Infinity cutter location changed

[linestretch 0]

Anyone know when they moved the cutter location on the infinity's? For those that don't know anything about it (me being one of them), it's been moved from the #1 flap to the #2 side flap above the spring. It looks like the cap of the reserve PC is concave similar to what Mirage did with theirs. I couldn't find anything on the website about it.

my pics & stuff!

[tonyv 0]

I don't think we've posted anything significant on the website about it, but we have been putting out a supplement with the owners manual. I'm not at the office right now, so I can't verify, but I seem to recall the change around SN 8000. We are using a concave pilot chute cap (very similar to Mirage System's ), in an effort to reduce the visibility of the cutter.

-Tony
(253) 445-8790
Velocity Sports Equipment

[BrianM 1]

Is that a mod to older containers, or do older containers stay the way they are?

"It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

[roccoflys 0]

tony- why the change??

hi, btw.

[tonyv 0]

Hey Brian,
That's a good question! The new cutter location is not mandatory, it is only a design change. If you desire to have the cutter location changed on your container (and this is not necessarily directed at you), please give me a call at the shop, prior to sending in your rig, to schedule a retro-fit. Since the retro-fit is not mandatory, you will be on the hook for the cost of a new concave capped reserve pilotchute.


Hi Nicole!
This change came about to try and combat "variables" in reserve packjobs. By placing the cutter above the pilot chute, it allows us to "choke up" on the closing loop, preventing the reserve flaps from binding up on a closing loop that was too long.


Now the debate for which is the better position for the cutter, it's a personal decision and is probably best left for around the bonfire.

-Tony
(253) 445-8790
Velocity Sports Equipment

[NovaTTT 1]

Quote

Now the debate for which is the better position for the cutter, it's a personal decision and is probably best left for around the bonfire.

It not at all is best left for the bonfire.

If there is question as to which is the better position, then there is no reason to make the change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If the original design/location is, shall we say, adequate, then why change it to another adequate location?

Aesthetically, it's a hidden variable and changing the location required a redesign of the reserve pilot chute cap. That doesn't sound like a whimsical undertaking.

In my opinion, if you moved the cutter to above the PC to avoid the possibility of a closing loop bind this is not a whimsy but rather addressing a real or realistically foreseeable safety issue.

It's not cheap to be wrong and try to handle it with kid gloves. Ask Toyota. Now I'm not saying the Infinity is comparable to clearly flawed automobiles - by no means whatsoever.

I'm saying, let's call east, east and water wet.

There should be more chatter and volume from Velocity Sports about this. And putting Infinity owners on the hook for the full cost of a retrofit seems wrong to me.

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[diablopilot 2]

I haven't heard this from any official source, but I think the change does make the rig legal to jump in some other countries.....

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

I haven't heard this from any official source, but I think the change does make the rig legal to jump in some other countries.....

There are countries where the cutter location is set by their laws?

[tonyv 0]

Hi Timothy,

I appreciate your concern for the reputation of Velocity Sports Equipment, it's a matter I take seriously.

To address your question of which is the better position, the short answer is that it is not a debate of which location is "more adequate" than the other. The cutter placed in either position, on a properly packed reserve container, will consistently yield the same result.

Quote

putting Infinity owners on the hook for the full cost of a retrofit seems wrong to me.

We are not requiring anybody to have their container retrofitted. The container is airworthy with the cutter in either position.

-Tony
(253) 445-8790
Velocity Sports Equipment

[tetra316 0]

So basically on a reserve that was packed properly it makes no difference. But on a reserve that was packed with a closing loop too long, the change negates this?

[NovaTTT 1]

Hi, Tony.

Sorry if my post seemed harsh but one is genuinely curious about a significant change.

You didn't actually say anything that wasn't clear from the previous post.

I'm wondering why the cutter location was moved if there is no advantage? If it is in response to a foreseeable or actual binding issue, one thinks that information should be put out there. If it's just because it is felt the new location is better from a non-safety standpoint, say a rigging standpoint, one thinks that should be put out there directly as well.

It's just that bit about "preventing the reserve flaps from binding up on a closing loop that was too long." is concerning.

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Hi, Tony.

Sorry if my post seemed harsh but one is genuinely curious about a significant change.

You didn't actually say anything that wasn't clear from the previous post.

I'm wondering why the cutter location was moved if there is no advantage? If it is in response to a foreseeable or actual binding issue, one thinks that information should be put out there. If it's just because it is felt the new location is better from a non-safety standpoint, say a rigging standpoint, one thinks that should be put out there directly as well.

It's just that bit about "preventing the reserve flaps from binding up on a closing loop that was too long." is concerning.

Mix in that there's some question regarding the possibility of an AAD cutter jamming on the loop, and I don't quite know what to think.

If the cutter is below the pilot chute and jams on the loop, maybe it will still pull free?

But if the cutter is above the pilot chute and jams, even the ripcord might not help anymore.

Should be go back to pin pullers? Should we develop some sort of modern pyro-powered pin puller?

(Those last 2 are mostly jokes. But, maybe only "mostly" and not "totally".)

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

I haven't heard this from any official source, but I think the change does make the rig legal to jump in some other countries.....

There are countries where the cutter location is set by their laws?

I have heard rumor, and rumor only that the French Authority on parachuting has made a ruling on rigs with cutters below the pilot chute. I'm not looking hard but am looking for a confirmation on the matter....

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

[BrianM 1]

Quote

Mix in that there's some question regarding the possibility of an AAD cutter jamming on the loop, and I don't quite know what to think.

If the cutter is below the pilot chute and jams on the loop, maybe it will still pull free?

But if the cutter is above the pilot chute and jams, even the ripcord might not help anymore.

If you're worried about the cutter jamming the loop, then you would want the cutter below the freebag, not below the pilot chute - no?

Of course that then gives you the potential for a too-long closing loop jamming in the grommets - but at least the ripcord should still work. Pick your poison...

"It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

[billvon 2,435]

>Now the debate for which is the better position for the cutter, it's a
>personal decision and is probably best left for around the bonfire.

I would like to think that the manufacturer is better guidance for rigging issues concerning the rigs they build than the local bonfire, instructive though those bonfires may be.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Mix in that there's some question regarding the possibility of an AAD cutter jamming on the loop, and I don't quite know what to think.

If the cutter is below the pilot chute and jams on the loop, maybe it will still pull free?

But if the cutter is above the pilot chute and jams, even the ripcord might not help anymore.

If you're worried about the cutter jamming the loop, then you would want the cutter below the freebag, not below the pilot chute - no?

Of course that then gives you the potential for a too-long closing loop jamming in the grommets - but at least the ripcord should still work. Pick your poison...

There have been rigs with the cutter between the freebag and the pin for a long time. That's why I mentioned the theory that a jammed cutter might still be "cleared" by a deployed pilot chute. And it is clear that the cutter doesn't have to be "below" the freebag for a too long closing loop to jam in the grommets. The Mirage didn't have the cutter below the freebag. And the Infinity didn't either, but Tony specifically mentioned the too long closing loop issue.

Was I worried about jammed cutters before? Nope. Not until someone said that there's an instance where a cutter jammed on a closing loop, and the reserve didn't deploy.

But moving to cutter so it might even stop a pilot chute from deploying takes the whole thing to a new level.

Personally, I have a Javelin, and I like where the cutter is located, just above the closing loop anchor.

If there are riggers making the closing loops too long, then fix the riggers. Fixing the rig is a slippery slope. There will always be something else to fix afterwards.

The way I see it, we should have our riggers know how to close a rig, so that we don't have to protect ourselves from rigs sticking shut from a too long closing loop.

And the cutter should not be anywhere that might interfere with a ripcord reserve deployment.

The Racer presents an interesting problem for cutter placement. But maybe the two-pin design side-steps the issue of a ripcord deployment being balked. That's a whole separate discussion.

[diablopilot 2]

Remember, most of these hesitation, or container/loop lock problems have been on ultra small, overstuffed container combinations.

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

[roccoflys 0]

i must say... i have to agree with the earlier statement about closing loop length issues. if this is the real issue at hand, why make an arbitrary cutter location change? how about a bulletin stating the importance of the right length loop? i have the utmost faith in velocity sports equipment, but using 'aesthetics' as a reason seems a bit thin to me. help me here, tony....
i just want my customers, my friends, and my own infinity to be as safe as possible. this will (and is) inevitably going to make people question their gear.
and for god's sake- follow the manufacturer's recommendations on the loop lengths!

[bofh 0]

Quote

If there are riggers making the closing loops too long, then fix the riggers. Fixing the rig is a slippery slope. There will always be something else to fix afterwards.

In computer security its called "security in depth". When one part fails, another part should make up for it.

I don't see anything wrong with making the system perform better when one part in the process (the rigger) has failed, even if the end result never can become perfect.

In this case one failure mode is traded for another. I think the riggers making mistakes is a more common failure than the cutter malfunctioning, but I don't really know.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

If there are riggers making the closing loops too long, then fix the riggers. Fixing the rig is a slippery slope. There will always be something else to fix afterwards.

In computer security its called "security in depth". When one part fails, another part should make up for it.

I don't see anything wrong with making the system perform better when one part in the process (the rigger) has failed, even if the end result never can become perfect.

In this case one failure mode is traded for another. I think the riggers making mistakes is a more common failure than the cutter malfunctioning, but I don't really know.

What you are saying is that you will accept certain rigging errors, but others are unacceptable.

You will never make a rig that can get the reserve out if the rigger left his molar strap inside.

But you accept a rigger who does not know how to properly size the closing loop.

I think that is a bad way to approach the problem. We must not accept an inferior rigger. There are simply too many things he can do wrong that can never be accounted for.

If the rig has a problem with a too long closing loop, maybe that is the problem that should be solved in the first place. Then you can leave the cutter in a place where a cutter malfunction does not lock your rig closed.

Maybe the root of the problem is a rig that hides the mistakes and still looks okay. If the too long closing loop was clearly evident when you looked at the rig, you would not allow your rigger to tell you it was okay.

AADs are a fact these days. Since they are so nearly universal, we should have rigs that don't jam shut no matter where you cut the loop. Then the cutter can be placed in the safest place and not be an additional source of problems.

[diablopilot 2]

I pose a new solution. Hand deploy reserves. Who wants to build me one?

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

I pose a new solution. Hand deploy reserves. Who wants to build me one?

Hand deployed reserves would be a lot less AAD-friendly.

I don't think that we can go back there.

[skydiverek 58]

Quote

I pose a new solution. Hand deploy reserves. Who wants to build me one?

Bill Booth designed such system approximately 30 years ago. It never went into production.

[skydiverek 58]

Here is what happens if the reserve closing loop is too long, and not siliconized:

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYIUjKGxagI&fmt=18

DISCUSSION: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2101957;page=1;mh=-1;;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC

[roccoflys 0]

Quote

Maybe the root of the problem is a rig that hides the mistakes and still looks okay. If the too long closing loop was clearly evident when you looked at the rig, you would not allow your rigger to tell you it was okay.

i have seen some UGLY infinity pack jobs (and others, as i'm sure we all have) and believe you me, the customer is clueless. some riggers don't care about aesthetics, and most customers don't know the difference. it's our job to educate them and each other.
i'm still looking for a better answer to the cutter change, however....