Crossfire Incident Today

[Aviatrr 0]

This is a copy of the message I posted over in Gear and Rigging. If you know somebody that jumps a Crossfire, point this message out to them.

Quote

There was supposed to be an update to the Sept 14 Safety Bulletin issued on or before today, but so far has not appeared on their website. Well, I may have a part in that, but this post is more a warning to people jumping Crossfires.
I have a Crossfire 139, loaded at slightly over 1.5. My canopy was manufactured in Aug of this year, serial number begins with 969. My serial number was not listed in the 'good' or 'bad' section of the bulletin, so I contacted Icarus a few days after the bulletin was issued to see which category mine fell into. I was told that it was NOT affected, and I should disregard the bulletin.
Today I was jumping at Skydive Deland, and I was NOT using front risers below 500ft. The winds were about 10-15mph at the time. The winds were out of the east, so we were landing away from the buildings. The nearest things that could've caused rotors were the trees on the other side of the airport. At approximately 20ft, on a straight in, full flight appoach, the left side of my canopy(not from the nose, from the side) rolled under. The left end cell touched the bottom skin of the second or third cell in from the right side. Of course, the canopy began a hard dive to the left when this occured. The canopy then re-inflated when I was a few feet off the ground, and reportedly then went into a V shape. I hit the ground very hard, and according to one witness I did a "picture perfect high speed PLF". Sure seemed to me like I was just tumbling uncontrollably, though. I didn't think I was going to walk away. I ended up walking away with nothing but a sore neck and seriously dirty jumpsuit, rig, and helmet. My camera was running at the time, but, unfortunately, there were no cameras other than mine running. I did not actually see what the canopy did, but the above is what I was told by 8-10 people that witnessed it - a few as close as 30ft in front of me. These were all very experienced jumpers, instructors, and riggers. Everyone agreed that I was in full flight at the time(I started to wonder afterwards), with the only prior input being a slight left toggle(maybe 3-5") correction due to the fact that I shifted in the harness, which induced a slight right turn. The canopy collapsed about the time I let the left toggle back up to full flight. I do not remember attempting to flare to slow the descent, but on my video it appears that I did.
The winds may have played a part in the collapse, but I definitely do not feel that was the primary factor. I was about 20 degrees off the wind line(wind was coming from 20degrees left of the nose) due to people on the ground in the landing area. For those of you that are familiar with Deland, the arrow that is east of the peas was moving around a bit, but the flags on the edge of the deck and across the taxiway were all in agreement, and did not show the wind shift that the arrow seemed to be showing.
After the incident, I contacted Simon at Icarus. It was at that point that I was told that my canopy IS affected by the safety bulletin that was to be issued today. Like I said before, I was told it was NOT affected by the original bulletin, but it was discovered since then that it IS a "bad" canopy. I wish I had found this out prior to today - I would've been on my Sabre instead. The new bulletin, which according to Simon will add at least 20 more canopies to the 'bad' list, and remove a few from the same list, has not yet been issued on the Icarus website. Simon wants my canopy immediately so that they can test it. I am going to be in that area tomorrow, so I am going to drop it off while I'm down there. I will also speak with them further about this issue. At this point, I am not very happy with the fact that my canopy was known as a 'bad' canopy, but no effort was made to notify me or publish the serial number stating such.
The only thing I can think right now is that the wind shift(if, indeed, there was one) caused a change in AOA on the canopy, causing the left side to quit flying. Everybody that witnessed it said that it looked bad enough that they figured I wouldn't be getting up. I was damn lucky.

Mike

[billvon 2,473]

It may be that we have found this generation's Nova . . .
-bill von

[Aviatrr 0]

Quote

It may be that we have found this generation's Nova . . .

Funny you should say that....several of us had that exact conversation today..
Mike

[ramon 0]

Nova...Bad joo joo. I have a friend that still jumps one, albeit he is very careful how he flies it.
So many people bought Crosfires. Glad I got a vengeance.
BSBD
ramon

[prost 0]

I think people are jumping to conclusions. There are about 25 crossfires at my dropzone and we have never had an incident. We did have one that would buck under hard front risering right out of the box last year. It was determined that the line set was not rimmed properly and after this was corrected it has flown perfectly ever since. Canopies collapse every day. There are a lot of crossfires out there and if you look hard enough, yes you can find evidence of collapses, just as you can with any other canopy. I am not talking about the poster of this thread, but you will also find a lot of people who would like to blame the canopy for their bad canopy skills.

[billvon 2,473]

>I think people are jumping to conclusions. There are about 25 crossfires at my
> dropzone and we have never had an incident. We did have one that would buck
> under hard front risering right out of the box last year. It was determined that the
> line set was not rimmed properly and after this was corrected it has flown
> perfectly ever since. Canopies collapse every day. There are a lot of crossfires
> out there and if you look hard enough, yes you can find evidence of collapses,
> just as you can with any other canopy. I am not talking about the poster of this
> thread, but you will also find a lot of people who would like to blame the canopy
> for their bad canopy skills.
Oh man, this is sounding more and more like the Nova. Right after the first few collapses happened, Glide Path claimed it was line trim, and sent out new line trim kits. There were collapses even with the new line sets, though.
Many Nova owners defended their canopies, saying that it was bad canopy skills that caused the collapses, that all canopies collapse sometimes, and that they outperformed any other squares on the market (which they did - I had one.) Others started calling it the death canopy, and I can remember the jokes of the time (All Glide Path pilot chutes now come with collapsible canopies! The Nova - the first self packing canopy.) There were several highly publicized incidents where canopies collapsed and seriously injured the jumper under them, and there was at least one canopy burning afterwards. Glide Path finally recalled the Nova.
-bill von

[skymedic 0]

Hey Prost,
I know mike personaly, and he DOES NOT have BAD canopy skills!!! and I dont think he would bitch about something unless he had a serious problem with it.
Marc
Because I fly, I envy no man on earth

[freeflir29 0]

Prost..if you think it's a great canopy fine. Fly one. My PD190 flies great. I think I'll stick with it a while longer.
"The sky resembles a back lit canopy...with holes punched through it"- Incubus
Clay

[outthere 0]

Quote

I am not talking about the poster of this thread, but you will also find a lot of people who would like to blame the canopy for their bad canopy skills.

Quote

Hey Prost,
I know mike personaly, and he DOES NOT have BAD canopy skills!!! and I dont think he would bitch about something unless he had a serious problem with it.

People - please read carefully before raising your voices - ok?
thats all
e

[johnny1488 1]

Quote

It may be that we have found this generation's Nova . . .

I resent that!!
My girlfriend has a 68 nova with over 300,000 miles on the original powertrain. You couldn't kill it if you tried. I think the car we are refering to is the ford, I repeat...ford pinto
In my opinion the car we liken this problem to is far more important than any supposed canopies that may or may not have a design problem... j/k but its still important.
johnny

[prost 0]

If you would read the entire sentence you wou see that I said " I am not talking about the poster of this thread,"
That would be mike.

[prost 0]

I hope you aren't serious and realize we are talking about the nova canopy.

[apoil 0]

Quote

It was determined that the line set was not rimmed properly

So you got yourself a rim job and fixed it?

[freeflir29 0]

"So you got yourself a rim job and fixed it?"
Doesn't a little salad tossing fix just about anything "The sky resembles a back lit canopy...with holes punched through it"- Incubus
Clay

[Aviatrr 0]

Quote

I think people are jumping to conclusions.

I must admit - my Crossfire flew great, had no adverse traits even in heavy front riser maneuvers, and landed great....right up until yesterday. Prior to that, I had no problems with it. Icarus' theory right now is that there are some canopies out there that left the factory way out of tolerance. I took my canopy down to them today, and they shipped it via FedEx overnight to Europe to check everything on it, and then jump it. Simon seems to be doing his best, but since he is not 'the man', he kinda has one hand tied behind his back. The decisions are not his to make. I honestly believe that he, along with many others, is very concerned about this issue, and is not taking it lightly. He and I spoke for quite a while today regarding what happened with my canopy, theories that Icarus has right now, and what they plan to do. The first group of affected canopies that were addressed in the safety bulletin have all come from the Tenn plant, and the new ones added today came from the New Zealand plant. I was told they have had no problems or reported problems with the canopies produced in Europe. Simon explained the building and QC process that is used in Europe, the equipment they use, and what else that specific contractor manufactures(lots of foreign military stuff). It seems that a lot hinges on what they find with my canopy in the next 24-48 hours, and a decision will be made then as to what to do about it.
Do I feel that Icarus did everything that they should have done? Certainly not - and I told Simon that. I was not happy with how this has been handled, but I did, and will continue to, answer all the questions I was asked, and help however I can. Am I doing this because I like Icarus? Nope. I'm doing this because I don't want to see anybody else hurt or killed. Period. I have no attachment to Icarus(I no longer own an Icarus canopy, I took a refund - I had the canopy 31 days as of the day of the incident), and I could tell them to leave me the hell alone - but what would that accomplish?
I know you weren't attacking me in your post, but I felt I had to pass on what I learned today. This is just a fraction of what was discussed today, and I am very eager to see what they find with my canopy and what is done about this whole issue. All I have to say to people jumping Crossfires, affected or not, is beware - especially if your canopy was manufactured in one of the suspect plants. I sure as hell don't want to see anybody else hurt over this issue.
Mike

[diverdriver 5]

Not that this idea hasn't been brought up but I thought I would ask. Is there a possiblility that an aircraft departed a runway at DeLand in the preceeding two minutes before your landing? Wake turbulence can and does collapse canopies very easily and long after the aircraft has landed or departed. The 10-15 mile per hour winds you describe could push this turbulent vortex off of the runway and into the landing area. It's just a thought. It has been a long time since I flew around the the DeLand airport (10 years) flight training.
Chris Schindler
diverdriver
D-19012
ATP/CFII

[freeflir29 0]

Excellent point Chris. I know the military had huge problems with wing vortices off the C-17 during the test phase for the aircraft. When they flew the "normal" formation for dropping S/L troops they were having people swung up and over their canopies by the huge vortices that thing puts off. Hell, the vortices off large aircraft can flip airplanes. I don't think it would take much to collapse a canopy.
"The sky resembles a back lit canopy...with holes punched through it"- Incubus
Clay

[weid14 0]

Mike, thanks for the level headed response. I for one am interested in hearing the conclusion of their investigation (and not something another manufacturer has to say). Please keep the group informed.
Dave

[SBS 0]

I, too, would like to thank you for your input. There are a couple of things that I would like to point out, meaning no disrespect, and not discounting this incident.
The main problem that I have with this discussion is the fact that we are jumping to conclusions. Specifically, I think about the post saying "sounds like we are looking at the newest generation of Nova". I jump Crossfires, and will continue, with the knowledge that they were made in Europe, where 600 of the 1000 Crossfires that have been put on the market have been made. If we think conservatively, and estimate 150 jumps made on each one, that means that there have been nearly 100,000 jumps put on these canopies without incident. That, to me, says that there is not a flaw in the design, rather, the manufacturing of a certain percentage of said canopies.
Given that this problem is public, it is going to open up Crossfires, and for that matter, Icarus Canopies, to criticism for anything that goes wrong in the air, whether or not it be the fault of the canopy (again, I am not specifically referring to this situation, I am speaking generally). I just hope that everyone can keep a relatively open mind regarding the Crossfires until we know for sure what is going on. At this point, what we do know is that there have been some incidents involving the canopy, some of which we do not know what the exact cause was. We also know that noone has been seriously injured or killed as a result of any flaws in the Crossfire, be that in design or manufacture.
I, for one, am looking forward to hearing what Icarus has to say, both in the near future, and what they discover in the long haul. They have a fantastic product in the Crossfire, and I have complete confidence in their customer service and their desire to keep the skydiving community safe. Besides the fact that they are caring human beings, they have a lot to stand for in the value of their label.
Stay safe!
Blue Ones,
Steve

[Aviatrr 0]

Quote

Not that this idea hasn't been brought up but I thought I would ask. Is there a possiblility that an aircraft departed a runway at DeLand in the preceeding two minutes before your landing?

There were not any aircraft anywhere in sight from the time I got under canopy until about a minute after I landed - and that was the Twin Otter we had exited. It's also very rare to see something at Deland that could produce enough wake turbulence to collapse a plastic bag....the majority of the aircraft are light singles and twins.
Mike

[billvon 2,473]

> The main problem that I have with this discussion is the fact that we are jumping to conclusions.
> Specifically, I think about the post saying "sounds like we are looking at the newest generation of Nova".
I posted that, and I meant exactly that. It was never _proven_ that the Nova was an unsafe canopy either, and Glide Path insisted for a long time that it was safe. I have one, and I have jumped it 40-50 times with no problems. It is somewhat less stable in turbulence than a Triathalon, but that's also true of a Stiletto.
> I just hope that everyone can keep a relatively open mind regarding the Crossfires until we know for sure what is going on.
We will never know for sure what's going on. Again, using the Nova example, once there were a few problems, it seemed like every jumper who got hurt under a Nova blamed the canopy for their injuries. There is no flight data recorder, no video coverage of every landing. About all we know for sure is that there is a known, and serious, manufacturing problem with some Crossfires, and this problem can cause collapses. In addition, more serial numbers are being added to the list of 'bad' canopies.
There are a handful of canopies out there that make almost no compromises in safety - the Triathalon comes to mind. The Crossfire is _not_ one - it is optimized for performance over safety, and has additional manufacturing problems over and above the standard risks of high performance canopies. Jumpers have to decide whether the tradeoffs that each canopy makes is worth the additional risk in jumping it.
-bill von

[SBS 0]

**I posted that, and I meant exactly that.**
I didn't say you didn't mean it, I said that people are jumping to conclusions, in my opinion.
**We will never know for sure what's going on.**
I think we have a pretty good idea right now of the cause of the problems, and should have an even better idea within the near future.
**About all we know for sure is that there is a known, and serious, manufacturing problem with some Crossfires, and this problem can cause collapses. In addition, more serial numbers are being added to the list of 'bad' canopies.**
Couldn't have said it better myself.
**it is optimized for performance over safety**
Could you clarify? It sounds to me like you are inferring that the Crossfire is made with the knowledge that there is a defect in the canopy that sacrifices safety, when you stated just a couple of sentances ago that it is clearly a manufacturing error on some Crossfires. Seems to me that it was designed with both safety and performance in mind, being that a high performance canopy is not going to last long on the market if it is blatently unsafe in its design. Thus, there is no need to release it, and mearly open yourself up to headaches and lawsuits. Besides that, with the technology today, there is just no reason to sacrifice that safety, as it is not a necessity in order to make a good, solid, high performance canopy.
**additional manufacturing problems over and above the standard risks of high performance canopies.**
If you mean that the tolerances are tighter on this canopy than others, and thus makes the canopy harder to manufacture correctly, yes, that is a fact. There is no reason, though, why a manufacturer with a solid QC department and skilled sewers should not be able to follow those guidelines, as has been done successfully with this canopy many, many times.
In any event, I'm getting deeper into this than I originally intended. I just want people to realize what is going on, and keep an open mind. Condemning a canopy that is, for all intents and purposes, flawless in its design just doesn't make sense to me.
Most people who I have spoken to who have Crossfires just want the canopy fixed and returned to them. I think that speaks volumes for the satisfaction that people have with these canopies.
Anyway, like I said, I look forward to Icarus' findings in the next few days.
Blue Skies,
Steve

[billvon 2,473]

>I didn't say you didn't mean it, I said that people are jumping to conclusions,
>in my opinion.
Yes. And that makes the situation almost exactly like the Nova's.
**it is optimized for performance over safety**
>Could you clarify? It sounds to me like you are inferring that the Crossfire
>is made with the knowledge that there is a defect in the canopy that sacrifices
>safety
Of course there is, although I'm sure it's referred to as a "feature" instead of a "defect." We're talking about a canopy that is sold in an 89 sq ft size, and is recommended for very high loadings. It cannot be landed safely hands-off if you are incapacitated. It cannot be landed safely with a broken line. Vectran is more likely to break without warning, and a broken brake line during the flare can kill you. It flies fast even in brakes, making it more dangerous on opening, especially with a lot of other people in the air.
There are a great number of places that safety is traded off for performance in the Crossfire, and in a great many other canopies. Jumpers are often willing to jump these less-safe canopies because they like how they fly and land. Claiming that Icarus would never sacrifice safety for performance is simply untrue - they have an entire product structure that allows you to decide how much safety you want to sacrifice for performance.
>Besides that, with the technology today, there is just no reason to sacrifice
> that safety, as it is not a necessity in order to make a good, solid, high
> performance canopy.
Safety is sacrificed in nearly every single high performance canopy today. I don't think you're talking about safety here - you're talking about probability of collapse in turbulent air, an additional danger that is generally ignored by canopy pilots because it's a relatively rare event.
>In any event, I'm getting deeper into this than I originally intended. I just want
> people to realize what is going on, and keep an open mind. Condemning a
> canopy that is, for all intents and purposes, flawless in its design just doesn't
> make sense to me.
Actually, I think people are condemning the canopy because:
1. a manufacturing defect rendered some of them unsafe to jump
2. a list was published that did NOT list all the canopies with a problem, and therefore
3. it is likely that there are more flawed Crossfires out there.
>Most people who I have spoken to who have Crossfires just want the canopy
> fixed and returned to them. I think that speaks volumes for the satisfaction that
> people have with these canopies.
As did most Nova owners. It was the best-landing canopy of its time.
-bill von

[SBS 0]

As far as the safety that you mention that is being sacrificed, it is a fact that high performance canopies are dangerous, and you run risks in jumping them. That is true, like you said, of ANY high performance canopy, and more prevalent, the more loaded it is. As far as that aspect of safety, the Crossfire is not any worse than any other high performance canopy....I would say that it is better in some aspects. The safety that I was referring to is that which is not agreed to by the jumper when he/she decides to jump a canopy, namely, a canopy that collapses, etc....a "defect". You state that Icarus sacrifices safety for performance??? Every manufacturer that produces a high performance canopy does that by your definition, which I can not argue, and have no desire to. I am just saying that Icarus (or any other manufacturer for that matter) is not going to put a canopy onto the market that they are aware has a problem with collapsing, or any other severe defect, for the sake of producing the "best landing canopy" or "the best opening canopy", etc.
It sounds to me like your issues with the Crossfire are limited not to this canopy itsself, but to high performance, small canopies in general. All of the safety issues that you mentioned in this post are true of small Stilettos, Vengeances, Velocities, Cobalts, Extremes, Nitros, etc.....
There is absolutely no problem, as far as I am concerned, with people who jump big Spectres, or Sabres, or Triathlons, etc. If that is how someone enjoys their skydive, that's great. I am very clear in speaking to people that I have chosen to take a risk in the canopies that I choose to fly, whether that be a Crossfire, Vengeance, etc. The idea that I am more at risk under a properly manufactured Crossfire than any other small, high performance canopy, is not true.
Point is, there are a couple of different arguements here....
1) Safety vs. performance in standard vs. high performance canopy flight
2) Safety vs. performance between all high performance canopies and the Crossfire.
As for #1, you have your beliefs and I have mine. There is no point in debating it.
As for #2, I think I have adressed it as much as I can. Again, you have your beliefs, and I have mine. I believe that mine are based on facts and physical evidence, and will stand behind those beliefs until the day that I see a problem with a Crossfire made in Europe.
Again, I will look forward to seeing what happens.
Steve

[rmsmith 1]

>At approximately 20ft, on a straight in, full flight appoach,
>the left side of my canopy(not from the nose, from the side)
>rolled under. The left end cell touched the bottom skin of the
>second or third cell in from the right side. Of course, the
>canopy began a hard dive to the left when this occured. The
>canopy then re-inflated when I was a few feet off the ground,
>and reportedly then went into a V shape.
This is the part that has baffled me. The entire underside of the canopy has suspension lines loaded in tension while it is in flight. For the left side of the canopy to cross beneath the underside to touch the second or third cell from the right side means that the suspension lines were no longer in tension, or else they would prevent this from happening. This would indicate a major stall condition where all lift was gone, and the jumper was falling, not flying.