Cutting the loop or pulling the pin?

[mark 102]

skytribe

I want to install this in a Javelin with Argus.

You'd be asking for an alteration to the Javelin's FAA-approved design, which would require the ok of either Sunpath or the FAA. For several reasons, the process would not be easy or quick.

Mark

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

You'd be asking for an alteration to the Javelin's FAA-approved design, which would require the ok of either Sunpath or the FAA. For several reasons, the process would not be easy or quick.

I disagree. A rigger can interchange major components from different manufacturers. The ripcord is a major component. A housing replacment, which the instulation entails, may be done by a senior rigger as it does not affect airthworthyness. It, additionally, does not affect the normal operation of the cerificated component.
Additionally, I am currently offering it directly to some manufacturers and they would supply it OEM.

BTW: I am currently installing one in a Javlin and will show the video of the activation Monday. The Javlin has ARGUS written on the side so I assume it will have an Argus in it.

[RiggerLee 61]

I'm not sure I buy that. You are not simply replacing the housing you are replacing it with some thing fundamentally different. A split housing with this puller in the middle of it. And if it involves fundamentally changing the placement of the housing, adding a longer one to reach all the way to be attached to the top flap, that is a fundamental change in design. I would say that that would require an approved alteration. If you further had to alter the rsl, to for instance pull a split housing rather then from between two rings in order to extend the housing all the way to the top flap, that would be a fundamental change that might involve the TSO it self. This puller has the potential with it's seals to increase the pull force. That again relates to issues tested in the TSO affecting airworthiness. AAD instillations, I'm not talking about simply slipping some thing in to a pocket, but real instillations have often been the providence of the manufacturer. There are to many ways to screw it up.

So no, I don't buy the idea that you can just swap out a housing and call it trivial.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[skytribe 16]

Gotta say I'm more with lee on this one. I think this is fundamentally different in installation of any of the current AAD and the necessary changes would constitute an alteration. Have a complete AAD solution and manufacturers may be more happy to have installed and/or build containers already setup or provide retrofit kits like original cypres.

[Keithor 0]

John I'm not just new to the sport I'm newer to rigging so forgive the question.

I have a wings container and the rip cord is always. Showing the in the open part of the stainless handle. As a result I kept tucking it into the velcro (as we see so many people do regardless of manufacturer). My question is: is there any way that having the rip cord tucked into the velcro could effect the operation of your puller? With the right/wrong angle that the cord tucked in and fresh new velcro holding it in place could wind up pushing the pin in further instead of pulling the pin out?

If there is a stop in place that is not attached to the cord I can see that the situation would be unlikely. I could see potentially that the stopper get blown out and the pin not move.

*typed by thumb so don't mind the spelling*

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

My question is: is there any way that having the rip cord tucked into the velcro could effect the operation of your puller? With the right/wrong angle that the cord tucked in and fresh new velcro holding it in place could wind up pushing the pin in further instead of pulling the pin out?

Not a chance. Think about the power of the activator vs the resistance of the cable in the velcro. Not even close. I tuck my excess cable into the pocket also.

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

I think this is fundamentally different in installation of any of the current AAD and the necessary changes would constitute an alteration.

You bet you buns it is different. Cutters are illegal no mater how you look at it. They can, have and will again interfear with the normal operation of a certificated system. That makes any rigger who installs a cutter in a rig and the rig/cutter fails the rigger would be liable.
The IOpener doen not interfere with the normal operation of the certificated system. You can still pull the ripcord whether it fires or not.

Please pardon the back to back posts.

[JeffCa 0]

JohnSherman

Quote

I am sure John really loves us right now lol..

I'm LMAO at the wild mad speculation. This thing works as it is. Just look at todays video.

However, this has been good, for example I used tissue paper to disprove the gas exaust theorie at the handle and around the generator. I would not have done that if David had not mentioned it.

I don't understand much of what you guys are talking about here, but am watching with interest. As a new Racer owner, there's a good chance that this contraption will someday be installed in one of my rigs. So I'm happy that it has been innovated, and happy that others are challenging John to consider some things that he maybe hadn't considered before to prove its safety. This is how the review of new designs should be done. We need both the innovators and the critics. So thanks.

Now, carry on as you were.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[RiggerLee 61]

I've been thinking more and more about the design on the Sentinel micro puller. Perhaps you should look at a pusher/puller design modeled after it. A cylinder with a ring on the side and a piston with a ring on the end off to the side in line with the other ring. Both thin so they don't take up too much space. When it fires the two separate from each other. The pin just threads through it. You can now have a completely sealed piston like a cutter. It no longer has to be tacked down in any way so there is no danger of it slipping. It can face in ether direction with out modification as ether a pusher or puller. No issues with housings or replacement rip cords.

I'm thinking they had a pretty good design all along. Better then some of the things I was suggesting with plates with grommets on the puller.

The answer might be to just update the old micro puller.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[skytribe 16]

Quote

Cutters are illegal no mater how you look at it. They can, have and will again interfear with the normal operation of a certificated system. That makes any rigger who installs a cutter in a rig and the rig/cutter fails the rigger would be liable. .

I do think that some installations of certain containers are susceptible to container lock if cutter does not sever the loop. Others not so much (like the Javelin placement on bottom - which I like)

That said, If its an approved installation as per container and AAD manufacturers guidelines I think you may have some defence. That said I prefer installations which don't have the potential to cause container lock in the event of a fail cut. This pin puller /pusher is a different solution and perhaps has less inherent risk as it always allows manual activation.

How so is this illegal if the rigger followed manufacturers instructions on installation ?

[df8m1 19]

skytribe

Quote

Cutters are illegal no mater how you look at it. They can, have and will again interfear with the normal operation of a certificated system. That makes any rigger who installs a cutter in a rig and the rig/cutter fails the rigger would be liable. .

I do think that some installations of certain containers are susceptible to container lock if cutter does not sever the loop. Others not so much (like the Javelin placement on bottom - which I like)

That said, If its an approved installation as per container and AAD manufacturers guidelines I think you may have some defence. That said I prefer installations which don't have the potential to cause container lock in the event of a fail cut. This pin puller /pusher is a different solution and perhaps has less inherent risk as it always allows manual activation.

Just thinking out loud here, but if cutters are evil because they have the potential to lock the reserve in the container, than how about a bent pin that prevents extraction?... or a cable that is jammed in the housing from that landing in the pees and cant be pulled?... or what about a broken pin??...That one makes me sweat just thinking about it...

Having a close toleranced piston and cylinder assembly that is crimped to the cable has the potential of jamming and preventing a pull... or is a broken, bent, or jammed pin not illegal because the flaps never opened?? The reserve is just as locked in the container as it would be with a pinched loop in a cutter, but this is OK?

[dgw 8]

df8m1

***

Quote

Cutters are illegal no mater how you look at it. They can, have and will again interfear with the normal operation of a certificated system. That makes any rigger who installs a cutter in a rig and the rig/cutter fails the rigger would be liable. .

I do think that some installations of certain containers are susceptible to container lock if cutter does not sever the loop. Others not so much (like the Javelin placement on bottom - which I like)

That said, If its an approved installation as per container and AAD manufacturers guidelines I think you may have some defence. That said I prefer installations which don't have the potential to cause container lock in the event of a fail cut. This pin puller /pusher is a different solution and perhaps has less inherent risk as it always allows manual activation.

Just thinking out loud here, but if cutters are evil because they have the potential to lock the reserve in the container, than how about a bent pin that prevents extraction?... or a cable that is jammed in the housing from that landing in the pees and cant be pulled?... or what about a broken pin??...That one makes me sweat just thinking about it...

Having a close toleranced piston and cylinder assembly that is crimped to the cable has the potential of jamming and preventing a pull... or is a broken, bent, or jammed pin not illegal because the flaps never opened?? The reserve is just as locked in the container as it would be with a pinched loop in a cutter, but this is OK?

Use a two 'cutter' AAD, and have both.....

[RiggerLee 61]

Just as a side note. Some one earlier asked if there had ever been a broken pin and you mention it again now.

Yep, saw one. And it was totally unrelated to the capwell pin SB thing. I was at Quincy. It was on an old rig from... South Africa? I think it was called an Intruder? This was years ago but I seem to recall that the reserve tray resembled a Vector 1. The pin snapped in half when I slipped it in the loop and let off on the pull up cord. The pressure of the loop across the grommet snapped the pin cleanly, no sign of bending. I still had a hold of the pull up cord and just pulled the peace's out. Sorry I didn't really take the time to evaluate whether it was locked. I was kind of freaked out and automatically reached for it to see what had happened. It was a clean break but most of the face of the pin was black/corroded except for a crescent moon along one edge. Looks like a crack started some time in the past and slowly grew across the pin till one day I put it in turned the other way and... snap goes the remaining metal. There was no warning and nothing was visible and apparent before.

I was going to save it for the wall of shame but the Cypres guys heard about it and conned me out of it. They really wanted that rip cord. They were all excited about it. They traded me a copy of there bird man book for it, and it was a really cool book.

Depending on the relative tightness of the last two flaps the grommets may not perfectly a line. In theory The end of the pin could drop down and lock against the edge of the lower grommet. So yes this could happen. I did personally see a pin break in half as I closed a rig once. But that's over almost two decades so it's not exactly a common event. I think I could come up with a long list things far more likely to kill you for you to worry about.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[df8m1 19]

My thoughts were more toward the legal angle, but they are why I personally prefer a good cutter as a secondary method of pack opening.

If a cutter is bad because it “could” or “has the potential to” prevent the reserve from deploying (when located above the reserve), when the jumper wants it to open, then why would any other component that plays a role in the deployment not be equally evil?

For example, if the pin brakes, (we know that has happened, the service bulletin and all), the reserve will not open when the jumper wants it to, just like a pinched cutter that is above the reserve. If the pin is bent, it “could” create a hard pull that “could” prevent the jumper from pulling the pin, which would prevent the reserve from deploying when the jumper wants it to, just like a pinched cutter that is above the reserve. If the ripcord cable is jammed in the housing, that “could” result in a hard pull that prevents the jumper from extracting the pin, which prevents the reserve from deploying when the jumper wants it to, just like a pinched cutter that is above the reserve.

Moving on to the next critical link in the deployment chain. Lets say the pin is cool, but the pilot chute spring is broken in pieces… That “could” prevent the reserve from deploying per the TSO standards, potentially not as bad and not having the reserve locked in the container, but definitely not desirable. Or if the spring fatigues and takes a set, (looses the majority of it’s tension) that also would have an effect on the reserve deployment…

My point is that singeing out the cutter as the “only” part that “can” be in violation of a TSO, “as in it could negatively affect the reserves ability to deploy within the TSO requirements”, (should it malfunction), is short sighted, and leans toward a marketing perspective IMOP. If the pin or the spring screw up, regardless of the likelihood of it happening, which is not a factor in the argument, (we are talking about items that have the “potential to”, not the ”chances of” or “likely hood of”), the end result will/could be the same as a pinched cutter that is “above” the reserve, and there for, are/should be, subject to the same stigma that the cutter is being given.

Changing out a ripcord and housing set that is loose, (the cable will freely move back and forth), with one that has the cable tight in a cylinder, with seals and all that could stick to the pin or cable and be pulled into the housing jamming it, would present a new opportunity for the reserve to not deploy when the jumper wants it to… Regardless or the “odds of” it is the “potential to” that caries the weight here. It is the design of the item in question that determines the “potential to”, as well as the “odds of”. If the potential is there, regardless of the “odds of” then it needs to be acknowledged. Consider it full disclosure.

I understand that there is a desire to sell more ripcords here, but lets keep the big picture in focus.

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

I do think that some installations of certain containers are susceptible to container lock if cutter does not sever the loop. Others not so much (like the Javelin placement on bottom - which I like)

Container lock, No! But they do change the way the container works normally. On a Javlin when the pin is pulled it releasers the top flap which in turn releases the pilot chute an so on. When the loop is cut from the botton it releases the loop and it must unthread from the bottom through the bag then through the pilot chute starting from the bottom to the top. Releasing the bottom of the pilot chute before the top can allow the bottom to slide out and flip the pilot chute bottom first in to the air stream. If this were to happen the pilot chut would loose its thrust out of the burble and possibly lay on the back, in the burble, of a belly down jumper. This was presented as a possible reason for certain rigs failing to deploy their resreve after AAD firing at 750 feet.
Now I ask you if that is the "Normal Operation of"?

[mark 102]

JohnSherman

When the loop is cut from the botton it releases the loop and it must unthread from the bottom through the bag then through the pilot chute starting from the bottom to the top. Releasing the bottom of the pilot chute before the top can allow the bottom to slide out and flip the pilot chute bottom first in to the air stream.
Now I ask you if that is the "Normal Operation of"?

Do Reflex pilot chutes do that?

Mark

[skytribe 16]

So with a well packed reserve the grommets should probably be fairly well aligned. The fact that in the event of a AAD fire it would have to unthread through the grommets. This shouldn't be a great issue. Other rigs reflex, teardrop and even racer this occurs. Either way the fact if the loop was not completely severed a manual activation can still occur.

With the cutter closer to the top a severed loop does not need to unthread through as many grommets BUT if a loop is not severed then a potential container lock can occur whether the manual activation occurs or not.

If the pilot chute is out into the airflow then a chance of deployment - albeit an inverted pilot chute may take a bit longer to re-invert back to normal. If its locked in the container then you are not getting a deployment.

That said, a pin puller/pusher that avoids some of the issues with cutters may introduce a different set of issues. Not saying its better/worse just different.

I still think that any device would need manufacturer buy off and if appropriate mounting points are built into the container (like cypres pocket, channels and cutter elastic holder) are built in then it makes installation a breeze rather than something that may require a master rig alteration. This would effect adoption of AAD's utilizing this configuration instead of cutter.

As to the 2 approach pin/puller and then cut loop. I'm assuming there would be a small delay between the two actions. Does the tension coming off the closure loop effect the cutter OR the cut loop cause problems with the pin puller/pusher. The approach being that having both may cause even more issues.

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

I still think that any device would need manufacturer buy off and if appropriate mounting points are built into the container (like cypres pocket, channels and cutter elastic holder) are built in then it makes installation a breeze rather than something that may require a master rig alteration. This would effect adoption of AAD's utilizing this configuration instead of cutter.

The instulation of the mentioned components may be accomplished by anybody according to FAA regs. They do not require any rigger license as they do not interfear with the normal operation of the reserve. This is the Prime Directive from the FAA. Anyone may do anything to the Certificated Parachute Assembly as long as it does not interfear with the normal certificated operation of that parachute system.
AAD's are not certificated by anybody to any standard and their instulation need not be authorized or approved by the manufacturer unless they do interfear with the operation. PLI never approved or disapproved of any AAD's.
None of us (gear makers) realized the cutters would or could possibly interfear with our operation until we started having failures. When we looked around and examined the situation closely we found several problems. The video at the beginning of this thread was one and the scenerio I described was the other. Not to exclude the obvious loop jam problem.
PIA created TS -112 to provide the manufacturers a method to OK the instulation of the interfearing device. You should read this standard.
The existance of this standard proves that cutters are in fact illegial and violate the Prime directive.
With a pin pusher/puller, which is what the IOpener is, you do not looose any function as it retains "the normal function of". You just gain an assist device by intergrating the power of the cutter with the action of a normal ripcord.

John

[RiggerLee 61]

I don't buy the, "Cutters are illegal", thing. I call bull shit. There were problems with the Argus cutter. Bad design, bad production, defective? I don't pretend to know the full story but it does not stand to reason that you can condemn all cutters. There is a long history of success with them. As to the performance of the rig when fired by the cutter, since there are no standards for it I see no requirement that it function in the same manor or to the same performance standards. I'm sure we would all like good performance from the AAD and things have been done to improve that and to give more margin for them to operate in. None of this makes cutters in any way illegal. A well designed cutter in no way interferes with the normal operation of the rig.

On the other hand you are talking about using this adjustable seal around the rip cord. A design which WILL crate a higher pull force. And could possible have issues with temp, age, chemicals, etc. One of the fundamental test in the TSO is the pull force on the reserve. You are adding some thing which will change that number and could possible drastically affect that number and you're ability to pull the rip cord. I'm not saying that it can't be made to work but you really are not in a position to throw stones. I don't see this as trivial. I don't think just any one, including a non rigger can perform a modification that could adversely affect the ability of a TSO'd component to meet it's tested parameters with out voiding the TSO. I think this alteration will have to be evaluated and approved by the manufacturers. I think they will have to provide instructions for this approved alteration if they are willing to have it done in the field. Depending on the design I think they may even need to alter their RSL designs to accommodate this puller and may even have to submit those changes along with testing to the MIDO.

You have a shiny new toy. We are all interested in your shiny new toy. But I don't think it's appropriate for you to all of a sudden start talking shit about these devices that every one including you have been using successfully for years simply because you now have a new toy of your own. Sorry but I have to call you on this.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[skytribe 16]

Quote

The instulation of the mentioned components may be accomplished by anybody according to FAA regs. They do not require any rigger license as they do not interfear with the normal operation of the reserve. This is the Prime Directive from the FAA. Anyone may do anything to the Certificated Parachute Assembly as long as it does not interfear with the normal certificated operation of that parachute system.

I think this is debatable.

Quote

AAD's are not certificated by anybody to any standard and their instulation need not be authorized or approved by the manufacturer unless they do interfear with the operation.

This did not stop some manufacturers from not allowing Argus to be installed in there systems. A cutter not severing the loop on say a Javelin would not prevent manual activation. Other design move the cutter to minimize the long loop having to snake through the grommets but also moved it above the pilot chute potentially locking the container if failure to severe loop. So which is worse..... I have my opinion.

The standard was establish by PIA not the FAA. No system is perfect and these are backup devices and I'm sure there are many edge case scenarios that haven't yet been on-covered. For both cutters and puller/pushers. That said most AAD's are pretty reliable devices.

If cutters are Illegal - then why are the FAA allowing them and why are the PIA through its members still allowing them to be installed ?. I think the term illegal is debatable until it has been proven in a court of law. Until then I think its more a question of interpretation.

The Pin Pull/Pusher has potential to some advantages but I still don't see how a 3rd party device added to an existing AAD (without the AAD manufacturers express consent) would be considered legal as it would be in violation of manufacturers guidelines. Without this I would think any incident would open installer up to a whole load of legal hurt.

Whether the installation of an AAD is done by a rigger or anyone can do it. It would require a reserve repack as seal is broken to install and this would require a rigger to carry out. So semantics aside - the installation of an AAD is almost certainly carried out by a rigger. If the rig doesn't have an AAD pockets etc. as occurred when cypres were first released I believe (and feel free to correct me) that the installation of pocket, channels etc. was an alteration and hence would be a Master rigger task.

Why would the AAD manufacturers want to change the status quo with there cutter designs. Would this cast doubt on there previous design ?. What would be there benefit ? In all honesty I cant see either of the 2 big AAD players approving a 3rd party pin push/puller.

Mars may be interested as it allows them to provide a 2 pin model without a need for 2 cutters. But again this is probably a small market for a small player.

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

But I don't think it's appropriate for you to all of a sudden start talking shit about these devices that every one including you have been using successfully for years simply because you now have a new toy of your own. Sorry but I have to call you on this.

All of a sudden?
Let go back a few years when the Argus cutters first started to fail. I posted on this foum the dangers of cutters and how I was surprised to suddenly realize them. I also challenged the industry to develope a system which could better do the job. I had no idea it would end up being me. I asked questions and one thing led to the other.
I invite you to go back in the post history and find my same arguements then as now. Oh yes, I have learned about the reverse threading problem recienty.
We have not been using them successfully. They have been failing. We had one about a month ago in Poland. PLI never approved them. The only reason we didn't ban them ater we found out about the problem with cutters is because we felt that a rig with an AAD & cutter was better than a rig with no AAD.
Lee you got it backwards, the problem existed before my new toy and my new toy exists because of the problem. I am only reminding the folks who don't know history, as to why.

[Boogers 0]

Quote

With a pin pusher/puller, which is what the IOpener is, you do not looose any function as it retains "the normal function of". You just gain an assist device by intergrating the power of the cutter with the action of a normal ripcord.

I'm just amazed that after 30 years of improvements in technology, with computer electronics and sensors, that now we may be realizing after decades, that going back to the same way the original KAP-3's and SSE's did things, is the best way after all. It's amazing how things go around and come back to original, simple ideas. This is a kind of KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle that not many people adhere to anymore.

[alexey 6]

Cutters are not the same.
There are few with (close to) 25 years successfull history.

Lexa

[df8m1 19]

It may very well come down to Parachute Labs having to install every one that they sell and take the liability for all that a jury might assign.

There are lots of riggers that will pack a reserve for $70.00 and there is risk in that if they do not do what they are supposed to, but how much could they charge for installing a power ripcord, given the liability they “may” be assuming?? The reserve will need to be resealed after install, and personally I would never put my seal on someone else’s pack job (again I am not a rigger), so that would mean that the install would require a pack job as well, (which is not a big deal at the 180 day mark).

Even if the manufacturer approves of this mod, there is still the issue of plugging a aftermarket device into an AAD of different manufacture. What technical documentation would the rigger have supporting the compatibility of the two items? So the AAD sees the igniter… OK… how about how the AAD’s firing circuit handles static? Or EMF?... These are things that each AAD manufacturer had to deal with when they designed there AAD and their cutter was part of that design, not this ripcord which could act as an antenna, or lightening rod… Now I am sure that both John and Karel are screaming at the screen that I do not have a freaking clue about what I am talking about, but even if that is the case, neither will a jury… That is the main reason I will not produce a civilian AAD is because the jury has no idea about the skydiving world besides we are all reckless daredevils with a death wish, and manufacturers are exploiting that for profit..

When AADs first came out, you could say that the rigger that installed them was assuming all the risk, but as long as it was approved by the container manufacturer, and the rigger installed it per both manufacturer’s specks, then he should be good. In this case, even if the container manufacture is on board, you still need the AAD manufacturer’s blessing to maintain the same level of liability. I do not see any AAD manufacturer endorsing an aftermarket device as when someone goes in, their name will be part of the discussion, and that is not good for business.

It just makes the most sense for John to take the Argus from Karel and offer a complete package so it can stand on it’s own.. He is already promoting Karel’s idea for the ripcord, so why not put his AAD behind it and see if it sells?

[Southern_Man 0]

RiggerLee

On the other hand you are talking about using this adjustable seal around the rip cord. A design which WILL crate a higher pull force. And could possible have issues with temp, age, chemicals, etc. One of the fundamental test in the TSO is the pull force on the reserve. You are adding some thing which will change that number and could possible drastically affect that number and you're ability to pull the rip cord. I'm not saying that it can't be made to work but you really are not in a position to throw stones. I don't see this as trivial. I don't think just any one, including a non rigger can perform a modification that could adversely affect the ability of a TSO'd component to meet it's tested parameters with out voiding the TSO. I think this alteration will have to be evaluated and approved by the manufacturers. I think they will have to provide instructions for this approved alteration if they are willing to have it done in the field. Depending on the design I think they may even need to alter their RSL designs to accommodate this puller and may even have to submit those changes along with testing to the MIDO.

If it changes the pull force on the rip cord then that is a huge issue. I have to pack it for a pull force of less than 22 lbs. If I have to do something difference, like, say use a longer closing loop so that the pull force is within tolerances then that absolutely affects the regular operation of the system.

I don't know if the assembly would affect the pull force or not but I am inclined to think ti would.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"