0
nigel99

Cutting the loop or pulling the pin?

Recommended Posts

I've been monitoring this post because I'm quiet fascinated in this new device. I find it exciting to see expanding options for all the systems out there. However, the trail of progression for the IOpener keeps getting puddled with arguments over regulation interpretations and various other jargon. Personally, I like the puller idea because I view my AAD as a backup to my backup and would prefer to have my reserve extraction initiated the way it was originally designed, via the pin being pulled. All the other comments over FAA, cutters, authorization, etc. are mute factors until the product is finalized anyways... I'd like to see more Q&A over the system than folks court rooming interpretations etc.


**One I have... Whats the pressure being exerted on the housing itself when the device is activated vs. how much force is required to rupture the housing?
Woot Woot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So to put it in very blunt terms.

You ( and the rest of the container manufacturers ) have knowingly facilitated the installation of illegal devices is you product.



Yes! And so has PIA

What were we supposed to do and what are we supposed to do now. We were conned into thinking that cutters would not interfear. We allowed them although we did not approve them. The Cutters started to fail and we realized their faults. OK so now as an industry we have 20,000 rigs in the field which are potentially ticking time bombs. If you think I am going to fall on that sword alone over that forget it.

My way to fix the problem has been to design a better way. I think I have found it. Time will tell. In the mean time I know that there are a lot of folks who believe cutters are find. None of those people are the container manufacturers that I know. They have expressed to me more times than I care to remember. "We gotta get rid of cutters". There will be a time when we do stop facilitating cutter instulation. However, the process within the insustry must be gradual so as not to upset the flow of business.
So a re-education plan is necessary. That is what I am trying to do. Ask any of the other manufacturers privately, as they sure will want to avoid any possibly contriversy, and see what they say.
BTW: It is not up to me to tell you that cutters are technically illegal but the FAA. Ask them.

Remember that letter authorized nothing more than what was authorized without or before the letter. It was intentionally written that way.

JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting question. All the force that is applied to the pin must be transferred through the housing unless you try to fix the cutter in some which has it's own issues. The force is in compression. I'm not sure exactly how the coil of the housing fits together. I think it would be more then strong enough but I don't think I've ever seen numbers for the failure point.

Lee
Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

**One I have... Whats the pressure being exerted on the housing itself when the device is activated vs. how much force is required to rupture the housing?



Effectively none. The housing is lined with a firing cylinder. The helix winding of the housing reinforces the cylinder but is not necessary. By the time the piston leaves the cylinder tube the forces have dissipated and the exhaust is through the housing walls. As too exact numbers I can tell you that we are exerting 125 pounds of force on a .210 piston with a .1 exclusion resulting in about 5000 pounds within the cylinder.

Quote

All the other comments over FAA, cutters, authorization, etc. are mute factors until the product is finalized anyways... I'd like to see more Q&A over the system than folks court rooming interpretations etc.



Me too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was John that brought up the legality issues of cutters.

I think the new device shows promise and would be keen to see its acceptance but we are still left with legal ramifications of AAD installations as the AAD are not a certified component but ultimately interact with certified components.

Who can install them ? These are all issues that John has a position on that seems to be debatable. The new device does little to change many of the issues with the exception that it doesn't use a cutter.

Perhaps, AAD's need to become certified components by the FAA. This would provide less ambiguity than at present.

Whether its pulling/pushing pins or cutting loops the container an AAD manufacturers need to work together.

Technically I think John is showing that the iOpener works and also that it can interface with various AAD's are the manufacturers going to endorse this ? This is not in dispute and I appreciate that it is a different approach to activating. But as to the manufacturers endorsing said approach (I think that may not be so easy).

Are the various AAD manufacturers actually looking to change their mode of activation. They seem pretty heavily invested in a cutter design over the past 2 decades and making any change would seem a large obstacle unless absolutely required to. The track record on cutter saves over the past 20 years appears pretty reasonable (albeit not perfect).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theres a thing called deployment design, it takes in factors that you can see when you step back and watch air energy , body position and mass, extra motion energy,, task pos for standard deployment, in a design that has the resv closed with a strate pen, if the aad fires , then pen in some gear types , im not saying in all ,it is still laying or is mounted at position said ,, the spring might have to work past that pos, there,, is still a relevant dynamic in deployment atmosphere, , clear and simple, you need to know your gear better then a rigger who desighned it whos your wife that your fukin, lazy is the only other direction, , there are also other levels and standards that you can aim and hold towards, having a good measure for the difference at types of reserve activation is a good thing,
knowing that in the future there doesn't have to be is a good goal,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bad news dude is that this can of worms you are opening is a binary solution set. It's ether black or white. Legal or illegal. And there is no leeway in the fact that there are tens of thousands of units so installed out in the field. That would only make the lawyers salivate all the more. 85% of all the rigs in the world are un airworthy and illegal to jump. Now right now this very minute. It doesn't mater if there is a fatality or not. Every jump is a violation. It's a violation for the jumper. It's a violation for the pilot. It's a violation for the rigger. It's up to a thousand dollars fine per jump. And if this is found to have been the case, say in the event of a accident, Then I shudder to think what a lawyer would make of the way you have all knowingly conspired to suppress this knowledge for years to protect your profits.

That bloody lump cartilage on the floor, that's your nose. Would you like to rethink this position? Because you can't dance around it.

Lee
Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some one posted a link to the other thread I'm not sure if people looked at it. I keep coming back to it.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=141070;

A design like this seems better then all the things we've been talking about. Are there any real disadvantages to it?

Lee
Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lee, Mark, lighten up for crying out loud. Lawyers aren't salivating, there isn't any money in the industry except on the military side and the rules don't count there. John, why are you egging them on?

Let's just see if something comes to market. Interpretation of rules comes by common practices. This is a very small pond we are swimming it. Nobody really cares.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RiggerLee

Some one posted a link to the other thread I'm not sure if people looked at it. I keep coming back to it.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=141070;

A design like this seems better then all the things we've been talking about. Are there any real disadvantages to it?

Lee



Clicky

How does this fit into it?

Sparky

105.45 Use of tandem parachute systems.

(3) The tandem parachute system contains an operational automatic activation device for the reserve parachute, approved by the manufacturer of that tandem parachute system. The device must—

(i) Have been maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions, and

(ii) Be armed during each tandem parachute operation.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjosparky

How does this fit into it?



Lee isn't suggesting using an orphaned non processor controlled AAD with no maintenance, expired pyro, and no approval.

He's talking about the design concept of a pin puller mounted right at the pin, like the old Sentinel Micro Puller.

I had posted the photo because I also thought that if anyone does question cutters, then at-the-pin pin-pullers ought to be given consideration. A pretty neat little device from Snyder's workshop that I don't think a lot of jumpers ever saw.

[Edit: Later I realize that your "how does this fit into it" list of FAA rules wasn't supposed to be countering what Lee wrote about the Micro Puller, as your reply to him first suggested. Instead, you were changing topic to that of the FAA AAD rules for tandems being more specific than for other AADs. Excuse me.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A design like this seems better then all the things we've been talking about. Are there any real disadvantages to it?



That was a good design. We have a simular system which can be configured as a puller or as a pusher. Shown as a puller: [inline image008.jpg]
This is the foudation for the in-line puller as the shaft is replaced by the ripcord cable and the housings cover the cylinder. We have just intergrated it into the housing.

JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really the same. You are trying to tack or mount the puller to the flap. It makes you dependent on that instillation for your perches to pull or push against. The micro puller was self contained acting between the loop and the flare of the pin. It was not reliant on tacking. I think it could be made a bit cleaner and more stream lined particularly at the piston end but I think it could also be mounted with no alteration of any kind as ether a puller or a pusher simply by turning it around. I think it would work for most things with out the need for multiple variants. The only exception would be like a strong tandem. For that I would build one with a pig tail It plugs into the AAD the next is a standard one that would plug into it. You could daisy chain ten of them if you had to but it's hard to imagine a rig that would need that.

Lee
Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


How does this fit into it?

Sparky

105.45 Use of tandem parachute systems.

(3) The tandem parachute system contains an operational automatic activation device for the reserve parachute, approved by the manufacturer of that tandem parachute system. The device must—

(i) Have been maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions, and

(ii) Be armed during each tandem parachute operation.



My guess is that in order to be compliant the AAD must have been approved by the manufacturer of the system and must be maintained in accordance with manufacturers instructions.

That sounds like PLI must have approved an AAD and must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions.

This sounds awfully like PLI must have approved some AAD in order to be compliant with FAA 105.45 for its tandem system.

Otherwise all jumps using system would be in violation and therefore illegal in the US.

I think the general point is all tandem manufacturers PLI included would have to approve some AAD for use with its system to be compliant. Or perhaps this is another one that John may feel is open to interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the micro puller required no tacking and you could in essence cut the ripcord cable and would still work as it would be pushing the pin out between the closure loop and the flare of the pin.

John's Iopener would require some tacking. Whether it be on the flap or further down the housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to have something to push or pull against. And it needs to be solid. Back when pin pullers were in vogue they would use a metal clamp to hold the end of the housing. Not just tacking. If it slips, breaks, or comes lose you're fucked. Often they would use a metal plate to reinforce the top flap so that there would be no give and to provide a solid mounting for the housing of the puller. A lot of the current rig as they are designed today to not provide that kind of firm footing. A lot of the housings do not even reach to the top flap. They have a... soft mounting farther forward on the yoke. Changing that would be a significant alteration not just a simple housing replacement. It could be done but it's not trivial.

The micro puller style of design, because it provides it's own perches, eliminates that need to tack, bolt, mount the puller or housing. Just thread it through and you're done.

It also has the potential to be completely sealed. With the cable and charge at one end and the piston at the other it can be completely sealed just like a cutter. Much simpler the this business of having a Y with a gas port. Much smaller and cleaner. And I think a modern version could be even smaller and sleeker.

Lee
Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

.How does this fit into it?

Sparky

105.45 Use of tandem parachute systems.

(3) The tandem parachute system contains an operational automatic activation device for the reserve parachute, approved by the manufacturer of that tandem parachute system. The device must—

(i) Have been maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions, and

(ii) Be armed during each tandem parachute operation.

My guess is that in order to be compliant the AAD must have been approved by the manufacturer of the system and must be maintained in accordance with manufacturers instructions.

That sounds like PLI must have approved an AAD and must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions.

This sounds awfully like PLI must have approved some AAD in order to be compliant with FAA 105.45 for its tandem system.

Otherwise all jumps using system would be in violation and therefore illegal in the US.

I think the general point is all tandem manufacturers PLI included would have to approve some AAD for use with its system to be compliant. Or perhaps this is another one that John may feel is open to interpretation.



No, actually PLI has a waiver, from the FAA, for that part baised upon my arguements here. I believe the language has been changed to reflect less approval from the rig maker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RiggerLee

You have to have something to push or pull against. And it needs to be solid. Back when pin pullers were in vogue they would use a metal clamp to hold the end of the housing. Not just tacking. If it slips, breaks, or comes lose you're fucked. Often they would use a metal plate to reinforce the top flap so that there would be no give and to provide a solid mounting for the housing of the puller. A lot of the current rig as they are designed today to not provide that kind of firm footing. A lot of the housings do not even reach to the top flap. They have a... soft mounting farther forward on the yoke. Changing that would be a significant alteration not just a simple housing replacement. It could be done but it's not trivial.

The micro puller style of design, because it provides it's own perches, eliminates that need to tack, bolt, mount the puller or housing. Just thread it through and you're done.

It also has the potential to be completely sealed. With the cable and charge at one end and the piston at the other it can be completely sealed just like a cutter. Much simpler the this business of having a Y with a gas port. Much smaller and cleaner. And I think a modern version could be even smaller and sleeker.

Lee



I agree, and could make them, but again.. with out an AAD to activate them, it would be in the same situation as the ripcord, only it would have different arguing points.

The idea that an AAD manufacturer would approve of a device that they have no quality control over, and have not done the testing of the combination, (expensive to do), to see if there will be any problems with static or EMF, is more of a dream IMOP...

The main marketing angle that the AAD companies have is reliability of the "system".. I guess they would still be able to say that the control unit would be reliable, that is if they had done compatibility testing first... And by them accepting anything than their cutter, I would think the roomers that there was a problem with their cutters would start... :ph34r:

Edit:

Now that there are a couple of videos showing it working in ideal conditions, (no real surprise there), I would like to see another set of videos showing it working in not ideal conditions, such as, a with a bent pin that requires, say at least 50 ish lbs of pull force, (or more if he really wants to get friskily) to start the pin moving, of course a verification of the initial pull force would need to be videoed (not a full extraction, just a standard post pack job pull force test to set a base line). Additionally good videoed inspection of the housing prior to, and after the firing, would be good to show if the housing moved due to the higher pull load..

My understanding is that the Cypres is around today because of a bent pin, I have seen them my self, and regardless of the “likely hood of” argument, they can and have happened with fatal results.. So.. in order for “any” pin puller to be argued as “a better option” than a cutter, this failure mode must be overcome consistently…. Realistically it needs to work regardless of how badly the pin is bent, as a good cutter will/can open a reserve with a pin that is bend 90 degrees, or with a broken pin..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
df8m1

The idea that an AAD manufacturer would approve of a device that they have no quality control over, and have not done the testing of the combination, (expensive to do), to see if there will be any problems with static or EMF, is more of a dream IMOP...

The main marketing angle that the AAD companies have is reliability of the "system".. I guess they would still be able to say that the control unit would be reliable, that is if they had done compatibility testing first... And by them accepting anything than their cutter, I would think the roomers that there was a problem with their cutters would start...



Got to agree wholeheartedly on this.

I think this is the main point.

Technically we already know that its possible to interface cutters or pin puller/pusher to other AAD's. I've seen it done now with various cutters and John has demonstrated it with iOpener. We know its technically possible.

BUT

I honestly cant see Cypres or Vigil approving of 3rd party component and can't see myself as a rigger doing such a change without an approval from them and opening myself up liability wise.

So it basically comes round to the point that the iOpener needs an AAD that will approve it for it to even stand a chance of succeeding. Make it the activation mechanism of a complete AAD and you may have some traction. This may be an opportunity for Karol to get back into the market with Argus.

Try to make it a "non-approved by AAD manufacturer", 3rd party component and you stand virtually zero chance of gaining acceptance.

Trying to bandy around the term illegal for cutters really doesn't help your argument. Or are you trying to get the FAA to ban cutters. Cutters are not a perfect solution either, neither is the iOpener. Both are backup devices with some limitations which I believe the FAA are aware of. AAD's are non-certified but ultimately interact with a certified system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it really so impossible to put a after market puller on an AAD?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but no one not cypress not vigil, no one makes their own cutters. I was under the impression that all of these were contracted to their specs from stand alone firms specializing in ballistic cutters. How is this really different? It's going to have to evolve a little bit beyond Sherman's home made prototypes It will have to be tested just like the original cutters. It will take money but there is enough evidence of the short comings of cutter activated deployments to make it desirable as an option.

It might take a year but I can see this happening.

Lee
Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RiggerLee

That's actually a good argument for the micro puller design.

Lee



Exactly, I am all about changing things to better solutions. When you can reduce the number of things in an equasion (rip cord, rip cord housing, ball stop, gasket, etc.) down to as little as possible, that is better IMO.

The "bent pin is rare" is about the stupidest argument I can think of. What if someone takes a mid air hit to their reserve tray? Bends the pin and they are knocked out.....say goodnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just playing devils advocate here and asking the question.

"So why did Argus shut up shop rather than just source another cutter ?" If it was a case of just sourcing another from an existing manufacturer. My impression was that it was not so simple and the was considerable costs involved.

Do we think that the shortcomings of cutters are that dire that the pin puller/pusher is going to make these things more reliable ? If so why aren't we acting immediately.

How big a problem is the cutters based upon activations vs incidents ?

(Is this percentage reasonable, based upon the fact that previous iterations of AAD's FXC's / Sentinals had a much lower success rate and were deemed acceptable at the time ?) I personally would say we have moved on and expect a higher degree but will we ever reach something that is 100% reliable.

Does the raising of activation provide an additional buffer for hestitations which would improve this success percentage on existing systems - albeit not eliminate some problems.

Does that market really question existing cutter design or are do they think its acceptable ? - and hence would still prefer existing proven designs over something new.

Is the pin puller/pusher a solution to the problem or is it likely to create a different set of solutions and provide a similar reliability number. It doesn't matter if you cutter the loop or pull the pin if its too low. ie. the firing parameters are more critical.

I just cant see existing AAD manufacturers changing quickly to anything new on a whim of a pin/puller pusher.
Why would they when there existing designs have a proven track record, market acceptance and container manufacturer acceptance being made to accommodate them. Unless they are pushed by legislation.

Even if they were pushed (be legislation) , do you think they would make their own devices and approve only these that they would want to accountable or just allow 3rd party components. My thoughts would be the 1st but hey I'm not an AAD manufacturer.

My point is that a complete solution is probably going to be the most acceptable path.

John/Karol - get together and manufacture /market a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RiggerLee

Is it really so impossible to put a after market puller on an AAD?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but no one not cypress not vigil, no one makes their own cutters. I was under the impression that all of these were contracted to their specs from stand alone firms specializing in ballistic cutters. How is this really different? It's going to have to evolve a little bit beyond Sherman's home made prototypes It will have to be tested just like the original cutters. It will take money but there is enough evidence of the short comings of cutter activated deployments to make it desirable as an option.

It might take a year but I can see this happening.

Lee



I can't speak for Cypres or Vigil, but I am working closely with the company that will be making the pyro initiators that I will be using with my cutters. Quality assurance is the end all be all of it, plus in my case there are some government requirements that the pyro manufacturer needs to be able to meet..

I designed my firing circuit around the specks that they have provided, and will have them do a firing confidence study to insure that everything is compatible with some margin of head room.

Do the AAD manufacturers make the cutters that they designed their AADs around, no, do/should the AAD manufacturers work closely with their cutter manufacturers to insure that the cutters that they make consistently meet stringent quality requirements, throughout the entire assembly process of the cutter...yes..

With a cutter, when it leaves the factory, it is assembled, no further attention is required outside of a quality controlled system... With the rip cord, some one out side the quality system, (argued to not even be required to be a rigger by the manufacturer of the rip cord), has to assemble the thing and install it properly. I imagine if the housing and ripcord are not positioned properly that the piston could be out of the short cylinder or barely in it... What if like Lee said, that the housing was not tacked down good enough and there was a really hard pull which caused the housing to move and not the rip cord??... What if there was a problem with the connector where it had a good enough connection to pass the cutter detect, but was not up to the task of carrying the current required to fire?? This would be another in the plus coulomb for the Micro Puller as it would be a self contained device, requiring no assembly out side the factory, the Rigger just has to slide the pin through it and route the wire properly.

When some one hammers in, one of the first things that is asked is, "did they have an AAD?" and then it is "which AAD did they have?"... If anything in the system fails, the AAD is not going to work, and their name tied to a bounced jumper is just bad marketing..

Now should an AAD manufacturer decide that it was worth it to them to invest the money to properly test the compatibility of the two devices, and invest in a proper, quality controlled production facility, where in the rip cords are installed, then that might make sense to the AAD manufacturer share holders..

Given that the Cypres was created because of a pin, I think I am safe in saying that they are out... Maybe Vigil ??.. The Argus is the best option for this, or if John designs his own AAD to go with it..

Time will tell if the container manufacturers get on board as well as the AAD manufacturers...

"Nothing is impossible, no matter how impractical, so as there is sufficient funding to peruse it." DLW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There isn't any thing special about the housing. It's the puller unit. It has a tight cylinder and piston with O-rings forming the seal. It also has the cable on the other end passing through another seal formed by an o-ring compressed between two threaded plugs clamping it around the cable. Both could cause an increase in pull force. Particularly the seal around the 7*7 cable. The o ring could get compressed into the rough surface of the cable with temp, age, chemical issues harden and create a hard pull. Is it really a problem? I don't know, but I think it could be. I don't think it's insurmountable but it does raise questions.

Lee
Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

0