PhreeZone 14 #26 March 28, 2011 Lee, what are your thoughts on the CYPRES cutters cutting reserve ripcord cables as shown in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF1Ghw2KiMMYesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RiggerLee 61 #27 March 28, 2011 Apples and oranges. In some ways a 7*7 cable is way easier to cut then cypress cord. Example, take a pair of bolt cutters, cut the cable then try it on cypress cord. The video looks real impressive but it's actually pretty silly. LeeLee [email protected] www.velocitysportswear.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 54 #28 March 28, 2011 Quote Apples and oranges. In some ways a 7*7 cable is way easier to cut then cypress cord. Example, take a pair of bolt cutters, cut the cable then try it on cypress cord. The video looks real impressive but it's actually pretty silly. Lee Not so silly, when you consider that, in case of Polish fatality with Argus, the blade got damaged just by hitting the soft reserve closing loop... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jurgencamps 0 #29 March 28, 2011 QuoteQuote Apples and oranges. In some ways a 7*7 cable is way easier to cut then cypress cord. Example, take a pair of bolt cutters, cut the cable then try it on cypress cord. The video looks real impressive but it's actually pretty silly. Lee Not so silly, when you consider that, in case of Polish fatality with Argus, the blade got damaged just by hitting the soft reserve closing loop... You can also find some video's with an arguscutter cutting steel cables. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #30 March 28, 2011 and you can find evidence of cypres washers failing during a repack (or 10), you will also find that airtec had contacted a select few about the problem A YEAR before they told everybody else. They told everybody else after everybody else found out themselves (the hard way) that there was a problem."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jurgencamps 0 #31 March 28, 2011 Quote Not so silly, when you consider that, in case of Polish fatality with Argus, the blade got damaged just by hitting the soft reserve closing loop... Who says that the loop damaged the cutter and not a rigger who repacked the reserve? Man, a cutterblade capable of cutting trough a steel cable (as demonstrated more than once) was damaged by a soft loop? Maybe you just proofed something different. That there exist riggers who are negligent and try to hide there ignorance. Please do a test, find a arguscutter (not to difficult these days) and try to damage the cuttingblade with a reserveloop. Please post your findings. Be a cypresfan, but please stay correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 54 #32 March 28, 2011 Quote Who says that the loop damaged the cutter and not a rigger who repacked the reserve? Man, a cutterblade capable of cutting trough a steel cable (as demonstrated more than once) was damaged by a soft loop? Maybe you just proofed something different. That there exist riggers who are negligent and try to hide there ignorance. Please do a test, find a arguscutter (not to difficult these days) and try to damage the cuttingblade with a reserveloop. Please post your findings. Be a cypresfan, but please stay correct. How can one damage a blade during the repack if it is hidden in the cylinder... Anyways, I was basing my info on the results of the official Polish GOVERNMENT investigation, which included the results from the main government-owned criminal laboratory and its 'ballistic investigation' division. Read here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3817893#3817893 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 261 #33 March 28, 2011 Quote Man, a cutterblade capable of cutting trough a steel cable (as demonstrated more than once) was damaged by a soft loop? That's why there are engineers. Because not everything works the obvious way. The various Argus related reports show how a cylindrical cutter can have issues because it has a narrower blade that is susceptible to chipping or bending if the hardness isn't just right, why it relies on shearing the loop between cutter and side wall, and why a loop that's not under tension (including when the other side of the cylinder already cut the loop) tends to cut less cleanly. Some of this can be simulated by just playing with closing loops and a pair of scissors, varying the tension. As somebody else said, cutting a still ripcord cable is in some ways easier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #34 March 29, 2011 Quote Sorry to say, but this idea is complete bullshit. The cutting blade does not only hit the anvil, but also intrudes 1 to 2mm into it. This is due to the big forces which are needed, to make sure that the blade completely severes the loop. A reactive charge which is big enough to push the piston back will severely damage your rig. The reason is simple. The charge that drives the piston forward can go no other way than this, pushing the puston inside a closed containment. A reactive charge from the other side will loose most of its force through the open loop hole. Even if it is a cylindrical cutter it is not tight enough at the containment to keep the pressure. The only way out is taking a bigger charge, which will make you carrying a little bomb on your back. I prefer the knife and anvil type cutter, which simply cuts the loop into two pieces. English is not my native language, so I apologize if I am using strange words t some points. +1 for content +1 for saying it so well in your second or third language. One other related point: Whenever you add another component or sub-system to a system, you also add its inherent failure rate, thereby increasing the overall system failure rate and decreasing overall system reliability. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #35 March 29, 2011 Quote *Or simply increase the charge on the cutter by what, 10% should do the trick. To me, this seems like an easy solution. - 1 The easiest solution is to pull your effing reserve handle when you're supposed to. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be skydiving. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #36 March 29, 2011 Quote - 1 The easiest solution is to pull your effing reserve handle when you're supposed to. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be skydiving. Oh yeah, well....... -1 to you too! I mean, c'mon, that's like a base assumption that really doesn't need to be brought back up every post.=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #37 March 30, 2011 Quote Quote - 1 The easiest solution is to pull your effing reserve handle when you're supposed to. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be skydiving. Oh yeah, well....... -1 to you too! I mean, c'mon, that's like a base assumption that really doesn't need to be brought back up every post. Except it's NOT a base assumption if you actually read this thread, which contains a multiple posts predicated on the notion than an AAD as a integral component of a parachute deployment system. The most egregious examples of this mentality are the posts that propose changing reserve designs to accommodate an AAD. AAD function is being discussed as if AADs are literally as necessary to the system as a pilot chute, a bridle, and a ripcord. They aren't. So I will bring it up one more time: The easiest way to deal with the inherent failure rate of various AADs is to pull your effing reserve handle when you're supposed to -- and if you can't do that, then you shouldn't be skydiving. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,047 #38 March 30, 2011 Hi robin, QuoteThe easiest way to deal with the inherent failure rate of various AADs is to pull your effing reserve handle when you're supposed to Considering that the current problem is the cutter entraping the Locking Loop, and depending upon cutter location, that would not solve the current problem. You still would not get a canopy over your head. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #39 March 30, 2011 Quote Hi robin, Quote The easiest way to deal with the inherent failure rate of various AADs is to pull your effing reserve handle when you're supposed to Considering that the current problem is the cutter entraping the Locking Loop, and depending upon cutter location, that would not solve the current problem. You still would not get a canopy over your head. JerryBaumchen BINGO. Your response to me is another one of those posts predicated on the notion that AADs are an integral component of a parachute deployment system -- and literally as necessary to that system as a pilot chute, a bridle, and a ripcord. They aren't. Or to put it another way: The moment you discard the absurd notiion that an AAD is an integral and necessary component of a reserve parachute system, the easiest solution to "the current problem (of) the cutter entrapping the Locking Loop, and depending upon cutter location" becomes absurdly evident: get rid of the non-essential component, the design and/or placement of which interferes with the essential function of the system. To me, AADs are a "solution" in search of a problem and their presence in the sport has caused as many fatalities and injuries as they have prevented, and added an unnecessary level of complexity to reserve parachute systems that increases costs and the probability of error. What a great idea. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LloydDobbler 2 #40 March 30, 2011 Quote Quote Hi robin, Quote The easiest way to deal with the inherent failure rate of various AADs is to pull your effing reserve handle when you're supposed to Considering that the current problem is the cutter entraping the Locking Loop, and depending upon cutter location, that would not solve the current problem. You still would not get a canopy over your head. JerryBaumchen BINGO. Your response to me is another one of those posts predicated on the notion that AADs are an integral component of a parachute deployment system -- and literally as necessary to that system as a pilot chute, a bridle, and a ripcord. They aren't. Or to put it another way: The moment you discard the absurd notiion that an AAD is an integral and necessary component of a reserve parachute system, the easiest solution to "the current problem (of) the cutter entrapping the Locking Loop, and depending upon cutter location" becomes absurdly evident: get rid of the non-essential component, the design and/or placement of which interferes with the essential function of the system. To me, AADs are a "solution" in search of a problem and their presence in the sport has caused as many fatalities and injuries as they have prevented, and added an unnecessary level of complexity to reserve parachute systems that increases costs and the probability of error. What a great idea. Hi Robin, Not to split hairs, but by your logic, an altimeter is also something we should never jump with. Now, I agree that one shouldn't need an altimeter. Using your eyes is the best measure of altitude, and if you forget your trusty Altimaster on the ground, you should be able to jump anyway...but to suggest that we should do away with them altogether because they aren't an 'integral component' seems somewhat absurd. In my opinion, if one doesn't want to jump with an AAD, they shouldn't jump with one. But for those who want to, I don't think it hurts to accommodate it, provided it doesn't screw with the functionality of the integral components. Aside from AAD's, rigs also had to be changed to allow for ram-air reserves, which weren't necessarily integral to the system - they just improved the experience (admittedly, only in some ways). By the same token, accommodating something that a large number of jumpers may want to have as a last resort (i.e., in case of being incapacitated on exit or via a collision) doesn't seem to be a bad thing. [Full disclosure - I agree that we shouldn't be reliant on AAD's. Only one of my rigs had an AAD, until Argus was pulled out of it - I currently jump without one. But for AFF jumps (which are unpredictable by nature), I prefer to have one in the event I get clocked and knocked out by a flailing student (seen it happen). I like to have that last bit of insurance, provided it doesn't interfere with my ability to skydive & deploy my reserve on my own.]Signatures are the new black. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NancyJ 2 #41 March 30, 2011 Poland, as it turns out, was not one of the alleged incidents. Look at the attached pages containing pictures from that investigation. The loop is completely cut, and there is/was line stretch with the canopy partially out of the bag. There would not have been complete line stretch had the container been locked shut. Additionally it looks as if there MAY have been a bag bridle involvement/entanglement issue. Poland has apparently "reinstated" use of the Argus there. Just FYI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #42 March 30, 2011 QuotePoland, as it turns out, was not one of the alleged incidents. Look at the attached pages containing pictures from that investigation. The loop is completely cut, and there is/was line stretch with the canopy partially out of the bag. There would not have been complete line stretch had the container been locked shut. Additionally it looks as if there MAY have been a bag bridle involvement/entanglement issue. Poland has apparently "reinstated" use of the Argus there. Just FYI. If you look at the photos, you will see the bridle tied loosely around the base of the canopy. If the pilot chute had been towed by that entanglement, the knot would have been tighter. The photos also show the canopy folds still in place. If the canopy had been partially out of the bag while the jumper was still in the air, the folds would have been disturbed. The more likely explanation is that the loop broke at impact, with the bag being ejected at that time. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #43 March 31, 2011 >There would not have been complete line stretch had the container been >locked shut. I have (unfortunately) seen incidents where the impact broke the closing loop of the reserve and resulted in a reserve at line stretch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #44 March 31, 2011 QuotePoland has apparently "reinstated" use of the Argus there. Just FYI. Do you have a source for this? SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 54 #45 March 31, 2011 QuotePoland, as it turns out, was not one of the alleged incidents. Look at the attached pages containing pictures from that investigation. The loop is completely cut, and there is/was line stretch with the canopy partially out of the bag. There would not have been complete line stretch had the container been locked shut. Additionally it looks as if there MAY have been a bag bridle involvement/entanglement issue. Poland has apparently "reinstated" use of the Argus there. Just FYI. Please read the translation of key points below. From what I know, Argus was reinstated based on the belief that Aviacom fixed the failed cutter (as it turned out, it is not true, since cutters manufactured after 2007 also failed (in Texas) ). As for the freebag being out, see also see the rest of the below thread, from the pointed post down. Final Polish report will be out in about a month (in English). http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3817893;search_string=melted;#3817893 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 54 #46 March 31, 2011 QuoteQuotePoland has apparently "reinstated" use of the Argus there. Just FYI. Do you have a source for this? Sparky I live in Poland and saw this notice. Yes, the Polish "FAA" reinstated Argus about two weeks ago. A week later it was banned by most container manufacturers. After that, the Polish "FAA" reminded riggers that they should obey the manufacturers' ban, when it comes to individual brands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roq 0 #47 March 31, 2011 I do not understand how still misgivings about if the loops are broken before or after impact If the loop was cut after the impact the cutter will show many filaments loop with signals clear that they were torn and that not was cut by the guillotine cutter Today have many forensic and engineering laboratories that can give the fast and conclusive answer roq Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 54 #48 March 31, 2011 QuoteToday have many forensic and engineering laboratories that can give the fast and conclusive answer This loop and cutter was examined in the national forensic (ballistic division) government laboratory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roq 0 #49 March 31, 2011 Like I know, not in Portugal, Texas, Perris. In Poland is not conclusive... roq Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 54 #50 March 31, 2011 QuoteLike I know, not in Portugal, Texas, Perris. In Poland is not conclusive... roq What happened in Perris? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
