the time to learn. Yes, to be fair, I do know what you mean, but I resent the way that you present it. You have used words in this thread that include "bozos" and "..a generation of jumpers that haven’t got a clue.". You even accused another poster of being "full of shit" for stating that a mis-rigged AAD should be considered as negligence. These kinds of statements are are intensely patronizing (which you love to do on these forums) and quite possibly false in many cases. If you want to make these comments, then you need to have your ducks in a row. If you are suggesting that correct student-level gear knowledge could have saved the student with the mis-rigged AAD, then I think you might be full of something. The student did not pull, that's his fault, but it had fsckall to do with his knowledge of gear. A "basic understanding of the gear and how each part works" was already covered in my FJC, unless you would care to cite specifics that you believe the USPA FJC currently overlooks. You remind me of members in Speakers Corner who say things like "We need to cap the BP oil well now !" or "We need to do more to stop illegal border crossings." but come up short on fresh suggestions that have not already been considered, tried, and actively practiced at some DZs for the last decade or more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #52 November 17, 2010 You are right; I can get real damn patronizing. Part of the reason is people that refuse to open their eyes and see what is happening around them. People like you. Rather than admit that there might be some truth is what I posted you choose to discuss my presentation. This is a life and death sport and you want to debate weather I ruffle a few feathers in the discussion of a fatality. Instead of cherry picking just those phrases that you think support what you think go back and read the posts putting those phrases in context. One you brought up had nothing to do with student skills did it? QuoteA "basic understanding of the gear and how each part works" was already covered in my FJC, unless you would care to cite specifics that you believe the USPA FJC currently overlooks. This sounds like I hit a nerve. I am not going to do the research for you but just in these forums you will find time after time where jumpers off student status are asking questions about things they should have learned while still a student. I commend them for asking but for everyone that asks how many don’t. What we end up with is a culture building with the newer jumpers where they think asking questions and actively seeking information is a waste of their time. In this sport knowledge can safe your life. I know of at least 2 young jumpers who might be alive today but they didn’t know how their AAD worked. The reason they died is because they didn’t pull. And that is one of the basis skills I was talking about. QuoteYou remind me of members in Speakers Corner who say things like "We need to cap the BP oil well now !" or "We need to do more to stop illegal border crossings." but come up short on fresh suggestions that have not already been considered, tried, and actively practiced at some DZs for the last decade or more. Why would you drag this crap into a discussion on how to keep skydivers alive? Being from SA what interest do you have in Americas borders? If you take the time to READ what I posted you will that I did offer some suggestions. We need to slow the process down and that the time to teach students to survive. QuoteI think you know exactly what I mean and you are just trying to argue. No students don’t have to learn advanced rigging skills but they should have a basic understanding of the gear and how each part works. For this to happen it takes time invested by both the student and the instructor. In today’s puppy mills time is hard to come by. We need to take the time to teach students to take the time to learn. Sparky I don’t really care if you resent what I say or how I say it. I also don’t care who I remind you of. If one thing I post here has something to do with saving one jumper injury or death then my day shines. Its all about keeping skydiver alive.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 31 #53 November 17, 2010 Quote ..you will find time after time where jumpers off student status are asking questions about things they should have learned while still a student. I commend them for asking but for everyone that asks how many don’t ? Perhaps those that paid attention during their student program ? ..or asked their DZ instructor ? ..or did their own research and reading ? You seem to be asserting that those who do not ask anything, do not know anything. Quote What we end up with is a culture building with the newer jumpers where they think asking questions and actively seeking information is a waste of their time. And you know this how? Because thousands of jumpers of all nationalities have told you this? I am not aware of a single skydiver who feels this way, although I admit I don't know as many skydivers as you do. You take a sampling of low-timer questions from an online forum, which represents a small percentage of all US skydivers and an even smaller percentage of skydivers worldwide, and you expand this to conclude that an entire new generation of low-timers is more ignorant than "your" generation of low-timers ? In the days when you were a student, and there was no DZ.com, how can you be sure that your fellow students had no questions that required an online answer? Sure I cannot prove that "new generation" students are just as knowledgeable as "your generation" students were, but I believe the contrary cannot be proven either, which is what you are claiming. Quote Why would you drag this crap into a discussion on how to keep skydivers alive? Being from SA what interest do you have in Americas borders? If you ever do venture into Speakers Corner, you will find that there is very little non-US content in there. I just didn't have time to find a suitable analogy from a non-American source. Quote If one thing I post here has something to do with saving one jumper injury or death then my day shines. Its all about keeping skydiver alive. That's a noble ambition. Good on you. Seriously. You might consider, however, that your advice can only help those who read it, and maintaining a thread tone along the lines of "Listen up bozos, you young pups need to defer to my next pearls of wisdom..." is less likely to grant you a bookmark in a students online reading habbits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #54 November 17, 2010 May I respectfully say...it's the message that's important, not the tone. Notice how I put that very nicely? I sincerely hope that you are not one of those who close their ears just because someone doesn't speak to you in a tone that you will accept. Your responses to Sparky seem to indicate that. One would do well to listen to Sparky...he's one of our best. Experience, time in sport, and knowledge all contribute to making one's opinion valuable. Believe me, Sparky's been there, done that. You're relatively new to the sport and haven't had the long-term exposure that some have so yes, you don't understand Sparky's point of view. Hang around long enough and you will see what Sparky sees, too. Knowledge is power. As far as the FJC...there is no way in hell, I don't care where you learned, that you learned everything there is to know about gear nor its maintenance during your FJC. (edited to add) QuoteYou seem to be asserting that those who do not ask anything, do not know anything. In the big scheme of things, by far and away, yes, it's true. You'll see the: - "Spoon Fed" guys - not asking, waiting for someone to come tell them. - "Reader" guys - those that think everything they need to know is in a book somewhere...and believe everything they read. - "Video Spy" guys - They saw a video so it must be true/ok/correct. Hang in there guy...it'll become more clear as time-in-sport increases.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 151 #55 November 17, 2010 Quote Another wrinkle that might work against AirTec. Let us say that Joe Builder develops a new rig, the WhizBanger 6. He locates where he wants the AAD to be & then sends it off to AirTec for their 'approval.' But after they ( AirTec ) run a few tests they tell Joe Builder that he must relocate the cutter and then they will 'approve' the installation. So Joe Builder relocates the cutter per AirTec's instructions and all is well with the world. If I were making an AAD, I would call it a Loop Cutter only and I would allow the rig mfr to put it anywhere he wanted. This 'approval' by AirTec IMO is just asking for more problems. JerryBaumchen The problem with the modern approach to blame and litigation is that it seriously undermines the truth and the ability to learn from our mistakes. In your example the prudent business response from Airtec is to limit the scope of their instructions as far as possible and push the expert opinion back to the manufacturer. The approach that is best for the customer is to provide as much input and guidance as possible - but every "helpful" step opens the door for litigation and doesn't actually earn them any more business. As to the whole topic of negligence and mistakes. It is something that REALLY pisses me. In legal speak there is no room for human error and mistakes. The reality is that we all make mistakes and a bit of tolerance would make the world a better place. There is a huge difference between a simple mistake and incompetence which would be exhibited as a series of mistakes and never learning from them. Unfortunately some peoples jobs don't allow much room for mistakes and they can result in death, in these instances we should be looking at how to improve the checks and balances to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. Anybody that has made a simple mistake that has resulted in a death has my greatest sympathy, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkirian_Airlines_Flight_2937Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrianM 1 #56 November 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteBut the master at the dz where I work is fine to do an I&R with the main in place, He may be doing a fine R, but he sure as hell isn't doing a proper I. Sounds like a good rigger to avoid. What can he not inspect? - Fabric inside the main pack tray - Stitching inside the main pack tray - Main closing flap grommets - Main closing flap stiffeners - Main closing loop retainer - Main closing loop - Cutaway cable - Compliance with some service bulletins (such as the Javelin closing loop retainer modification bulletins)"It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #57 November 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBut the master at the dz where I work is fine to do an I&R with the main in place, He may be doing a fine R, but he sure as hell isn't doing a proper I. Sounds like a good rigger to avoid. What can he not inspect? - Fabric inside the main pack tray - Stitching inside the main pack tray - Main closing flap grommets - Main closing flap stiffeners - Main closing loop retainer - Main closing loop - Cutaway cable - Compliance with some service bulletins (such as the Javelin closing loop retainer modification bulletins) As I said to Billvon, he could very well open the main container, checks all these things, and close it so he doesn't have to worry about messing up the packed main. You are presuming that he doesn't check these things, when all I said was that he packs the reserve with the main in the container. I never really gave it much thought, as personally, I take the main out. Often as not, I end up packing the main for free since the customer didn't ask for that. Don't condemn the man based on my quick statement that he can pack the reserve with the main in the container. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 563 #58 November 17, 2010 QuoteQuote ... Me, my skills are such that I prefer that the main is not in the container when I do a repack. But the master at the dz where I work is fine to do an I&R with the main in place, and lots of the customers prefer it that way. Do the regs or recommendations say anything about this one way or the other? ... ...................................................................... I agree with you ... but disagree with your lokal master rigger. Sinse most manufakturer's manuals inlude diagrams (or photos) of reserves being losed WITH EMPTY MAIN KONTAINERS, it would be a violation of the manufakturer's instruktions to klose a reserve with the main kontainer full. Rob Warner FAA Master Rigger KSPA Rigger Examiner P.S. guess whikh key died on my lap-top? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mark 105 #59 November 17, 2010 QuoteP.S. guess whikh key died on my lap-top? The "K" key. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JerryBaumchen 1,081 #60 November 17, 2010 Hi nigel, Thanks for your reasoned reply. QuoteThe problem with the modern approach to blame and litigation is that it seriously undermines the truth and the ability to learn from our mistakes. I could not agree more. However, since I have been sued numerous times, it is quite possible that my thinking is biased. QuoteIn your example the prudent business response from Airtec is to limit the scope of their instructions as far as possible and push the expert opinion back to the manufacturer. Yup; when a lawsuit ( IMO ) is directed at numerous defendants then it, usually, becomes 'every man for himself.' It seems to be simply a survival action. From what I have read ( and I am very sure that it is not everything ), it would appear that the current litigation against AirTec is because they did not have redundant systems in their product. And, if they had double systems, then they would be sued because they didn't have a 3rd system; and on and on it goes. QuoteIt is something that REALLY pisses me. In legal speak there is no room for human error and mistakes. Ask yourself this: If it were your wife/daughter that died because the doctor cut the wrong whatever, would you write it of as 'such is life?'' Therein lies the acid test. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #61 November 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote ... Me, my skills are such that I prefer that the main is not in the container when I do a repack. But the master at the dz where I work is fine to do an I&R with the main in place, and lots of the customers prefer it that way. Do the regs or recommendations say anything about this one way or the other? ... ...................................................................... I agree with you ... but disagree with your lokal master rigger. Sinse most manufakturer's manuals inlude diagrams (or photos) of reserves being losed WITH EMPTY MAIN KONTAINERS, it would be a violation of the manufakturer's instruktions to klose a reserve with the main kontainer full. Rob Warner FAA Master Rigger KSPA Rigger Examiner P.S. guess whikh key died on my lap-top? I don't think things are quite so cut and dried as you are currently claiming. The RI Talon manual shows clamps on the reserve. Does that mean I MUST use clamps? AC-105 says that when there is a conflict between canopy manufacturer's instructions and container manufacturer's instructions, the container manufacturer's instructions take precedence. Does that mean I MUST use clamps when packing a Flight Concepts reserve (prohibits clamps) into a RI Talon? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BrianM 1 #62 November 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBut the master at the dz where I work is fine to do an I&R with the main in place, He may be doing a fine R, but he sure as hell isn't doing a proper I. Sounds like a good rigger to avoid. What can he not inspect? - Fabric inside the main pack tray - Stitching inside the main pack tray - Main closing flap grommets - Main closing flap stiffeners - Main closing loop retainer - Main closing loop - Cutaway cable - Compliance with some service bulletins (such as the Javelin closing loop retainer modification bulletins) As I said to Billvon, he could very well open the main container, checks all these things, and close it so he doesn't have to worry about messing up the packed main. You are presuming that he doesn't check these things, when all I said was that he packs the reserve with the main in the container. I never really gave it much thought, as personally, I take the main out. Often as not, I end up packing the main for free since the customer didn't ask for that. Don't condemn the man based on my quick statement that he can pack the reserve with the main in the container. Your statement in your first post (quoted in bold above) and your recollection of that statement in your second post (also quoted in bold above) are different. Your initial statement was that he does both the inspection and the repack (I&R) with the main in place - not just the pack job - so that is what I was basing my comments on. I'm not trying to nitpick based on wording, BTW, and I hope it doesn't come across that way - I appreciate the clarification. If you're not sure exactly what he does, that's fine, and I'll reserve judgement. However, to inspect everything that I listed, I have to open the main container, lift out the bagged main canopy, completely extract the cutaway cables... so I really don't see any advantage to replacing the main before the pack job instead of after. To each his own, I suppose, as long as a proper inspection is being done."It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 563 #63 November 17, 2010 I wrote the 1997 Talon 2 manual before Flight Konkepts banned klamps. If you kan PRO pak a reserve grasefully without klamps, good on you! You are a better rigger than me. As long as the final produkt resembles the manual. As for Flight KonKepts' ban on klamps .. I suspkt that it is bekause only one manufakturer of ram-air reseves requires tensile-testing and the rest of us konsider the prosess frivolous or potentially damaging. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #64 November 17, 2010 Quote Your statement in your first post (quoted in bold above) and your recollection of that statement in your second post (also quoted in bold above) are different. Your initial statement was that he does both the inspection and the repack (I&R) with the main in place - not just the pack job - so that is what I was basing my comments on. I'm not trying to nitpick based on wording, BTW, and I hope it doesn't come across that way - I appreciate the clarification. If you're not sure exactly what he does, that's fine, and I'll reserve judgement. You are right. My statements were imprecise. I said "I&R" and should not have. That wasn't really the point of the discussion at that point, and so I paid less attention to that detail than I should have. MEL was talking about how the information in the 180-day I&R clarification led to a death, because the main was in place when the rig was re-closed. His implication is that re-closing a rig, as is apparently allowed by the document he mentioned, was what caused the death. I should only have said that I know a reputable rigger who can close a rig with the main in place, though it is not the way I can do it. The point I was trying to make at that time was only that no matter what you are doing, doing it without the proper knowledge and attention to the job at hand was the cause of the problem, not that the main was in place, or that the rig was being re-closed. I appreciate your patience and willingness to listen as I attempted to clarify. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #65 November 17, 2010 QuoteThat's a noble ambition. Good on you. Seriously. You might consider, however, that your advice can only help those who read it, and maintaining a thread tone along the lines of "Listen up bozos, you young pups need to defer to my next pearls of wisdom..." is less likely to grant you a bookmark in a students online reading habbits. After having a long talk with Gray Goose and a good night sleep I tend to agree with you. My habit of saying what I mean without sugar coating it is probably offensive to the “young pups” as you call them. Since presentation is seems to be more important than content and since I am too old to change my ways and in the interest of saving the delicate feelings of the “young pups” I think is best if I refrain from posting in the future. Stay safe, SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Scrumpot 1 #66 November 17, 2010 Quote MEL was talking about how the information in the 180-day I&R clarification led to a death, because the main was in place when the rig was re-closed. I don't think that is accurate - or your presumption of which incident rather, MEL was referring to is (in)correct. MEL can certainly speak for himself and feel free to correct me if instead here now, it is me that is mistaken - but my reading of his post was that he was referring to the Garretsville, OH 9/19/2009 Tandem pair incident, where it was found, in part - that the Tandem-System RSL had been mis-routed (under, instead of over a closing flap) upon reserve-flaps re-closing, when the rigger opened the reserve container to replace CyPReS batteries (only), and re-assembled/re-closed "as-is", without (apparently) doing a full A-I-R. Quote There was a double fatality apparently from someone installing a Cypres battery and reclosing the container improperly. It captured the double sided RSL as per Nancy's report. That is the Garretsville Tandem double-fatality incident he is referring to. I'm just sayin'... FWIW. The whole tangent of I&R's on sport rigs possibly being done with the main remaining in the container, probably could have even been avoided altogether, if this false presumption were just not pursued! coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #67 November 18, 2010 Quote Quote MEL was talking about how the information in the 180-day I&R clarification led to a death, because the main was in place when the rig was re-closed. I don't think that is accurate - or your presumption of which incident rather, MEL was referring to is (in)correct. MEL can certainly speak for himself and feel free to correct me if instead here now, it is me that is mistaken - but my reading of his post was that he was referring to the Garretsville, OH 9/19/2009 Tandem pair incident, where it was found, in part - that the Tandem-System RSL had been mis-routed (under, instead of over a closing flap) upon reserve-flaps re-closing, when the rigger opened the reserve container to replace CyPReS batteries (only), and re-assembled/re-closed "as-is", without (apparently) doing a full A-I-R. Quote There was a double fatality apparently from someone installing a Cypres battery and reclosing the container improperly. It captured the double sided RSL as per Nancy's report. That is the Garretsville Tandem double-fatality incident he is referring to. I'm just sayin'... FWIW. The whole tangent of I&R's on sport rigs possibly being done with the main remaining in the container, probably could have even been avoided altogether, if this false presumption were just not pursued! We're talking about the same incident. In post #35 of this thread, MEL mentioned 3 docs, one of which was the PIA 180-day FAQ, another was the Garretsville report. In post #37, I asked him how the 180-day FAQ came into play. In post #41, MEL told us how the allowing a re-close in the 180-day FAQ let the whole thing happen. In post #42, I said that this wasn't a problem with allowing a re-close. It was a problem with failing to re-close properly when the main was still attached. The Racer manual suggests that the error can be avoided if the RSL is not present when the rig is closed. That morphed into the whole question of doing work on the reserve while the main is still attached, or in the container, or otherwise close enough to be a factor. That's how discussions sometimes go. It began with the Airtec notice about putting the closing loop through the cutter. It went on to touch on a number of aspects of rigging that can have an influence on the process. Jerry Baumchen mentioned legal implication of the way AADs get "approved", and MEL replied with his post #35 that I mentioned above. Tangents happen. We all contribute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
mark 105 #59 November 17, 2010 QuoteP.S. guess whikh key died on my lap-top? The "K" key. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,081 #60 November 17, 2010 Hi nigel, Thanks for your reasoned reply. QuoteThe problem with the modern approach to blame and litigation is that it seriously undermines the truth and the ability to learn from our mistakes. I could not agree more. However, since I have been sued numerous times, it is quite possible that my thinking is biased. QuoteIn your example the prudent business response from Airtec is to limit the scope of their instructions as far as possible and push the expert opinion back to the manufacturer. Yup; when a lawsuit ( IMO ) is directed at numerous defendants then it, usually, becomes 'every man for himself.' It seems to be simply a survival action. From what I have read ( and I am very sure that it is not everything ), it would appear that the current litigation against AirTec is because they did not have redundant systems in their product. And, if they had double systems, then they would be sued because they didn't have a 3rd system; and on and on it goes. QuoteIt is something that REALLY pisses me. In legal speak there is no room for human error and mistakes. Ask yourself this: If it were your wife/daughter that died because the doctor cut the wrong whatever, would you write it of as 'such is life?'' Therein lies the acid test. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #61 November 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote ... Me, my skills are such that I prefer that the main is not in the container when I do a repack. But the master at the dz where I work is fine to do an I&R with the main in place, and lots of the customers prefer it that way. Do the regs or recommendations say anything about this one way or the other? ... ...................................................................... I agree with you ... but disagree with your lokal master rigger. Sinse most manufakturer's manuals inlude diagrams (or photos) of reserves being losed WITH EMPTY MAIN KONTAINERS, it would be a violation of the manufakturer's instruktions to klose a reserve with the main kontainer full. Rob Warner FAA Master Rigger KSPA Rigger Examiner P.S. guess whikh key died on my lap-top? I don't think things are quite so cut and dried as you are currently claiming. The RI Talon manual shows clamps on the reserve. Does that mean I MUST use clamps? AC-105 says that when there is a conflict between canopy manufacturer's instructions and container manufacturer's instructions, the container manufacturer's instructions take precedence. Does that mean I MUST use clamps when packing a Flight Concepts reserve (prohibits clamps) into a RI Talon? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BrianM 1 #62 November 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBut the master at the dz where I work is fine to do an I&R with the main in place, He may be doing a fine R, but he sure as hell isn't doing a proper I. Sounds like a good rigger to avoid. What can he not inspect? - Fabric inside the main pack tray - Stitching inside the main pack tray - Main closing flap grommets - Main closing flap stiffeners - Main closing loop retainer - Main closing loop - Cutaway cable - Compliance with some service bulletins (such as the Javelin closing loop retainer modification bulletins) As I said to Billvon, he could very well open the main container, checks all these things, and close it so he doesn't have to worry about messing up the packed main. You are presuming that he doesn't check these things, when all I said was that he packs the reserve with the main in the container. I never really gave it much thought, as personally, I take the main out. Often as not, I end up packing the main for free since the customer didn't ask for that. Don't condemn the man based on my quick statement that he can pack the reserve with the main in the container. Your statement in your first post (quoted in bold above) and your recollection of that statement in your second post (also quoted in bold above) are different. Your initial statement was that he does both the inspection and the repack (I&R) with the main in place - not just the pack job - so that is what I was basing my comments on. I'm not trying to nitpick based on wording, BTW, and I hope it doesn't come across that way - I appreciate the clarification. If you're not sure exactly what he does, that's fine, and I'll reserve judgement. However, to inspect everything that I listed, I have to open the main container, lift out the bagged main canopy, completely extract the cutaway cables... so I really don't see any advantage to replacing the main before the pack job instead of after. To each his own, I suppose, as long as a proper inspection is being done."It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 563 #63 November 17, 2010 I wrote the 1997 Talon 2 manual before Flight Konkepts banned klamps. If you kan PRO pak a reserve grasefully without klamps, good on you! You are a better rigger than me. As long as the final produkt resembles the manual. As for Flight KonKepts' ban on klamps .. I suspkt that it is bekause only one manufakturer of ram-air reseves requires tensile-testing and the rest of us konsider the prosess frivolous or potentially damaging. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #64 November 17, 2010 Quote Your statement in your first post (quoted in bold above) and your recollection of that statement in your second post (also quoted in bold above) are different. Your initial statement was that he does both the inspection and the repack (I&R) with the main in place - not just the pack job - so that is what I was basing my comments on. I'm not trying to nitpick based on wording, BTW, and I hope it doesn't come across that way - I appreciate the clarification. If you're not sure exactly what he does, that's fine, and I'll reserve judgement. You are right. My statements were imprecise. I said "I&R" and should not have. That wasn't really the point of the discussion at that point, and so I paid less attention to that detail than I should have. MEL was talking about how the information in the 180-day I&R clarification led to a death, because the main was in place when the rig was re-closed. His implication is that re-closing a rig, as is apparently allowed by the document he mentioned, was what caused the death. I should only have said that I know a reputable rigger who can close a rig with the main in place, though it is not the way I can do it. The point I was trying to make at that time was only that no matter what you are doing, doing it without the proper knowledge and attention to the job at hand was the cause of the problem, not that the main was in place, or that the rig was being re-closed. I appreciate your patience and willingness to listen as I attempted to clarify. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #65 November 17, 2010 QuoteThat's a noble ambition. Good on you. Seriously. You might consider, however, that your advice can only help those who read it, and maintaining a thread tone along the lines of "Listen up bozos, you young pups need to defer to my next pearls of wisdom..." is less likely to grant you a bookmark in a students online reading habbits. After having a long talk with Gray Goose and a good night sleep I tend to agree with you. My habit of saying what I mean without sugar coating it is probably offensive to the “young pups” as you call them. Since presentation is seems to be more important than content and since I am too old to change my ways and in the interest of saving the delicate feelings of the “young pups” I think is best if I refrain from posting in the future. Stay safe, SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Scrumpot 1 #66 November 17, 2010 Quote MEL was talking about how the information in the 180-day I&R clarification led to a death, because the main was in place when the rig was re-closed. I don't think that is accurate - or your presumption of which incident rather, MEL was referring to is (in)correct. MEL can certainly speak for himself and feel free to correct me if instead here now, it is me that is mistaken - but my reading of his post was that he was referring to the Garretsville, OH 9/19/2009 Tandem pair incident, where it was found, in part - that the Tandem-System RSL had been mis-routed (under, instead of over a closing flap) upon reserve-flaps re-closing, when the rigger opened the reserve container to replace CyPReS batteries (only), and re-assembled/re-closed "as-is", without (apparently) doing a full A-I-R. Quote There was a double fatality apparently from someone installing a Cypres battery and reclosing the container improperly. It captured the double sided RSL as per Nancy's report. That is the Garretsville Tandem double-fatality incident he is referring to. I'm just sayin'... FWIW. The whole tangent of I&R's on sport rigs possibly being done with the main remaining in the container, probably could have even been avoided altogether, if this false presumption were just not pursued! coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #67 November 18, 2010 Quote Quote MEL was talking about how the information in the 180-day I&R clarification led to a death, because the main was in place when the rig was re-closed. I don't think that is accurate - or your presumption of which incident rather, MEL was referring to is (in)correct. MEL can certainly speak for himself and feel free to correct me if instead here now, it is me that is mistaken - but my reading of his post was that he was referring to the Garretsville, OH 9/19/2009 Tandem pair incident, where it was found, in part - that the Tandem-System RSL had been mis-routed (under, instead of over a closing flap) upon reserve-flaps re-closing, when the rigger opened the reserve container to replace CyPReS batteries (only), and re-assembled/re-closed "as-is", without (apparently) doing a full A-I-R. Quote There was a double fatality apparently from someone installing a Cypres battery and reclosing the container improperly. It captured the double sided RSL as per Nancy's report. That is the Garretsville Tandem double-fatality incident he is referring to. I'm just sayin'... FWIW. The whole tangent of I&R's on sport rigs possibly being done with the main remaining in the container, probably could have even been avoided altogether, if this false presumption were just not pursued! We're talking about the same incident. In post #35 of this thread, MEL mentioned 3 docs, one of which was the PIA 180-day FAQ, another was the Garretsville report. In post #37, I asked him how the 180-day FAQ came into play. In post #41, MEL told us how the allowing a re-close in the 180-day FAQ let the whole thing happen. In post #42, I said that this wasn't a problem with allowing a re-close. It was a problem with failing to re-close properly when the main was still attached. The Racer manual suggests that the error can be avoided if the RSL is not present when the rig is closed. That morphed into the whole question of doing work on the reserve while the main is still attached, or in the container, or otherwise close enough to be a factor. That's how discussions sometimes go. It began with the Airtec notice about putting the closing loop through the cutter. It went on to touch on a number of aspects of rigging that can have an influence on the process. Jerry Baumchen mentioned legal implication of the way AADs get "approved", and MEL replied with his post #35 that I mentioned above. Tangents happen. We all contribute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
BrianM 1 #62 November 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBut the master at the dz where I work is fine to do an I&R with the main in place, He may be doing a fine R, but he sure as hell isn't doing a proper I. Sounds like a good rigger to avoid. What can he not inspect? - Fabric inside the main pack tray - Stitching inside the main pack tray - Main closing flap grommets - Main closing flap stiffeners - Main closing loop retainer - Main closing loop - Cutaway cable - Compliance with some service bulletins (such as the Javelin closing loop retainer modification bulletins) As I said to Billvon, he could very well open the main container, checks all these things, and close it so he doesn't have to worry about messing up the packed main. You are presuming that he doesn't check these things, when all I said was that he packs the reserve with the main in the container. I never really gave it much thought, as personally, I take the main out. Often as not, I end up packing the main for free since the customer didn't ask for that. Don't condemn the man based on my quick statement that he can pack the reserve with the main in the container. Your statement in your first post (quoted in bold above) and your recollection of that statement in your second post (also quoted in bold above) are different. Your initial statement was that he does both the inspection and the repack (I&R) with the main in place - not just the pack job - so that is what I was basing my comments on. I'm not trying to nitpick based on wording, BTW, and I hope it doesn't come across that way - I appreciate the clarification. If you're not sure exactly what he does, that's fine, and I'll reserve judgement. However, to inspect everything that I listed, I have to open the main container, lift out the bagged main canopy, completely extract the cutaway cables... so I really don't see any advantage to replacing the main before the pack job instead of after. To each his own, I suppose, as long as a proper inspection is being done."It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 563 #63 November 17, 2010 I wrote the 1997 Talon 2 manual before Flight Konkepts banned klamps. If you kan PRO pak a reserve grasefully without klamps, good on you! You are a better rigger than me. As long as the final produkt resembles the manual. As for Flight KonKepts' ban on klamps .. I suspkt that it is bekause only one manufakturer of ram-air reseves requires tensile-testing and the rest of us konsider the prosess frivolous or potentially damaging. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #64 November 17, 2010 Quote Your statement in your first post (quoted in bold above) and your recollection of that statement in your second post (also quoted in bold above) are different. Your initial statement was that he does both the inspection and the repack (I&R) with the main in place - not just the pack job - so that is what I was basing my comments on. I'm not trying to nitpick based on wording, BTW, and I hope it doesn't come across that way - I appreciate the clarification. If you're not sure exactly what he does, that's fine, and I'll reserve judgement. You are right. My statements were imprecise. I said "I&R" and should not have. That wasn't really the point of the discussion at that point, and so I paid less attention to that detail than I should have. MEL was talking about how the information in the 180-day I&R clarification led to a death, because the main was in place when the rig was re-closed. His implication is that re-closing a rig, as is apparently allowed by the document he mentioned, was what caused the death. I should only have said that I know a reputable rigger who can close a rig with the main in place, though it is not the way I can do it. The point I was trying to make at that time was only that no matter what you are doing, doing it without the proper knowledge and attention to the job at hand was the cause of the problem, not that the main was in place, or that the rig was being re-closed. I appreciate your patience and willingness to listen as I attempted to clarify. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #65 November 17, 2010 QuoteThat's a noble ambition. Good on you. Seriously. You might consider, however, that your advice can only help those who read it, and maintaining a thread tone along the lines of "Listen up bozos, you young pups need to defer to my next pearls of wisdom..." is less likely to grant you a bookmark in a students online reading habbits. After having a long talk with Gray Goose and a good night sleep I tend to agree with you. My habit of saying what I mean without sugar coating it is probably offensive to the “young pups” as you call them. Since presentation is seems to be more important than content and since I am too old to change my ways and in the interest of saving the delicate feelings of the “young pups” I think is best if I refrain from posting in the future. Stay safe, SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #66 November 17, 2010 Quote MEL was talking about how the information in the 180-day I&R clarification led to a death, because the main was in place when the rig was re-closed. I don't think that is accurate - or your presumption of which incident rather, MEL was referring to is (in)correct. MEL can certainly speak for himself and feel free to correct me if instead here now, it is me that is mistaken - but my reading of his post was that he was referring to the Garretsville, OH 9/19/2009 Tandem pair incident, where it was found, in part - that the Tandem-System RSL had been mis-routed (under, instead of over a closing flap) upon reserve-flaps re-closing, when the rigger opened the reserve container to replace CyPReS batteries (only), and re-assembled/re-closed "as-is", without (apparently) doing a full A-I-R. Quote There was a double fatality apparently from someone installing a Cypres battery and reclosing the container improperly. It captured the double sided RSL as per Nancy's report. That is the Garretsville Tandem double-fatality incident he is referring to. I'm just sayin'... FWIW. The whole tangent of I&R's on sport rigs possibly being done with the main remaining in the container, probably could have even been avoided altogether, if this false presumption were just not pursued! coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #67 November 18, 2010 Quote Quote MEL was talking about how the information in the 180-day I&R clarification led to a death, because the main was in place when the rig was re-closed. I don't think that is accurate - or your presumption of which incident rather, MEL was referring to is (in)correct. MEL can certainly speak for himself and feel free to correct me if instead here now, it is me that is mistaken - but my reading of his post was that he was referring to the Garretsville, OH 9/19/2009 Tandem pair incident, where it was found, in part - that the Tandem-System RSL had been mis-routed (under, instead of over a closing flap) upon reserve-flaps re-closing, when the rigger opened the reserve container to replace CyPReS batteries (only), and re-assembled/re-closed "as-is", without (apparently) doing a full A-I-R. Quote There was a double fatality apparently from someone installing a Cypres battery and reclosing the container improperly. It captured the double sided RSL as per Nancy's report. That is the Garretsville Tandem double-fatality incident he is referring to. I'm just sayin'... FWIW. The whole tangent of I&R's on sport rigs possibly being done with the main remaining in the container, probably could have even been avoided altogether, if this false presumption were just not pursued! We're talking about the same incident. In post #35 of this thread, MEL mentioned 3 docs, one of which was the PIA 180-day FAQ, another was the Garretsville report. In post #37, I asked him how the 180-day FAQ came into play. In post #41, MEL told us how the allowing a re-close in the 180-day FAQ let the whole thing happen. In post #42, I said that this wasn't a problem with allowing a re-close. It was a problem with failing to re-close properly when the main was still attached. The Racer manual suggests that the error can be avoided if the RSL is not present when the rig is closed. That morphed into the whole question of doing work on the reserve while the main is still attached, or in the container, or otherwise close enough to be a factor. That's how discussions sometimes go. It began with the Airtec notice about putting the closing loop through the cutter. It went on to touch on a number of aspects of rigging that can have an influence on the process. Jerry Baumchen mentioned legal implication of the way AADs get "approved", and MEL replied with his post #35 that I mentioned above. Tangents happen. We all contribute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
