0
Zahry

Strong DHT - design flaws, safety hazards, maitenance hazards

Recommended Posts

Slow down. Only one thing ACMik wanted to say is that SE´s report is the only one angle of view.
I would like to ask you for a bit patience. Czech CAA is leading its own investigation and JoJo Wing (the manufacturer of Hop canopies) has got something to say about the accident as well.
Dont let me think you know about the accident everything what you need to blame the TI (btw. he was a very good friend of mine and one of the best skydivers i ve met in my life)
I hope you are doing in the air as well as on the internet forums...becouse of your students.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



You say “I'm not trying to bash SE down, I'm merely trying to make the old dinosaur to move!!!”

Well it comes across totally different. Do you really think that this message will be heard at all? I know there’s been much talk about a new design going on and many people wait for it.

Quote

sure, I've heard the rumours as well. The "new" design rumour is around for so long it will be old design soon. Do you belive those rumours will come true in near future?

Maybe some information hasn't been shared with me. I you know something I don't know I'm ready to listen.
- what development has been done on the new system so far.
- In what stage the development it is
- what is the announced date for release of the new system?
- is it going to be certified according to tso23d (or at least tso23c)?



And I have a bet for you: If they presented a new design within the next month people like you would be outraged “why it took the so long to come out with it” and “why did we have to jump the old stuff for such a long time?” YaddaYaddaYadda

Quote

Low blow



Next point - you say tandems are a death trap: Did you, in your long career as a packer and rigger (how many thousand of packjobs have you got?)

Quote

about 10 000 - 20 000 packjobs, several hundreds reserves (about 1 000 if I'm counting only skydiving equipment) 7 years of maintenance 24/7/365 and 5000 jumps

Now to return my favour - what is your knowledge background and experience?



ever take the time to read the warning label in bright orange on mains, reserves and containers? Bingo! Skydiving is a fucking minefield. Welcome to the real world.

Quote

you mean the statement: "even properly packed and maintained parachute can fail?" funny enough I read it. Question for you - did you ever bothered to think about it for a moment? Why is it there and what purpouse it serves?

That statement is for legal protection of factories to protect them agains possible lawsuits. By telling you the parachute can fail even if properly packed and maintained they are telling you there might be some unforeseen design flaw which can cause to malfunction of the system.

Otherwise - what's the point of maintaining the parachutes if it can fail anyway, eh? (For the record - That was a rethorical question - I'm not beeing actualy serious)



And it is your F******* job as a rigger to keep your jumpers safe.

Quote


Thanks for the advice, I almost forgot i should do that. I was just about to pick up the bell and start ringing and yelling "everything is ok, belive in SE almightiness. There is absolutely nothing wrong with. DHT is spotless state of the art equipment."

Oh man, thank you - you've put me back on the track.



If you have worked out how YOU can improve some detail, get in touch with the manufacturer in question. If it is something that hasn’t been thought about already and your invention comes in handy, I am sure it will turn up in the next update.

Quote

ok - here are some suggestions for updates.

Update 1- replace the reseve including the so called "freebag" with tandem reserve with TSO23d and real freebag

>>>If they can't design functional reserve themselves they can purchase reserves from other companies - it saves a lot of money and I don't care if it is made in US, EU or Africa as long as it works as it should. If they don't know who to ask I'm happy to forward some emails. If not - state the reason why.

Update 2 - finish the hard housings properly - do not leave the sharp edges hidden under the plastic.

>>> the ends can be finished the same way as the hard housings on risers. If not - state reason why.



Speaking of updates: You criticise, that DHT-design is just one giant patch. I bet you post this from a computer running on windows. Updating gear in small steps (as being done on DHT’s) is _IMHO_ an evolutionary process. You do not have to reinvent everything from scratch over and over again to keep a system and a good team running.

Quote

OH - Are you still running updated DOS 32 or Win 3.11??? WOW!!!



Heck I could even cite Bill Booth that with every safety update idiots evolve as well finding new ways to kill themselves (and others) making the whole process nearly worthless

Quote

oh - in that case we should stop trying? I know making something safer is a hard job - just right now I'm finding out the hard way



Your other point – the MR425 reserve not being designed as a reserve: Can you spell Decelerator or Raven? In the rare case of a malfunction - again IMHO – I want my reserve to be as big and strong as possible. I need Kevlar to do this? Fine – just use it! If I blow up a cell or two being at terminal or over with a master 425 I’ve still got something larger left over than if I jumped a PD 360. And if I go for a reserve-ride I surely don’t want the fucker to rock all over the sky stalling and recovering because of setup/trim issues. Thanks – I’ll stick to Masters!

Quote

personaly - I would preffer something what works properly. Just for my curiosity - how are you intending to land the MR425 in case of blown centre cell. I can't figure out how to land a canopy splitted in half ...



I am sure someone really clever will come up and state the superiority of the sigmas.

Quote

it doesn't have to be a really clever person to do so



Well that was Booths shot to get rid of all the inherent design flaws of the vectors without getting the new design totally free of (possible) bugs. Even the much acclaimed Skyhook had a major fuckup needing a “ghetto-fix”

Quote

are you saying UPT should insted of fixing the problem correctly put there quick addon fix which will create more problems than it solves? (as it often happens with SE?)



You ask if proper maintenance of tandem equipment is enough to keep TI’s safe out there: Honestly I don’t know. Remember: This is still a minefield. But it is the most vital first step never to be missed.

Quote

ok, you have the chance to put your cock on the block. Do 10 - 15 tandems a day and maintain your rig yourself including book keeping and maintenance records

Show if you put your money where your mouth is



Still another point: TSO’s – do your reading and find out if ANY manufacturer has multiple TSO’s for one design. AFAIK everybody’s just got one. Vector 1 & 2 ran under the original wonderhog TSO (If I am wrong on this, correct me, I’ll freely apologise)

Quote

those are already outdated systems with replacement in place - sigma.



I definitely know how hard this whole incident (how I hate that word) must be for everyone directly involved and I can understand that many people want to get the spotlight off the people involved

Quote

Wrong - I'm not directly involved. I'm living in NZ.

The last accident was just the last tiny drop which filled the pot.



– but in this process you blur the lesson: Do what you want and how you feel if you go out alone. But under no circumstances leave the proven path when it comes to taking a student/passenger/punter/peace of living cargo with you.

Quote

Man, Blind faith and Fanatism. Hello - we are talking about equipment here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Oh my god. I can't beleave you've got me defending SE.

Quote

I'm sorry - I didn't intended to do that :)



Quote

I hope you don't gonna take what I wrote as a personal attack on you or attempt to offend you. I just like to say the things straight without running around too much and cut to the chase



How much is to much?
Quote

you guys were setting the first GLOBAL safety standarts 25-30 years ago. Good on you and THANK YOU for that.

I acknowledge there was breach in safety which triggered the last accident and without breaking the rules the chain of events would never started. We all agree on that?

What i would like to point out it wasn't the closed main container what really killed them. It TRIGGERED the chain of events BUT it should ended up with drogue in tow.

This wasn't the only acciden - apparently there was few more similar accidents way in the past as well but it was dissregarded with comment "what are the chances it is gonna happen again if we will maintain the gear better" - And it happened with set 400 and MR 425 as a main as well.

I gave it a very good thought yesterday and I've checked a few facts. I suspect the reason why it wasn't problem back then is because SET400 and MR425 are big, slow with very low performance so the main was spinning so wildly and the reserve had enough time to deploy around even with the plastic chokers on.

There is no question there is huge design flaw in the way how the main container is closed - otherwise the main didn't escape from container before it was opened and it ended up with scared TM and drogue in tow AS IT SHOULD. (yes - the design flaw is the hot fix when strong changed short flexi pins to long ones and double closing loops).

Next in the game we have fast spinning main canopy and with another main canopy deploying next to it (I know SE calls it a reserve but the name doesn't make it a reserve. I can call my bike a rocket but it doesn't make it go any faster).

All those things combined together and you can have a lot of mess around you.




For the record SE lopo's are still one of the best pilot canopies out there for the range of speeds for which they were designed.

Quote

for the record - I agree - I'm sending pilots to buy them as well as many other quality emergency chutes from other companies - and without any hessitation or regret. I appologise if I ever mentioned LoPO is a bad emergency chute. To make it clear - What I intended to say was I'm gratefull to all those in past who said "we can do better" so now we don't have to use LoPos as our main tandem canopies. (I'm NOT saying it is a bad rescue parachute!)




You have to judge things based on what they were designed for.

Quote

That's what I'm exactly talking about - I wanna have a main as a main and reserve as a reserve and emergency parachute as an emergency chute. I don't wan't anyone mixing it up or calling apples pears.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

you mean the statement: "even properly packed and maintained parachute can fail?" funny enough I read it. Question for you - did you ever bothered to think about it for a moment? Why is it there and what purpouse it serves?

That statement is for legal protection of factories to protect them agains possible lawsuits. By telling you the parachute can fail even if properly packed and maintained they are telling you there might be some unforeseen design flaw which can cause to malfunction of the system.

Otherwise - what's the point of maintaining the parachutes if it can fail anyway, eh? (For the record - That was a rethorical question - I'm not beeing actualy serious)



Rhetorical or not, I feel obliged to respond to that.
The warning label is IMO only there because of the 'shotgun suits' filed by Lutz-like retards (sue anyone you can think of - something may actually stick).
It has nothing to do with unforeseen design flaws - it's only a means to take away some lawyer ammo.
"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does this thread remind me of the last tandem fatality in Canada (circa 1992)?

Both fatalities were found at the end of a chain of mistakes: broken needle left in a bridle, repaired lines different lengths, RSL disconnected, no AAD, etc. (see Gargano's report).
After the fact, they invented a rumour about the student grabbing the instructor's hands, etc.

The bottom line is: if you stop any one of those mistakes, you stop the accident.

Sure, DHT cou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Rob. I guess we are not on the same page at the moment. Developing theories about the last fatality wasn't my intention here - that's why I've started the new thread separated from the accident forum.

My reason for starting this tread was to open up a discusion about DHT Design flaws and Safety and Maintenance hazards to wake up people from blindly believing in their equipment without knowing what's in there and how it works. (i know out there are many people otraged because they are scared they'll loose their flase feeling of safety but there is lot more in stake than just hurt feelings)

I would like to expose the huge potential for problems on DHT (specialy the "reserve" system) and I hope the knowledge will help to change something and prevent future accidents

- or do you think there is nothing on DHT what deserves attention, revision and improvement?

I'm not sure what's your opinion about this but I think in comercial skydiving should be tendency to make work euipment and work enviroment more safer and if we discover something is wrong we should do something about it. It is Not just because of us but because of the paying customers as well.

Looking forward to hear from you, Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

ok, you have the chance to put your cock on the block. Do 10 - 15 tandems a day and maintain your rig yourself including book keeping and maintenance records

Show if you put your money where your mouth is



If a DZ doesn't have the resources (time, equipment, and/or staff) to do 10-15 tandems a day and keep up the maintenance on the manufacturer's required schedule, they should book fewer tandems. Overbooking is the fault of the DZ, not the manufacturer.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Looking forward to hear from you, Tom



Honestly Tomas, your not going to hear much from me on this thread. As clearly evidenced by your postings on both this thread and the incidents forum, there is no amount of evidence or information that is going to sway your opinion, you will "point/counter point" this for all time.

With that said, I will offer a few facts:

1) I personally did the AAD tests for Vigil and Argus. Mr. Strong paid (out of pocket) over $30,000 to test these AADS before he would allow them to be put in Dual Hawks. I say this because I personally packed 20 year old MR 425's in the reserve trays of the DHTS labelled Argus and another labeled Vigil. Each reserve went through three deployments; First) 500lbs at tandem terminal, approximately 186mph. Both opened fine at 2000ft when the units fired. Results: No damage to either reserve. I then repacked the same reserves and we dropped them in a drogue in tow configuration, 500lbs at 120mph. The SAME 20 YEAR OLD RESERVE opened fine on both drops. Again, the result, no damage. I then repacked the same reserves a third time and put them out at 3000ft with 500lbs ona subterminal exit on both systems, and once again, both reserves opened cleanly, within 3 seconds, and had no damage to the reserves. I did nothing special to these reserves. They were customer trade ins that had spent 18+ years in the field with who knows how many deployments. Not a single broken kevlar line on any of them. Before my trip to Mount Everest last year, Mr. Strong and I personally jumped anddeployed an 18 year old MR425 at 14,500ft to gather data for the trip. The result? Again, no damage to the canopy or lines.

So..........you can go on an on about how unsafe you and your rigging mentors perceive the MR 425 to be, but I can sit here typing this with the knowledge and confidence that I have first hand experience regarding how well this reserve works. As the Strong Tandem Program Director and a tandem I/E, I take all my instructor candidates and all my examiner candidates on tandem terminal dives, and I do it fully confident that if in a worst case scenario I have to deploy my MR 425 at tandem terminal, I can. Can you believe there are T/Is out there (on all systems) that will throw a drogue unstable because they are AFRAID of a tandem terminal deployment? They increase one risk to offset another.....makes no sense, especially given the data to sustain that reserves are TSO'd to work at those high end operating limits.

2) You've written so much negativity, it's hard to clearly follow it all, but I also believe you wrote somewhere that Strong Enterprises was wrong to suggest that the size of HOPS 330 had anything to do with the main container coming out of the pack tray. To that I would offer you two points. The first is that we got two calls after the Czech incident from dropzones stating that the same thing had happened to them, but that the SET 400 stayed in the pack tray, resulting in a drogue in tow, which the instructor deployed the reserve past and landed uneventfully. Despite the fact that a HOPS 330 may appear to fill a bag similar in size to a SET 400 speaks nothiing of the density of the pack volume, as we all know, fabric expands. A SET 400 sits like a brick in the main d-bag, yet a 330 canopy has a greater chance for the bag to distort in shape because it is less dense in the bag, allowing it to be extracted from the side of the container. So, the cable incident has happened three times due to maintenance oversight, and in two of those incidents, with a SET 400 everyone walked away.

3) A dropzone on your side of the world did 14,000 tandems on Dual Hawks in either 2007 or 2008 and they had ONE malfunction which was later found to be a packing error......they provide impecable maintenance to the equipment.

Does the Dual Hawk require regular maintenance? Yes, it's an industrial strength parachute system that, like all tandem equipment, requires periodic maintenance.

Knowing what I know about how it works and equally as importantly, how involved Mr. Strong is on a day to day basis, every time I put a Dual Hawk on my back and go make a tandem jump, I do it fully confident that the equipment and the training has provided me everything I need to make a safe tandem jump.

So, with all that said, I fully expect you to pick apart everything that I have written, as I said in the beginning, I suspect you are not concerned with education, rather you want to stir the pot, so be it.

Tom Noonan
Tandem Director
Strong Enterprises

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hi Rob. I guess we are not on the same page at the moment. Developing theories about the last fatality wasn't my intention here - that's why I've started the new thread separated from the accident forum.

My reason for starting this tread was to open up a discusion about DHT Design flaws and Safety and Maintenance hazards to wake up people from blindly believing in their equipment without knowing what's in there and how it works.

......................................................................

Trust me, the factory has been hearing about flaws in their equipment and have been developing solutions (drogues, Type 7 risers, Slimline buckles, double main closing loops, Anti-Line Slump bags, Y straps, etc.) for decades.

The danger - of discussing this on a public forum - is that it will feed the lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Trust me, the factory has been hearing about flaws in their equipment and have been developing solutions (drogues, Type 7 risers, Slimline buckles, double main closing loops, Anti-Line Slump bags, Y straps, etc.) for decades.


I know about these changes and interesting fact is that almost every change can be named " In memory of ... " The identified problems and field experience was usualy ignored or disregarded untill there was fatal or very serious accident.

Quote

The danger - of discussing this on a public forum - is that it will feed the lawyers.


I thought safer rig means fewer accidents and fewer accidents means lot less problems with lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Looking forward to hear from you, Tom



Honestly Tomas, your not going to hear much from me on this thread. As clearly evidenced by your postings on both this thread and the incidents forum, there is no amount of evidence or information that is going to sway your opinion, you will "point/counter point" this for all time.



Hi Tom,

1) I'm not surprised but disappointed you are finding my concerns based on field experience just "being negative". What I'm surprised to hear about is Mr Strong has spend 30 000$ just to try out for himself if vigil and Argus cutters can cut the loops (not my business - true, it's his money) ... but I'm glad you haven't had any problems on those reserve rides - I know enough people including myself who don't have as good experience as you do.

2) I've spent some time verifying your reply about the volumes and after several physical experiments (no speculations) I've discovered a few very disconcerting facts which I would like to share. When I've tried to pull the bag out I found it was impossible to pull out even HOP330 out of new container with tight closing loop. On the other hand it was quite easy to pull out d bag with ANY CANOPY out of ANY older rig with stretched closing loops (5 year - 3200 jumps). Why my physical test didn't confirm your speculation?

Can I ask you to answer a few simple YES / NO / CA (CAN'T ANWER BECAUSE OF POSSIBLE LAWSUIT) questions?

1 - Have you based your press release on speculations without thorough physical testing?

(Y/N/CA)

2 - Have you done physical ground tests on old and new equipment with different closing loops lengths and with different canopies?

(Y/N/CA)

(following questions are regarding general safety)

3 - Are you aware stowing lines in elastic loops with plastic chokers on (or even without plastic chokers) can cause reserve bag lock?

(Y/N/CA)

4 - Are you aware stowing lines in elastic loops with plastic chokers on (or even without plastic chokers) can cause horseshoe malfunction on reserve or reserve entanglement during unstable reserve deployment?

(Y/N/CA)

I'll appreciate if you'll answer all questions honestly and with simple Y/N/CA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's disappointing that DZ.com allows what is essentially a personal attack albeit on a company.
I was under the impression this sort of post got people banned.
>:(



Opening up a disscussion about serious problem and asking for explanation is NOT a pesonal attack on SE. Altrhough I'm using pointy arguments I'm using apropriate language and my arguments are based on very easily verified facts.

If you don't appreciate freedom of speach move to Iran or North Korea - I'm sure you'll be fully satisfied with quality of their censorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm not surprised but disappointed you are finding my concerns based on field experience just "being negative".



A few years before I came to work for Strong Enterprises, as an active jumper/instructor and rigger, I encountered what I believed to be a "design flaw" in a pillow reserve handle of another sport rig manufacturer's system that could lead to a premature deployment of the reserve while freeflying under certain conditions. I emailed them the following day explaining my concern and offering my suggestion as to how to fix it. I received an email back thanking me for my information and that they would look into it. From what I have seen in the field the reserve pillows have been changed. Whether my input had anything to do with it or not is irrelevant, and whether I was right or wrong, is also pretty irrelevant. What is relevant I believe, is that I contacted the manufacturer directly, I didn't go online accusing them of shoddy work.

To date, I have not seen any direct emails from you to Strong Enterprises expressing your concerns. If you personally, were truly concerned, why not go straight to the source? Had you emailed me directly with your concerns, your email would have been reviewed by myself, our head rigger, our head engineer and Mr. Strong. (Mr. Strong actually likes to respond personally to most inquiries) and in all likelyhood we would have set up a conference call with all of the aboved mentioned people, to discuss anything that you needed more assistance with.

Regarding Mr. Strong's insistence on doing independant drop tests, I asked him once why he didn't want to test the cutters in a pressure chamber and he responded by saying that his T/Is in the field deserved to know that any AAD put into his system worked live in freefall, not just in a chamber. A reserve pack is a "system" and an AAD is only a component of the system, if you don't test it working in concert with other components, it is meaningless.

While we are on the subject of AADs, did you know that before Mr. Strong approved the Cypres back in the day, that he personally performed a LIVE drogue in tow malfunction test jump to make sure the Cypres would activate without fouling any other component of the reserve system? He refused to place an AAD into his system without himself proving first hand that it would work as needed. He did that for you, he did that for me, he did that for every T/I that holds a Strong rating card.

Quote

I found it was impossible to pull out even HOP330 out of new container with tight closing loop



The DHT involved in the Czech incident was over eight years old, with no maintenance records, no estimation of how many jumps on the system and the loop used wasn't a factory loop.

Quote

On the other hand it was quite easy to pull out d bag with ANY CANOPY out of ANY older rig with stretched closing loops (5 year - 3200 jumps).



Our DHT owners manual (available online if you don't have one) lists, among other things, the "service life" of the harness/container. 3200 jumps on your test DHT? Tell me, do you think there is a reason that service life limits are imposed on equipment? And can you tell me what the service life limit is on a DHT harness/container according to the manual? I'll give you a hint....it's a little lower than 3200.....

To answer your latest round of accusations:

- We have done physical testing.

- There is only one closing loop length that matters, the length we build them to in the factory and list in our manual. If you wear out a loop to the point that it stretches beyond it's required length, your supposed to........yes, change it out. If a manufacturer lists a reserve closing loop length of X, and you have a loop X+2 inches, would you close your reserve with it? No. Why then would it be okay to close your main with a loop longer than it's supposed to be?

- It is possible to pack a bag lock on any freebag, even with the freestowed ones with the bungee thru loop for the first two locking stows. The 2+ decades that the MR 425 has been closed the way it has been shows that it has the same success rate as freestowed bags.

- Going back to what I know and have personally seen, versus your conjecture, if in your "worst case scenario" an unstable reserve deployment, the relative mass of the freebag is much less than the tandem pair, and the reserve bag, with canopy inside, will lift off the tandem pair and release the lines and canopy. I have video proof of it. The "chokers" only ensure an orderly deployment of the lines, preventing line dump.

Again, you can point/counter point this for all time. I don't expect you to acknowledge anything that I have written. I post this information for the rest of the field that may genuinely have an interest in learning more about the DHT.

You say your disappointed in my last response. I'm a big believer in statistics. Based on the statistics (100%) of the private messages I have received thanking me for my professional responses in light of such dedicated negativity on your part throughout your postings, I feel pretty good about the outcome here and know that I have reached the people I wanted to reach, those that want to learn, and equally important, those willing to listen.

Tom Noonan
Tandem Director
Strong Enterprises

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Tom, Thanks for the answer and for the time you are spending answering my questions. I guess you think it is an utter waste of time but I've got few points from your replies. I'm happy to cooperate on making the DHT safer and I'm sure I'll be able to offer more than just criticism. Although I'll be happy to discuss those matters via email some things I would like to discuss here open to public instead of hiding it. I believe if we won't keep our knowledge and experience as a secret somewhere out there could be someone with inquisitive and inventive mind and that person could come with something important later on.

Based on your information I'm not concerned about AADs at all - those are well sorted, there is no problem and I'm happy about it. It wasn't my concern before but it is always good to know these things.

Back to the subject:

Your answers were nice and curly but let me get it straight and simple. That's how I can interpret your answers. >>>

1 - Have you based your press release on speculations without thorough physical testing?

1 - No - you did some testing and you believe it was enough

2 - Have you done physical ground tests on old and new equipment with different closing loops lengths and with different canopies?

2 - No , you haven't testing like that because it shouldn't happen.

3 - Are you aware stowing lines in elastic loops with plastic chokers on (or even without plastic chokers) can cause reserve bag lock?

3 - Yes but you are saying it is ok because even on significantly improved systems is still chance for baglock (even thus the chance for baglock on modern freebags is drastically decreased compare to DHT freebag)

4 - Are you aware stowing lines in elastic loops with plastic chokers on (or even without plastic chokers) can cause horseshoe malfunction on reserve or reserve entanglement during unstable reserve deployment?

3 - Yes , but you choose to ignore it because you are sure it will clear every single time (I'm talking the case when reserve pilotchute gets wrapped around some part of TM/passengers body and can't be quickly removed)
<<<

I've acknowledged there is safety limit of jumpnumbers on the gear and from whole discussion I've learned you have the same opinion as me it shouldn't be exceeded. The life for DHT is 2 000 jumps. To clerify it - is it recommended number or mandatory? If it is recommended number only what's the mandatory guidline for discarding the old rigs (my employer won't be happy if I'll tell him but if you as a Strong rep will do a clear statement it will have completelly different value - although DZ owners won't be happy at all)

I guess it is lot harder to learn things we don't like - for everyone - and I guess the truth will be somewhere in the middle. Not as good as you are saying and not as bad as I'm saying neither. I think now is time to stop talking about it and it is time to do something about it. I'll contact you through email and we can go from there.

Regards Tomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tomas, I don't consider responding to you personally "a waste of time", except for the fact that it is clear that you are looking for a way to warp anything that I have written to suit your agenda.

Quote

2 - Have you done physical ground tests on old and new equipment with different closing loops lengths and with different canopies?

2 - No , you haven't testing like that because it shouldn't happen.



At what point did I say we didn't test old and new? we tested both new containers and old ones.

Quote

3 - Are you aware stowing lines in elastic loops with plastic chokers on (or even without plastic chokers) can cause reserve bag lock?

3 - Yes but you are saying it is ok because even on significantly improved systems is still chance for baglock (even thus the chance for baglock on modern freebags is drastically decreased compare to DHT freebag)



You warped my statement again and put words in my mouth. I thought i was pretty clear that my only opinion was that your scenario could be found on any system with the same statistical probabilities. A freestowed freebag, can bag lock. By your logic, every manufacturer out there that builds one is doing so knowing that their equipment can malfunction, yet they still do it, and no one is trying to stop them?

You say "significantly improved systems", I asked you to validate that with results of your independant testing. My statement is that there is no way that you personally can quantifiably show that one method is better than another, yet you make statements that one is a significantly improved method.

Here's what I see: A rigger that puts a canopy in a container in direct contradiction to Service Bulletin #22, presumably because he "knows better", and gets offended that in light of clear evidence a company (SE) even dare suggest that the canopy played any roll in the incident. The same rigger, with Dual Hawk manual in hand, packs DHTs with 60% (1200) more jumps on the container than recommended and now questions "well what do you want us to do, stop using the gear?". If I were that rigger, after reading my manual, and realizing that my DHT was at it's recommended life limit, I would contact the manufacturer and ask them at 2000 jumps, what to do, not at 3200 jumps. The manufacturer, if it were SE, would probably say that we currently have 12 certified Service Centers located around the globe, and that you should send the H/C to the service center for maintenance and recertification (kind of like an aircraft). During that recert, things can be found and resolved before they become probiematic, including replacing flaps if deemed necessary, and then you can go back to running your equipment into the ground and then go online and complain about it to the world when it doesn't meet your standards after it's reach three times it's useful life cycle.

Here's something to consider. Let's say you bought a brand new DHT in 2000 for $9990 US Dollars, and bouhht a second canopy and 2 extra line sets, totalling around $14000. You then go and make 2000 jumps. Your per jump cost is $7 per jump over the life of the system to 2000 jumps. Let's say you charge $175 US for a tandem jump, that means (gross profit) your making $350,000 on that investment of $14000 if you follow our life cycle recommendations. But no, from what your saying, in your part of the world that would be an outrage to suggest pulling equipment out of service before it is over used and......malfunctions? So when you come on line and talk about all these bad experiences that you and your mates seem to be having, I ask myself: 1) If they have ignored atleast two thing, SB #22 and recommended service life numers, what else are they ignoring? And is it these actions, or inactions that are causing them issues? But as is evidenced in your writing, it's easier to point the finger at us. Blame the manufacturer.

Quote

4 - Are you aware stowing lines in elastic loops with plastic chokers on (or even without plastic chokers) can cause horseshoe malfunction on reserve or reserve entanglement during unstable reserve deployment?

3 - Yes , but you choose to ignore it because you are sure it will clear every single time (I'm talking the case when reserve pilotchute gets wrapped around some part of TM/passengers body and can't be quickly removed)
<<<



Warping my words again: I am aware that horseshoe malfunctions can happen on any system. There is no greater or less probability on one reserve system versus another.

I will apologize for one thing. I did say that I wouldn't continue to point/counter point this with you and here I am doing just that.

I want to leave you with something to think about. In the first 25 years of tandem jumping, there were 56 incidents resulting in 72 fatalities across all tandem systems. Bill Morrissey, Bill Booth and Nancy LaRivierre worked together to build a database across the tandem manufacturers so that we as an industry could learn from it.

You know what was found? That in 53 of 56 incidents (95%) the tandem pair, even when presented with an equipment malfunction, would still be alive today if the tandem instructor did what they were trained to do. Improper procedures or a lack of any action, turned 53 tandem emergency situations into fatal incidents. This is quantifiable data that was presented at PIA in 2009 in Reno.

You can go on and on about the remote possibility of this and the remote possibility of that, but truth be told, the primary cause of most tandem incidents isn't the equipment, it's us, the tandem instructors. Let me ask you this: If your dropzone's tandem videos were all posted on Youtube, how many of the videos would show the T/Is doing a handles check? I know, I know, it disrupts the hand cam video.......

Be vigilant with your rigging, but be equally as vigilant with your training and currency in tandem jumping.


Tom Noonan
Tandem Director
Strong Enterprises

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I will apologize for one thing. I did say that I wouldn't continue to point/counter point this with you and here I am doing just that.



Tom, everyone reading this who cares about the safety and the future of tandem skydiving will easily forgive you for that.

Some things are worth saying no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

0