do any other manufacturers or engineers support the speedbag?

[darnknit 0]

Quote

it is only deemed necessary by JumpShack (so far) and it is to guard against line dump / bag strip during a high speed reserve deployment.

so, have there been any incidents where line dump/bag strip of a reserve with a safety stow freebag was the cause?

in sport skydiving?

i'm just not a big fan of changing freebag design just because it works on tanks at 250 MPH.

pulling is cool. keep it in the skin

[darnknit 0]

Quote

I think one thing about owning a racer is you don't give a shit what anyone else thinks - kinda like John Sherman I think.

you may want to check with Mr. Sherman on that.

i've never met the guy, but the last thing i would want(if i were in his shoes) is the public perception that my company didn't give a shit. i would really hate if my company came across as insulting the intelligence of skydivers.

that is just what works for me.

pulling is cool. keep it in the skin

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

This is the classic definition of an "out-of-sequence" opening...which is what the bag was supposed to prevent in the first place.

Thanks Bill.

I think some people are confusing staging a deployment with metering a deployment. They believe that double stowing line stows will some how act a reefing device to meter down the opening.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[teason 0]

I know John and I think his main motivation is that he does what he feels is the safest and best.

What John will never ever ever do is use a system that he feels is unsafe because public opinion thinks otherwise.

Say what you want about speedbags, two pins and pop tops, John believes in them passionately through researching these systems and won't comprimise the integrity of his container. John has the patent on a one pin but uses the two pin design origionally by Ted Strong because he feels the two pin is superior.

I respect that type of conviction and belief in his product.

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[riggermick 6]

John has the patent on a one pin but uses the two pin design origionally by Ted Strong because he feels the two pin is superior.


Um he only has a patent on an adjustable loop not a one pin pop top. Stephan Ertler has a patent on a one pin pop top. although it's validity could be questioned. Believe me I've been through this whole ordeal before.

Mick.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

I know John and I think his main motivation is that he does what he feels is the safest and best.

I agree with you and I am sure John has jumper safety in mind. I just feel that the speed bad addresses a deployment situation not presented in sport jumping. I.E. high speed deployments, 200/250 mph and above.

From an earlier post of mine.

---

What I question is the following statements:

"There has been more than one fatality as a result.

Recent student harness failures are the direct result of line strip openings.

All the major manufacturers use "special" bags"

There seems to be a lack of any supporting information to what has been stated at fact.

---

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[teason 0]

I found this post on incidents
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2109354;#2109354

The Student Harness faliure cited, I believe, were the two Jav incidents involving hard openings and comprimised webbing.

As for the canopy manufacturers that use special bags, beside Jumpshack own deployment bag, I only know about one other companies test bag and it's "special" and speedbag-like.

That's all I know so far. I believe they have been addressed in other posts but don't quote me on that.

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[mjosparky 3]

This Nancy’s post from 27 Feb. I have numbered the areas I am asking about.

I forgot to mention the other deficiency of the old style bungee stow/pouch freebag - the destruction of reserve canopies in the event of line strip. 1 There've been several instances where lines tore from reserve canopies, or canopies blew up as a result of line strip. It's not that the canopies were not built strong enough - it's that the deployment system did not meter the lines out in a controlled manner, and sufficiently soften the opening. 2 There has been more than one fatality as a result.

Heavy jumpers using small reserves are most susceptible, but jumpers at high altitude DZ's and freeflyers and other "high speed" jumpers are at risk as well.

3 Recent student harness failures are the direct result of line strip openings.

People don't realize that the manufacturers of reserve canopies don't do their high speed heavy drops using the old style freebag w/bungee stow & pouch. 4 The canopies wouldn't pass the test (they'd probably blow up or blow thier lines off). All the major 5 manufacturers use "special" bags wherein every stow is a locking stow so that the canopies will take the vicious openings encountered when you static line a 97 sq ft reserve with a 300 pound load at 180 mph! Then those canopies go out into the field where they are assembled into bags that practically guarantee a line dump.

Jump Shack was the first company to seriously address the problem. Other companies are beginning to follow suit. The sooner they all do, the better off you'll all be.

---

1. I have not seen nor heard of any reports that support this.

2. I am not aware of any such fatality.

3. Once again, who put out the report that states this?

4. If this statement is true, what canopies do container manufactures use when testing for TSO. They have to use the same bag for testing that will produce with the rig. Every TSO program I have been involved with used normal off the shelf canopies and the standard freebag that was designed for use in the container being tested.

5. If this is true do you think they would be selling the canopy as a reserve knowing it will be packed into a standard freebag?

I am asking these questions because I don’t have the answers. They are very strong statements that bring the integrity of sport parachute equipment manufactures into question. I believe the issues raised by these statements need to be addressed and not just left hanging.

If you don't have the answers thats cool. But someone from Jump Shack should.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[darnknit 0]

Quote

I found this post on incidents
http://www.dropzone.com/...ost=2109354;#2109354

doesn't that post include:

Quote

It was a member of the military, thats why you can't find anything on it.

so there is evidence of bag strip that cannot be substantiated.

Quote

The Student Harness faliure cited, I believe, were the two Jav incidents involving hard openings and comprimised webbing.

has anyone concluded that bag strip, or line dump was the cause of the hard opening? if so, who?

Quote

As for the canopy manufacturers that use special bags, beside Jumpshack own deployment bag, I only know about one other companies test bag and it's "special" and speedbag-like.

is this "speedbag-like" bag used by this company you refer to used to get a TSO on a sport skydiving reserve?

pulling is cool. keep it in the skin

[teason 0]

And you wonder why no one responded, and I was just trying help ... sheesh

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[sundevil777 93]

So far it seems like Jump Shack is the only mfg that admits to using 'special bags'. I was around when Larry Chernis did his testing for the early Infinity, there were no special bags.

Doesn't seem very wise to admit in a public forum that the TSO tesing was invalid. Isn't that exactly what is being admitted, essentially inviting an investigation from the FAA?

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

[teason 0]

The statement was not refering to container manufacturers using deployment devices outside it's own design.

The statement was refering to canopy manufacturers using deployment bag that do not change open forces but are rather less suseptable to faliure at hi-speed.

In that case the TSO would only be violated if a bag that reduces opening forces was used or functions differently than any other deployment bag.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion. The speedbag only corrects a faliure mode with the origional bag design that occurs generally at high speed. As drop testing canopies often involves high speed, a "specialbag" that is less likely to obscure the data by failing will give more reliable data regarding the canopy.

Freebags are the domain of the container manufacturer. As long as the test bag functions the same as any other bag on the market, there is no reason it should invalidate the testing.

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

So far it seems like Jump Shack is the only mfg that admits to using 'special bags'. I was around when Larry Chernis did his testing for the early Infinity, there were no special bags.

Doesn't seem very wise to admit in a public forum that the TSO tesing was invalid. Isn't that exactly what is being admitted, essentially inviting an investigation from the FAA?

This is what the standard says, what would you think.


2.1.1 GENERAL: For purposes of this document a parachute assembly normally, but not exclusively, consists of the following major components:

b. Deployment control device (sleeve, bag, diaper, or functional equivalent), if used

---

4.3.4.2 Canopy to be Used With a Single or a Dual Harness Reserve Parachute Assembly (Alternate Test for4.3.4.1): Three drops shall be made with a suspended weight and speed in accordance with 4.3.4.A test vehicle (e.g., a bomb) may be used. The canopy, deployment device (if used), a pilot chute (if used), and riser(s) (if used) shall be tested as a unit. The riser(s), or equivalent, shall be secured to the test vehicle in the same manner that it is intended to attach to the harness. Where easily detachable hardware (such as snap and ring) is intended to attach the canopy or riser(s) to the harness, one of the above drops shall be made with only one attachment engaged to test the cross connector and hardware.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggermick 6]

Quote

Quote

So far it seems like Jump Shack is the only mfg that admits to using 'special bags'. I was around when Larry Chernis did his testing for the early Infinity, there were no special bags.

Doesn't seem very wise to admit in a public forum that the TSO tesing was invalid. Isn't that exactly what is being admitted, essentially inviting an investigation from the FAA?

This is what the standard says, what would you think.


2.1.1 GENERAL: For purposes of this document a parachute assembly normally, but not exclusively, consists of the following major components:

b. Deployment control device (sleeve, bag, diaper, or functional equivalent), if used

---

4.3.4.2 Canopy to be Used With a Single or a Dual Harness Reserve Parachute Assembly (Alternate Test for4.3.4.1): Three drops shall be made with a suspended weight and speed in accordance with 4.3.4.A test vehicle (e.g., a bomb) may be used. The canopy, deployment device (if used), a pilot chute (if used), and riser(s) (if used) shall be tested as a unit. The riser(s), or equivalent, shall be secured to the test vehicle in the same manner that it is intended to attach to the harness. Where easily detachable hardware (such as snap and ring) is intended to attach the canopy or riser(s) to the harness, one of the above drops shall be made with only one attachment engaged to test the cross connector and hardware.

Don't forget 4.3.4 Strength test: No material(s) or device(s) that attenuates shock loads and is not an intregral part of the parachute assembly or component being certifed may be used.



Wouldn't a "special" bag qualify as an attenuater? Sounds like it to me.



Mick.

[teason 0]

Regardless of what it "sounds like", mick, the special bag is not an additional attenuator. It is a deployment bag just like any other that is used with the exception that it has extra locking stoes.

An additional reefing system would be a violation if it was not included. a second bag or sleeve would be a violation if it were not included.

A "special bag" that has additional locking stoes to minimize the instance of faliure at high speeds is not. It meters line like any other bag, it keeps the deployment sequenced like any other bag, it works like any other bag and it even packs like any other bag. The only thing it does diferently is that the pro speed bag side says it's less likely to fail at high speeds. The pro safety stoe side says the safety stoe isn't suseptable to faliure. Logically, that means that both bags work and fail the same. ergo, it is not relevant which bag is used.

The standard does not regulate the bag design but rather states that additional devices may not be used.

The bag arguement is starting to get circular as this has been posted here and in other threads.

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[riggermick 6]

Quote

Regardless of what it "sounds like", mick, the special bag is not an additional attenuator. It is a deployment bag just like any other that is used with the exception that it has extra locking stoes.

An additional reefing system would be a violation if it was not included. a second bag or sleeve would be a violation if it were not included.

A "special bag" that has additional locking stoes to minimize the instance of faliure at high speeds is not. It meters line like any other bag, it keeps the deployment sequenced like any other bag, it works like any other bag and it even packs like any other bag. The only thing it does diferently is that the pro speed bag side says it's less likely to fail at high speeds. The pro safety stoe side says the safety stoe isn't suseptable to faliure. Logically, that means that both bags work and fail the same. ergo, it is not relevant which bag is used.

The standard does not regulate the bag design but rather states that additional devices may not be used.

The bag arguement is starting to get circular as this has been posted here and in other threads.

Even with well crafted reply like yours it is still a "fuzzy" take on the rules. The 8015b has a few grey areas that can be taken different ways, I know I was the first H/C manufacturer to TSO under 23d and it took neumorous calls to Eleac Puscas (sp?) (was on the technical committee for SAE) to clarifiy some points and even then he wasn't sure on a couple of them and he helped write the damn thing!

Mick.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

The standard does not regulate the bag design but rather states that additional devices may not be used.

Thats a little like saying the standard does not regulate the canopy design. The bag is listed as a "major component" of a parachute assembly.

Not testing with real world components defeats the purpose of testing.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Thats a little like saying the standard does not regulate the canopy design. The bag is listed as a "major component" of a parachute assembly.

Not testing with real world components defeats the purpose of testing.

Given that speedbags are available on the Racer, how is it not a real world componenet?

For Great Deals on Gear

[CrazyL 0]

About 'Line Dump'. Does the following analogy work for the line dump scenario: On a main d-bag a rubber band stow breaks or releases out of sequence between the locking stows and the first stow to release. Q: Will the d-bag accelerate more rapidly causing a hard opening due to the above scenario?If so , is the bags rapid acceleration in part the cause a hard opening? Is this scenario 'urban myth' or 'real'?

[KellyF 16]

Quote

This Nancy’s post from 27 Feb. I have numbered the areas I am asking about.

All the major 5 manufacturers use "special" bags wherein every stow is a locking stow so that the canopies will take the vicious openings encountered when you static line a 97 sq ft reserve with a 300 pound load at 180 mph! Then those canopies go out into the field where they are assembled into bags that practically guarantee a line dump.

I really would like to know where this information comes from. I know from first hand experience that a standard safety stow freebag works at up to 240 knots (276mph), so it's proven well beyond the speeds that the vast majority of skydivers will ever see (even accidental reserve deployments while free flying). Blaming a reserve failure on line dump after an accident (without some sort of video evidence) is pure speculation and should not be stated or accepted as fact. (Bag strip, on the other hand, could actually be witnessed by the bag leaving the jumper without lines coming from it, or a canopy coming out of it when it's the right distance from the jumper.)

Deathtrap has the sequence of events correct, and I'm not sure where there can be some confusion. Additionally, even IF all the lines were to come out of the stow pocket, in order for their weight to pull the locking stows free of the safety stow, they would either need to be stuck together, or be at line stretch. There is no way that a loose coil of line floating in mid air (or laying in a pack tray) can have enough force to pull a locking stow free. Imagine a chain 10 feet long coiled up on the floor- it might weigh 20 lbs., but the only way you're going to feel that weight from one end of the chain is if it's all hanging from the end link.

The speedbag is not a "bad" design, and Jump Shack surely believes in it. Personally, I don't think it's necessary, and it does complicate the packing and manufacturing procedures a little. Realistically, if you're packing a speedbag equipped reserve that you didn't pack previously, you should replace all the rubber bands to assure they are the required mil spec.

VSE on Facebook

[teason 0]

Quote

Thats a little like saying the standard does not regulate the canopy design. The bag is listed as a "major component" of a parachute assembly.

Not testing with real world components defeats the purpose of testing.

I would agree that completely if the bag had a significant design deviation. It's my opinion that it doesn't.

The addition of a force attenuator not common with other bags is what would certainly qualify as a violation.

The only design mod that I see is the addition of a second flap. The only function of this flap is to ensure that the bag stays closed until the lines are metered out. The safety stoe does the same thing (regardless of doing it better, worse, or just the same)

With all the different bag designs on the market (true molar vs. non true molars, split bags, shaved corners, different line stoe options...etc) I believe ensuring the standarized function of the bag is the spirit of the TSO.

Although it does raise, as Mick mentioned, the point that government regulations are about as clear as the bottom of a 6 year old Terry Turtle wadding pool in August

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

I would agree that completely if the bag had a significant design deviation. It's my opinion that it doesn't.

The addition of a force attenuator not common with other bags is what would certainly qualify as a violation.

The only design mod that I see is the addition of a second flap. The only function of this flap is to ensure that the bag stays closed until the lines are metered out. The safety stoe does the same thing (regardless of doing it better, worse, or just the same)

The reason for the change to the speedbag is to prevent "almost guaranteed line dump" per Nancy.

Given the significance of the claimed problem, the change to remedy that problem cannot be non-significant.

Still seems like Jump Shack is the only mfg that admits to using 'special bags', essentially admitting they didn't perform testing as required.

To also accuse the other mfgs of doing the same is quite an insult to make with nothing to back it up.

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

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

About 'Line Dump'. Does the following analogy work for the line dump scenario: On a main d-bag a rubber band stow breaks or releases out of sequence between the locking stows and the first stow to release. Q: Will the d-bag accelerate more rapidly causing a hard opening due to the above scenario?If so , is the bags rapid acceleration in part the cause a hard opening? Is this scenario 'urban myth' or 'real'?

No.

No

"Urban myth"

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[mjosparky 3]

Kelly,

I agree with you. I have tested at 205 KEAS, 235 mph, with 370+ lb. without problems with a standard safety stow freebag.

I also agree that the speedbag is not a “bad” design. What I have trouble with is the inference that the speedbag is the only safe way to deploy a reserve.

The purpose of a bag is not to meter or reef the deployment of a canopy. It is used to stage the deployment. In the case of the freebag it assures a lines first deployment by containing the canopy until line stretch. Double stowing, stowing some or stowing none of the lines will not affect how the canopy opens. All that happens while the canopy is still in the bag. How it opens depends on what happens after it is out of the bag.

Quote

into bags that practically guarantee a line dump.

As for “line dump” I am not sure what people mean by that term. You can jump a ram air canopy without stowing any of the lines and get smooth easy openings.

Of course the above is just my opinion

And I think this topic is dead, as it seems that Nancy or anyone else for the Jump Shack
have chosen not to respond to questions raised by her statements. No offence Tim but they seem content to leave you hanging to take any heat for them.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[teason 0]

God, this is why I get so worked up in this thread!

I give you my opinion of why the design satisfies the TSO and you give the retoric

Quote

Given the significance of the claimed problem, the change to remedy that problem cannot be non-significant.

What the hell is that suposed to mean? It's a statement made to obsfuscate the facts of the issue!

Then you go on to say

Quote

Still seems like Jump Shack is the only mfg that admits to using 'special bags', essentially admitting they didn't perform testing as required.

You want to talk about insulting!
Besides, seeing as JS sells main and reserve speed bags, using a speedbag in testing satisfies the TSO even in the narrowest interpretation!

For the most part (believe it or not) I enjoy the debate. Contrary points of view are the only ones worth listening to.

But rhetoric and distortion through association belong in marketing, not in a discussion!

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.