Strong DHT - design flaws, safety hazards, maitenance hazards

[nigel99 143]

Quote

personal insults and your personal opinions about me please into my personal email or prefferably face to face. Thank you

Quote

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?

Irony score 10/10

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[jumpwally 0]

Nicely put ! Very nice,,,

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[jimjumper 25]

I've tried to not post to this thread but can't resist any longer. I went out this weekend and did tandems using Strong rigs and came away totally unscathed! Just like I have for most weeks of the last 12 years! I will go on record as being very happy with the safety and design of Strong rigs both main and reserves. There isn't a rig being made that doesn't have design features that a person could argue are a safety hazard. And yes, that includes the annoited Sigma even with the Skyhook. The DHT has been in service for many years and has a proven track record as reliable and safe. As Tom pointed out already, most tandem incidents are pilot error and that is confirmed by most manufactuers of tandem equipment. In the incident noted in this thread the equipment was improperly packed, poorly maintained, over-aged, using an unauthorized smaller main, and inspected and jumped by someone uncertified on the rig. To accuse Strong of safety issues and design flaws after the fact is blatantly unjust. I hope Tom and Strong continue to refute this nonsense and I'll hope to be jumping their rigs again this weekend.

[Wharewaka 0]

Me too been reading this and not wanting to comment too much but I must say this.

Someone is picking on a manufacturer, they have to defend themselves, pretty interesting stuff. Maybe the guy is going overboard but then the manufacturer can point that out and most of us can see it happening too so what's the big harm?

It's not too healthy for people to blindly buying the "human factor". It might mostly be the human factor(95% was mentioned), so if every factor is improved 95% then instructors will cause much less incidents but the outside factors will also cause less incidents. 100% will never happen we all know that I would say it's impossible.

I am sure that Strong and the other big company is working at their best to improve their part of what can be improved. When I did my TI course I saw two men jumping out and creating a sidespin on purpouse to see how you can stop a sidespin if it happens, pretty good evidence that they are not only out to make money but actually is pretty damn pro active to keep things as safe as possible.(This was guys from strong I think).

Me myself was thought to always jump good gear, never bad gear.
If the tandem gear is not well maintained, checked every 25 jumps and if things that are picked up on the 25 jump checks is not fixed, then i search for a new job.
I have seen absolutely shocking examles of bad or not maintained gear and I have seen that guys rather not invest a few bucks on their gear to stop a hazard. those guys deserve a picking on I think because there is just no excuse.

Find those guys and drag them to the cross because if one of them teaches a newer jumper to do the same then you have guys who think they are doing their best but actually are a hazard.

Actually if you do 25 jump checks you will learn which wear and tear is OK and which needs to be fixed soon or right away and you will save in many ways.

I have never regretted not jumping bad gear, I might have made more money but I have my pride intact. I wrote this now to any newer jumpers who jump without doing 25 jumps checks. Keep paperwork of your checks. If you look at the paper after a check it will tell you to jump or not to jump the gear. If the DZ don't do them well you can start?

Now is there a youtube clip out there on how to do a 25 jump check? Good start for someone who is not sure what to check.

[diablopilot 2]

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.

I think the replies from the company representative show quite a lot about character and philosophy of the company. I may not be Strong Rated, but I think pretty highly of them of Ted, Tom, and Bill and their commitment to do the best for safety.

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

[RiggerLee 61]

I've been busy. I'm glad SE has taken the time to respond. I'll add some thoughts and questions for you.

First what makes you think that the bungy system on the reserve is some how infearior to a freestowed bag? Just because it's not exactly like every thing else you've seen? Tandoms operate in a whole diffrent relm then normal gear. The bag has the protentual to expereance much higher snatch forces and accelerations. That same system was on the main for years. And when well maintained it worked well. It's all about stageing. Most of the mal's I've seem can be atributed directly to that. The only times I've seen it fail were when the bungies were sevearly neglected or when the lines were over do neather of which should be a problem on a reserve. Whether it's the huge snatch force of the droge or the reserve pilot chute at tandom term you need good positive control of the lines. On the other hand I always woried about the velcro of the old vectors with there wide bags and heavy dacron llines on the reserve which tend to shear open the pocket. In point of fact I recall a double mall on a vector tandom there at Dallas and no one could ever critasize the emaculat care and matanace of that rig. I'd rather take the strong positive extraction on the SE high drag pilot chute and positve line control over the weaker pc on a vector with the weaker control of the pocket any day. It just has to opperate over a much wider range of speeds. I'm not bringing up the sky hook here, which I am in favor of on tandoms, because that would be like compareing apples and oranges. The bungies are a very working system.

As to the main tray... The fundomental design was built as a system. The loop placement gives a vary limited range of adgustment. It could have been built diffrently but then you'ed be bitching about haveing a tong in the tray something which is out of fashion now even though it is in some ways a supperior system, more adjustment. They're right to be picky about the pack volume of the main and reserve. Eather system could be made to fail with too small a canopy in it. Now you could say that that's a flaw or a weekness but it was never designed with interchangeability in mind.

Loop lengths... I smell a shitty packer. He makes a narrow tube out of the canopy, s folds it badly not absorbing the length, and winds up with a ball in the middle of a wide bag. Classic bowling ball pack job with out the corners filled. Boy that loop shure is tight! need a longer one. Then the canopy smushes out to the sides as the TM lays back on it. Now it's lose as shit. Yah, I can make it fail. Throw in a small canopy. Hell yah I can pull that bag out. does this make it a poor design? Or is it a string of decisions and incompatencies out side of their control?

I can't beleave I'm setting here defending SE a company and design I've bitched about for years but your attacks are so scathing and unjustified, or mostly so, that I just have to cry fawl.

Now I'm going to put one to SE that I'd like you to clarify if you would. Maybe I've missunderstood all these years. If you have full confadence in your reserve at all speeds then why are you so addiment about the reserve being deployed withen so many second of exit if the tandom has not acheaved a stable droge deployment? I was under the impression that it was prone to damage above a certin speed?

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[DualHawk 0]

Hi Lee,

It's not that we are adamant about deploying the reserve before tandem terminal, it's really just a separation of two different topics.

- If a tandem instructor exits the aircraft and reaches back to deploy the drogue and either can't find it, or or for whatever remote reason, can find it, but can't deploy it on the first attempt, we want them to make two more attempts, and then, if unsuccessful, deploy the reserve. It's not a fear of tandem terminal, it's a just a matter of having a set (and simple) EP to follow in this highly unlikely scenario. If an instructor continues with a fourth and fifth attempt and so on, they burn altitude, can become disoriented and possibly lose altitude awareness as the dive is going by faster than normal, all events that can put the T/I behind the curve at the bottom end.

- We require all of our tandem instructor tandem candidates to make a tandem terminal skydive and perform a series of 360 turns no-drogue to show them tandem terminal is nothing to fear and that they can fly their bodies.

While the above two paragraphs may take a slightly different perspective on tandem terminal, it's because there is a difference between having to fly your body to compensate for a bad exit/bad student body position to get stable that may take you more than ten seconds to sort out and being in a full blown emergency situation where you cannot deploy your drogue. Neither one should be occuring with any great frequency, but if/when either does, our candidates have a simple set path to stay on course either way.

I hope that explains the issue you brought up. Let me know if I can answer anything else.

While I am thinking of it, Bill Morrissey once told me that he and a tandem instructor candidate had a tandem terminal reserve deployment (pre-AAD days) while he was riding on the front. Exited 10,000ft, sitting in under MR425 at 1500ft, they had a considerable time in freefall to build up speed and the MR 425 opened just fine, no damage.

Best regards,

Tom Noonan
Tandem Director
Strong Enterprises

[Zahry 0]

Quote

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.

Hi Tom, I'm not putting worlds in your mouth - I said That's how I can interpret your answer and the area was clearly marked by >>> <<<. I'm sure there is lots of other ways how to interpret your broad answer. I'm getting a lot of information from you but not much relevant to what I've asked and I'm feeling like you are avoiding to give me a clear straight answer.

For the record here and your information.

We don't do handycam here (outside camera only) and I don't know anyone who doesn't do regular gear/handle checks and we are very strict about it.

Thanks to good maintenance and HOP330 our malfunction rate is about 1 malfunction per 2 500 jumps (before hops it was about 1:800). During the period I'm working here as a DZ PT we've done more than 30 000 tm jumps with 0 equipment failures - and that's definitely NOT because of DHT good desing and easy maintenance.

I dare to say if I haven't had an excellent knowledge how the system works and why and where are the flaws and weak points we would definitely had an equipment failure within those 30 000 jumps. Keeping the gear in excellent shape and constantly reminding everyone where the weak points and flaws are doesn't make me really popular but it keeps the circus going and everyone is safe. Everyone who has been here said they haven't seen Strong Equipment in such a good shape yet. Does it say I'm not doing my job well or I don't care?

I can take care of the maintenance very well and I can keep everyone aware. What I can't do ANYTHING about is the design and how the DHT "reserve system" works .

The only malfunctions we had here within last few years were tension knots and rarely lineovers and linetwists. That means deploying reserve on low speeds mainly. I'm asking once more again:

What is going to happen if the passenger decide to kick when the TM pulls the reserve (there is very little airspeed for the TM to work with and some passengers really don't help) and the pilotchute gets caught on passengers arm (That's in example - I think something similar has happend in Cross Keys). What is the outcome on DHT? (I've heard in Cross Keys the TM and passenger died - it seems like it confirms my theory what would happen ...)

Some questions for the equation:

On conventional freebags the force necessary to pull out freestowed lines is almost zero and once the first closing loop is pulled out running loop releases the pressure and there is almost no force needed to deploy the other one - That's ensuring the lines will be fully stretched before the freebag opens and it allows even the half of the bridle create enough drag on lower speeds to deploy the lines, open the freebag and pull the freebag away. The whole system dramatically reduces the danger of temporary bag lock, linetwists and lines and bridle entaglement. THERE IS NO SAFETY FEATURE LIKE THAT ON DHT

So - what is the force necessary to pull out the lines on DHT "freebag" and what speed is necessary to create the necessary drag if the pilotchute is caugt on something (for example wrapped on passengers arm) and therefore only the bridle is exposed.

What I'm telling here is: On Strong DHT in this scenario (unless someone knows why physics shouldn't work in this case) the tandem will end up with temporary baglock and linetwists or total baglock or lines and bridle entaglement because the bridle won't have enough drag to pull out the lines quickly and straight, the turbulence will have plenty of time to spin the bag around the anchor points (fixed closing loops) and it can cause entanglement with the bridle.

If you think I'm wrong I can give this scenario with the relevant information to several independent authorities and institutions and we can ask for official opinion. Also, it should be quite easy to simulate this scenario with dummy in open windtunnel without putting anyone in risk and we will have accurate data from real test. You know - you can put the rig on dummy, anchor the dummy (leave bit slop on ropes to allow a little bit of movement for the dummy or put it on its side) , wrap the pilotchute on some arm or leg, start the engine and start increasing the speed (increase the wind velocity the same rate as tandem accelerates without a drogue) and watch the results... you can even push the "freebag" out prematurely to make it bit more realistic. The bag in a real life will not likely stay in container if tandem thumbles on opening (remember - in our scenario they thumbled - that's how they got the pilotchute wrapped on their body in first place... and watch the show

I'll be very happy if you'll prove me wrong but I don't think you'll be able to do it without chaging the laws of physics or with independet comision supervising the test.

I guess lot of weekend wariors and tm wannabes will say they shouldn't thumble and I'll say they have to learn lot more about what can happen in tm bussiness.

[RIGGER 0]

I read the posts & tried to stay out but it is time to put some words.

Tomas does you DZ is using DHT's ?

Do you pack the DHT reserves ?

Do you rig & maintaine DHT's ?

Are you a SE TI ? jumping DHT's ?

Where have you been before the fatality in CZ. ?

Did you ever contact SE for the issues you point on ?

If you do not trust the system or it is risky IYO move out from it !!! please no "stories" if you let go the next rigger will not do the handling as should.

Each tandem system has it's own Pros & Cons & all goes to:

1. Training on the system you are approved as a TI.

2. Education.

3. Rigging & maintenance by the MFG. guide lines / manual.

4. TI's following rules like Pre-Jump system check & NOT jump or touch a system you never was approved to jump.

5. Errors feedback to mfg.

For you - clamps does not replace hand tacking at ALL POINTS, at some points which might be a line snag point like on side flaps, hand tack if done right with the right method & "Super Tack" nylon thread is well hold. I saw clamps that the housing slide out.

Sigma have a lot of hand tacking same other h/c - no issues if checked at all time like all other points on the system.

I read the SE report which is the only one for now & according to that only report it looks like a rigging, TI & DZO chain of errors from A-Z.

Each DZO, TI, Rigger, Tandem rig owner that ASS. I&R or jump any Tandem system with reserve & main canopies NOT approved by the Tandem h/c mfg. have a liability issue !!!

Sorry to say but the tandem systems mfg., NAC's, National Federations & the FAA / CAA are NOT taking any action to stop that.

DHT & SIGMA / VECTOR Tandem systems are approved as a FULL SYSTEM for a reason !!!

DHT, Sigma, Vector tandems are approved only with SE (DHT) & UPT (Sigma / Vector) canopies.

With all the respect the other canopies mfg. have no rights to ask DZO's or Tandem rigs owners to use the canopies they mfg.

The only way for the other canopies mfg. is to deal with the Tandem h/c mfg. & be approved.

The other canopies might be good even great but MUST be approved for the system.

Regarding the Vector / Sigma - the VR360 reserve dacron lines length is in direct relation with the drouge bridle length to minimaize the VR360 / Drogue problems when deploying the VR360 in a drogue fall position.

Tomas, the way you act in the FORUM by attacking SE & the DHT is not ethical, Ted Strong, Tom Noonan & SE have a lot of credit for what they did & do.

The way that some DZO's, TI's, Riggers act is risking the future of Tandem jumps which are connected to "Public Safety"

Any remarks will be welcome by the mfg. if done in the right PRO & ETHICAL way.

Be Safe !!!

[tkhayes 125]

since I got got asked to reply to this thread I will - I usually keep my posts to simpler things, like religion and politics.

Strong Enterprises has been nothing but responsive and helpful throughout the history of the tandem skydive, especially when it comes to changes to the system and the gear as needed.

The 'other tandem company' has demonstrated to me personally;
1. that they think their gear is perfect and they do not need to make changes
2. that they 'eat their young' when it comes to tandem instructors, their ratings and any incidents that might happen
3. that they did not/do not particularly care about your opinion and your needs.

Strong saw a possible issue with broken closing loops on the main and developed not one, but TWO different system to help keep the container closed in the event of a broken closing loop. The second, an improvement over the first.

Strong enhanced the strength of their risers after a riser broke - even though their was little evidence that the riser was defective in any way - there has never been another riser incident since.

Strong developed a system to release the drogue after it was repeatedly demonstrated that tandem instructors might not do that in the event of a cutaway. Again, helping the system overcome the fact that people make mistakes.

Strong developed a good maintenance program (25 jump inspection) for their gear and included a lot of input from the community on what needed to be included. I know they certainly asked us what we thought.

Strong has demonstrated that they will not 'hang you' if you make mistakes and they are willing to work with you. I personally have had 3 'major' incidents with a tandem jump, each a mistake that I clearly made before or during a jump. Each time I actually sent them the video and/or explained the situation.

Each time I ended up in a discussion with them about prevention and how we learn from those mistakes. Those discussions also included reprimands when needed and justified. The 'other tandem company' yanked one of my instructor's ratings based on a rumor.

There are at least a dozen other improvements that have been made to the gear over the years.

So yes, you can look at the glass as half-empty and say "what a piece of shit- look at all the changes they have to make and it is still a band-aid on a old system....."

Or you can say "Wow, what a responsive company - they obviously care about their gear enough to respond to the skydiving community, come up with changes when it is OBVIOUS that the users of the gear are not going to follow our recommendations, and they continue to make improvements on a system that has MILLIONS of perfectly safe tandem jumps done on them already."

"the other tandem company" decided to design a totally new rig to replace the one that was already 'perfect'. Is that not the same end result? If it was so perfect, then why come out with new ones?

Strong is a great company. They have demonstrated that despite the fact that there are obviously shady and corrupt operators out there that only care about making a buck; who obviously do not give a shit about safety and who are reckless and careless with the operation of the systems and with people's lives; that they will still stick with and work with us 'safe' operators out there who do actually care.

I have nothing but good things to say about them.

You sir, are welcome to your 'wrong' opinion.

TK Hayes

-------
to answer your original post directly:

Quote

Is Strong deliberately diverting our attention from real problems?

No, they are actually addressing the problems with real changes to both the equipment and the procedures and policies, despite our best efforts to use their equipment incorrectly and dangerously.

Quote

Is Strong covering up dangerous design flaws?

No, they have fixed them, BTW, they were not 'design flaws', they were operator errors that were addressed with better safety features.

Quote

Is Strong DHT certified according to the present standarts?

The 'present standard' has not changed since 1983, and that is not the fault of Strong - it is the fault of the FAA and the fact that they take 20+ years to allow changes to happen, essentially adopting the same 1983 standards for tandem jumps are the 'law' in 2001. Unless of course you have some other 'present standard' that we do not know about?

Quote

Is Strong DHT high maintenance demand reasonable workload or unjustified hazard?

Would you rather that they lower their maintenance standards? Try to justify that in a court of law......

Quote

Why Strong DHT doesn't have a lot safer reserve system yet?

I fail to understand what is 'unsafe' about it. We have had probably a hundred cutaways in 15 years of using Strong systems, and have had no serious issues with the reserve system. If you have a specific issue with the Strong reserve system, and you bring it to them, I expect they will listen to you. Works every time I pull the handles....

[DualHawk 0]

Your right about one thing Tomas, everything that you have written thus far is your interpretation. Based on the emails and messages that I have received though, I can't say your interpretation is shared by others on here.

As I said in the beginning, you would point/counter point this for all time, and I don't expect to change your opinion or your interpretations.

What you seem to have failed to grasp here though is that despite trying to paint us as such, Strong Enterprises isn't the evil empire. We are not quietly plotting how to take over the skydiving world. We don't hide things from the public, to the contrary, as I think many would agree, Mr. Strong has an open door policy when it comes to providing information and assessments. We are a company comprised of many skydivers, run by a skydiver. Your attacks and accusations towards this company and it's people is baseless at best, slanderous at worst.

Which all goes back to the original question: "Why not first contact Strong Enterprises directly in the beginning, professionally, as one rigger/instructor to another? And then if you wanted to, take whatever answers/results you got and put them up here for the world to see if it made you feel better. But that wouldn't give you what you wanted. You wanted to try and whip up some global negativity campaign.

The internet has a memory Tomas, and if your willing to do this to us, who else are willing to do it to? The skydiving community is small and close knit. Manufacturers, DZOs, instructors, sport jumpers and packers really would be better served if we all tried to work together.

What is truly disappointing is to find someone in your position that could have been an example of professionalism, instead of choosing to try and damage a company that has spent the last fifty years working towards making the sport prosper.

I mentioned the other manufacturer I contacted directly earlier on. Imagine if used your approach? Do you think I'd be taken seriously then? and now?

If this is to be your "cause of the day" Tomas, so be it.....good luck to you and good jumping.

Tom Noonan
Tandem Director
Strong Enterprises

P.S.- I got a chance to check out some youtube videos of your dropzone. You are correct, you do not use handcam. I apologize. I didn't see many handles checks though, so perhaps a positive can come out of all your negativity and you can help ensure that handles checks are being done on every tandem jump. Thank you.

[irishrigger 31]

i also like to add my 2 cents to this issue.i been a tandem i/e and rigger for a long time.and i have jumped muntiple tandem systems.vector,sigma,strong,next, atom,racer etc
i worked in new zealand where they where using strong systems,and i had a couple of issues,which gave me serious concerns.i emailed ted strong directly and got a detailed reply with in hours of sending it.ted strong gave me a lot of useful information.and he send out the spare parts for the mod that needed to be done free of charge.i also riased a couple of concerns that i had regarding the system,but ted and strong enterprises along with bill morrissey at the time,where always very professional and helpful and quick in there reply.
they were always very helpful and upfront and never tried to hide anything in my opinion.and one should always go to the manufacturer directly with any concerns that thye have.
i am strong rated and done close to 1000 jumps on strong systems.yes they are sometimes high maintenance,and you def need to be very alert and switched on when doing the gear checks,as there is a lot more to check in my opinion.and i have had 3 reserve rides on strongs,and i have quiet a few on vtr-360. i personally prefere the vtr reserves.but saying that the strong reserves also got me and my passenger to the ground safely.and i find the sigma a lot more comfatable than the strong systems.but saying all that i still would jump a strong system as i would have complete faith in it.but given the choice i would prefere a sigma.
and tom noonan mentioned the fatality ratio,and yes most of the fatalities could and should have been prevented.it was indeed human error.
but i have a question,how many of those fatalities could have been prevented a proper gear inspection on the ground before hand.
every manfacturer tries to build a perfect system that is (no offence) idiot proof. but human error just continues to throw curve balls.the recent fatality involving the sigma that led to the mod being done.i bet no one thought that was possible or case that could happen.but it did. personally i am not convinced that the rsl and skyhook and the reserve falling out resulting in the main being cut away was the cause.but it was investigated and they tried too prevent it from happening again.
but there will always be something new or something that never happend before that will end up in a fatality that will scratch our heads.
so,i believe that ted strong and SE have always acted in a professional manor and where always very helpfull.and i dont think they deserve this sort of bad cyber attack from anybody.i do believe that it is way out of line.
rodger killeen

[RiggerLee 61]

I started to type this last night but hit the wrong key and lost it all. Stupid computer.

I can bitch and whine and tell you all kinds of SE stories. I've been around long enough that I can tell you shit on almost any company out there. It's easy to bitch and talk shit about people. But I got other stories too. Here's one.

A coulpe of years ago Tom, my old partner, got stuck doing a bunch of matanance for the school there at Dallas. They jump DHT's. They've got eight rigs I think. Not exactly a huge fleat but they work them pretty hard. They'd been haveing problems with mal's and shit. Way more then they should have had. I think a lot of it could have been corrected if they had just lissend to what Tom and I told them but in any case Tom calls up SE. Talks to them a bit and guess what there responce was?

Their suggestion was to offer to send some one out on site to too see if they could help. They sent some one to Texas. From Florida. He was there for three days or so. Just to give them a packing class and some pointers on there matanance. What did SE charge the dropzone to fly a rep 1300 miles to help them revamp their whole tandom program in their school? What did they ask in return? If I remember corectly I think they asked if the drop zone could put him up in a room while he was their. I think they fed him lunch when they picked him up too.

Now that's not the worst customer service I've ever seen in this sport. You know for a company that you seem to think is so fucking blasay about safety I'd have to say that they seemed pretty damn responcive to me. What do you think three days of on site consolting is worth. What would a company normaly bill for something like that? And it's not like Dallas is the biggest Tandom drop zone in the country. They own eight of their rigs not fifty. But SE considered it to be a safety issue and that's how they responded. There. That's a no shit SE story for you. Not some venomus conjecture being pissed into the internet from half way around the world.

On another note i'd written a long winded diatribe on line stows, drag, cut away speeds, bag weights, and container design, and the history of bridles and free bags. I don't have the patentce to retype it. In essence it said that although there is a grain of truth in what you say you lack knowlage of the finer points in all of this that bridges the gap between theory and reality. You've been raised on populerized myths and are useing them to fill the gaps in your knowlage and expereance. You also seem to lack understanding of the design procces and the give and take between conflicting peramiters that leads to the compramise that all designs are.

What really bothers me is the people that might be reading this. I don't have a problem arguing this among ou selves, riggers, but what botters me is that a lot of other people ou there read this board and adverag skydivers and even young riggers would not be able to see truth through some of these arguments. The bitch of the thing is you write fairly well if spitefully. I don't. It's obveously not my strong point. I do wish that I could be a bit more elegant but here am pecking away with two fingers in my phonetic dislexic rambleing way. I'm glad people have spoken up though. I just don't want to see these half truths and conjectures pass into the collectite wisdom unchallanged.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[riggerrob 558]

... backing Riggerlee ...

... but trying a humourous tack.

Sorry, but I do not share the original poster's religious fervor about the superiority of Safety-Stows over all other types of reserve deployment systems.

Just a little background: I am a grumpy, old, grey-bearded FAA Master Rigger who is so old that he remembers when diapers were considered riske'!

Over the years I have packed thousands of round and square canopies with Type 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 deployment devices along with sleeves, quarter bags and a few Communist military surplus gadgets that you will probably never see.

I believe that freebags with Safety-Stows and Velcro line stow pockets (as installed in Vector) work best at the low speed edge of the envelope.
I actualy prefer freebags with extra little flaps for the Velcro as currently installed on Atoms, Icons, Sidewinders, Talons, Wings, Softies, etc. because I believe they are better at preventing line dump with heavier canopies (e.g. tandem reserve) at the high-speed edge of the envelope.
When you get to the real high-speed edge of the envelope (read drogue-less tandem terminal) I believe that Racer's Speed Bag works best. A dozen MIL SPEC rubber bands locking the freebag closed make the most sense to me at the high-speed edge of the envelope.
Sure Strong's freebag with bungees and chokers looks weird, but it works!
I quit counting after twenty rides on Strong 425 reserves. Two of those reserve rides started with deploying at (drogue-less) tandem terminal. The 425 reserve was a lot stronger than me because it took a week (and a massage therapist) to straighten out my neck!!!!
The joys of being riding on the front as a Tandem Examiner ^%$#@!

In conclusion, it is religious fundementalists - like you - who put the "fun" back in fundementalist ... because you are so easy to poke fun at!!!!
Hah!
Hah!

Rob Warner
Strong Tandem Examiner
Vector Tandem Instructor since 1986
Racer Tandem Instructor since 1996
FAA Master Rigger since 1996
Canadian Rigger Examiner

[Zahry 0]

Hi guys,

I appreciate what you are saying. I agree Strong has one of the best customer services over the world - full stop. I agree and appreciate back in the day they vastly improved the safety of tandem skydiving (Ted was the guy who started the whole thing if my knowledge is right).

So I guess you might wonder why I'm poking into things like that.

The reason is Teds Press Release about the last accident. He torn the guys to pieces (with grace and beauty) but nevertheless he literary thrown 100% of all that sh.. on their heads and walked away with SE sparkling and shining as a diamond. (As my friend explained me now, that's quite common practise in states and it is something to do with so many hungry lawyers there). The thing is - most of the world is outside states and they don't have to necessarily know or care about how it works there (revert the sides if necessary and you'll find you are not different). Unfortunately lot of people took the Press Release seriously as a final report and they think the case is closed. No - it isn't. The properly investigated official report hasn't been released yet.

Just for curiosity - revert the sides.

Imagine if the same accident has happened in states on Czech equipment. How would the press release looked like? I'm sure it would contain something like that: dangerous design, errors in construction cased by ignoring latest findings in safety, inappropriate testing by manufacturer, incomplete instructions and maintenance guidelines and so on ...

I think no one should be complaining about what I'm doing because in SE they are doing exactly the same thing. I'm just looking at the coin from different side.

[normiss 622]

No you're not.
It's that simple.

Maybe you should actually read the report again and try to comprehend it this time.

I could care less where a piece of equipment is manufactured. If I don't follow the guidelines for proper maintenance and that piece of gear fails due to my negligence, how is it possible to be anyone's fault but mine?
What will you say when the "properly investigated official report" back's up SE and lays even more fault on the DZ staff? I'll bet you a case of beer that's what we're going to see.
What could the "proper authorities" in Czech possibly know about SE tandem rigs that Ted doesn't???

[dks13827 2]

It is very sad that someone can read an accident report which shows VERY CLEARLY that the equipment was not used nor maintained properly and then blame the manufacturer. God help us. Human evolution has indeed been halted.

[RiggerLee 61]

This should almost be a diffrent thread. I wish you'd posted it sepperatly. You've hit on one of my personal pet peaves. Now I don't see how you seem to think it justfies your preveous attacks on the system?

At some point lawers got into all the companies around here and started working their evil. Rather then definding them selves with the truth manufactorers started playing games trying to pass the buck to some one else. Big pet peave of mine. But I don't see that here.

I've read the press release. My computer wont open the pdf of the prelimanary report, my computer problem not theirs. The press release seems really straight up. All the things they mentioned were relevent. This whole thing seems to be a poor matanance, poor gear check, poor training issue. I don't see how it can be interperted any other way and I see no effert on their part to muddy the issue. And even if they were how does that make your little one man war in some way ritious?

Now you've had several chances to make this thread productive. You could have made it about brain storming new ideas to improve some of the little matanance issues on the rig. I still think that would be fun. If you felt the report was sqewed you could have addressed that and cryed fawl. I don't see you disputeing the events that occured here or if you have that has become lost in your reteric, read that bullshit. If this really is your issue and you want to take offince at the way their report is written then I suggest you stick to that toppic.

This is the rigging forum. Rigging is about hard engennearing practices. It's the appication of basic commen sence to maters involving kinetic and potental energy. We deal with peoples lives. We deal with the truth. If theres any place in the world with out room for bull shit this is it. I don't think your retteric will get a very warm reception here. Try some where more... interpertive.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[riggerrob 558]

Would you like to hear my professional opinion on the leading cause of tandem malfunctions?

... malfunctions on any tandem system ...?

NEW PACKERS.

For example: last week I had a bunch of comfortable openings on Strong Dual Hawk #10, mostly packed by another Tandem Instructor - who is also a rigger.
Saturday I suffered two hard openings on DHT #10 (packed by our newest packers), so Sunday morning I did a 25 jump inspection and supervised a junior packer - packing in accordance with the video from Strong Enterprises.
Sunday afternoon I enjoyed a comfortable opening on DHT #10.

Similarly, the last time I had to rush to sew a patch on a Sigma main (from Skydive Whistler) the discussion started with: "I was teaching my brother how to pack Sigmas. ..."

Rob Warner
Canadian Rigger Examiner
Vector Tandem Master since 1986
Strong Tandem Examiner

[hackish 8]

This has been a very interesting and informative thread. I only think the strong systems don't look as nice because of that back flap. That's all I think.

Can anyone post pics of the reserve staging system they use? There are no strong systems within 100mi of me and I may never pack one.

-Michael

[RiggerLee 61]

You're right. They are fucking ugly. That's the most valid critecisem I've heard on here to date.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[riggerrob 558]

The reserve staging system in Strong Dual Hawk Tandems is the same system installed in most 1970s vintage piggyback reserve containers and recently retro-fitted Sigmas.
A short loop of bungee cord goes up through (a #0 grommet in) the kicker flap and is secured with a fold of bridle.
This was also how my first main container was closed, but as soon as Hank invented the curved pin, I got a curved pin sewn onto my main bridle.

The original concept was to hold a round reserve in the container until the pilot chute pulled the bridle to full length. Bungee staging loops (aka "hesitator loops")
But bungee staging loops (aka "hesitator loops") were discarded when skydivers converted to square reserves. Most containers - containing square reserves depend upon friction to hold the freebag on your back until the bridle fully extends.

BUT if the volume of the reserve canopy is mis-matched to the volume of the container, the whole friction concept becomes a joke!

Oh!
Wait a minute!
Didn't Strong's report - on the Czech fatality - cite one of the causes as the main canopy volume mis-matched with the volume of the main container?????????

[acmik 0]

Quote

Didn't Strong's report - on the Czech fatality - cite one of the causes as the main canopy volume mis-matched with the volume of the main container?????????

The same Mr. Strong, who had couple of months ago admired HOP330 beeing used with his gear [warning, a gossip]?
Oh, do not tell anybody. One has to take care about his words on public, what if there are lawyers listening...

I would really like to know, how many percents of mains used in DHT are approved... any idea?

[feuergnom 22]

Quote

I would really like to know, how many percents of mains used in DHT are approved... any idea?

None - see bulletin # 22, the wording is pretty clear

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[acmik 0]

Quote

Quote

I would really like to know, how many percents of mains used in DHT are approved... any idea?

None - see bulletin # 22, the wording is pretty clear

none are approved? :)

and now again, any real world qualified guess?