0
Skydog0223

Wings Reserve PC in tow

Recommended Posts

On Friday 8/25/2017 I cutaway from a spinning Spectre 150 main. At the point of main release I was back to earth and even though not low around 2500' I opted to pull the reserve as time is of the essence. What I next witnessed quite frankly scared me a little to say the least. I was looking at a fully deployed reserve bridle and PC and nothing else! Thinking that by now I should be in the saddle I realised the pull force at that moment was (somewhere in the sub terminal range) inadequate to extract the freebag. I flipped to my belly and I felt the freebag go and all ended well. The reserve was an Optimum 160, the container was custom made for these canopies, it was my 309th jump on this rig. The rig has no reserve assist device, however:

What concerns me is in a total type situation assuming being unconscious and possibly on your back, with AAD fire would I have impacted with a reserve PC in tow as the main being unopened would also add to the necessary pull force required by the drogue?

This was my 4th reserve ride.

Blue Skies, Keep Safe!
"Know your own limits"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I was looking at a fully deployed reserve bridle and PC and nothing else!



Were you aware of the "Issues"???

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4840136;page=2;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Yep, it is time to do something about this...

Mark Baur, you probably need to address this with the PIA rigging committee. It has gone on long enough.

MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterrigger1

Quote


I was looking at a fully deployed reserve bridle and PC and nothing else!



Were you aware of the "Issues"???

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4840136;page=2;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Yep, it is time to do something about this...

Mark Baur, you probably need to address this with the PIA rigging committee. It has gone on long enough.

MEL



This scenario has happened with other brands of containers too: Jumper's back is to the earth, reserve pc deployed, bridle fully extended. The rpc can't pull the freebag out of the tray in an acceptable time frame because it's nearly a 180 degree bend on the bridle where it wraps around the jumper. This happened locally with a sport vector a few years ago. I think most containers currently on the market would have the same result unless a MARD was being used. Do we need RPCs of 60" size, capable of rolling the jumper over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but I thought it was in connection with oversized reserves, btw just info the container is 4 years old, I heard Sunrise had done some kind of mod, anyway my rigger is fully aware of the situation and we looking at options. In any case a total mal would render any kind of reserve assist device useless, so a bigger PC would be the only realistic option IMO. I'm not a parachute rigger etc but I'm an Aeronautical Engineer and seems like simple laws of Mechanics apply.
"Know your own limits"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skydog0223

Yes, but I thought it was in connection with oversized reserves, btw just info the container is 4 years old, I heard Sunrise had done some kind of mod, anyway my rigger is fully aware of the situation and we looking at options. In any case a total mal would render any kind of reserve assist device useless, so a bigger PC would be the only realistic option IMO. I'm not a parachute rigger etc but I'm an Aeronautical Engineer and seems like simple laws of Mechanics apply.



Or abandoning the solid molar shaped freebag could work too, if a suitable option were designed and tested. The molar bag is like a brick and the entire brick needs to be extracted at once. But if it were a sleeve style bag it could be more snake-like and the total friction of the entire freebag wouldn't need to be overcome at once: the RPC could pull the upper section free, then middle, then bottom, etc. Then of course we'd probably be introducing a whole world of extra problems that hadn't been considered. Maybe there's another way to break up that freebag extraction into more manageable chunks, so the brute force of giant pilot chutes wouldn't be necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


This scenario has happened with other brands of containers too: Jumper's back is to the earth, reserve pc deployed, bridle fully extended.



Sorry,I missed that point in the OP's post.

But a fully developed PC should have enough force to pull the guy back belly to earth one would think.

Quote


Do we need RPCs of 60" size, capable of rolling the jumper over?



Well given the past issues, an increase in size would not be out of the question.Not 60" though...


MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark,
We might have to skip this incident, but the fact remains that we have other incidents that show problems with this H/C system.

We could at least recommend more testing by the manufacturer or issue a public notice.


MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark's a man of few words. I'll expand for myself. Just what do you think the Rigging committee or PIA can do about a perceived product problem that's the opinion of some? PIA has already spent well over $100,000 defended a lawsuit alleging putting a manufacturer out of business when PIA made a very specific effort to NOT take a position. As you know PIA has no authority over product approval or lack of performance to the appropriate TSO standard. PIA has no authority over rigger training or performance evaluatuon. PIA spent over $50,000 on reserve deployment performance testing for those companies that chose to participate. Not all did.

What would you have PIA do? Say rig A is no good? At least one member believes everybody's rig but his is a 'death rig'. Every member has opinions, good and bad, anout every competitor's products. Educate riggers? We can only educate those that wish to be.

The reality is I don't particularly expect any rig to work well subterminal back to the relatice wind. And no indication of poor choices by the user or rigger.

So what would you have a very part time, volunteer organization of competitors with no authority and one part time employee do?
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


PIA can do about a perceived product problem that's the opinion of some? PIA has already spent well over $100,000 defended a lawsuit alleging putting a manufacturer out of business when PIA made a very specific effort to NOT take a position.


The Argus issue was a bit different in flavor.

Quote


As you know PIA has no authority over product approval or lack of performance to the appropriate TSO standard. PIA has no authority over rigger training or performance evaluatuon.



I think all of that changed when PIA started writing the TSOs. Since they submitted the standard, one would think they had some say in it later on...i.e. if a product was in fact meeting the standard or not.


MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that PIA's job? It seems to me that that's a FAA thing.

As I understand it, the proper procedure, if there is a question about an approved part, is to write a letter to... an office in the FAA reporting the problem. I was talking to Gene Bland once about some thing and he was telling me that there is a reporting procedure. Sorry, it was a long time ago and I don't recall the details. The point is that any one can do it, a rigger for instance. Any one that has a copy of that video. It's not a job that requires the PIA to take some kind of stand. You don't need to draw a line in the sand and declare war. You, any of you, send in a report. It starts a file. Then some one sends in another report from the next indecent and so on, and the file gets thicker, until it reaches critical mass and action occurs. Maybe a review of their TSO application. Right now there have been several incidents, with good video I might add. Enough to put some serious weight in that file.

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And here's a thought. Any master rigger out there want to apply for approval for an alteration. Replacement of the wings PC with a javelin? I think there are deeper problems with the cut and sewing of the upper corners of the reserve tray but this would be a good stop gap measure to you know... stop any one from dying over this.

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Lee,

Quote

that's a FAA thing



My personal thoughts.

It is not even an 'FAA thing.' Unless that particular deployment is delineated within the TSO testing standards then I doubt that even the FAA would get involved.

If someone were to send a letter into the FAA, they might send it on to the mfr. The mfr would reply ( I would think ) and that is where it would probably end.

As I said, my personal thoughts.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) It really comes down to, does the rig, as built, still meet the TSO standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The FAA has a malfunction and defect form. Can't remember the number, been a while since I filed one for an aircraft. Parachutes should fall under the same rules as an accessory. A call to local FSDO will produce the form number, or maybe on faa.gov under forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterrigger1

Mark,
***We might have to skip this incident



I've given this "INCIDENT" a lot of thought and worked through the various scenario's that can happen. Having been involved in Aircraft Testing as part of my job it is clear that parts of the reserve deployment system are inadequate. I concluded that the reserve should be able to deploy at any speed in any attitude unassisted.

There is a scenario which would require this, if we have an aircraft emergency exiting at 1000' and a jumper hits their heading on the door frame exiting and rendered dazed or unconscious then there are 2 (or more) scenario's, let's assume AAD/or no AAD:

AAD: The AAD would probably not activate until 500 feet due to low exit altitude/time in freefall, the jumper is back to earth AAD fires, ends up with PC in tow, does not reach a sufficient speed in time to achieve required extraction force.

No AAD: Jumper is back to earth, no AAD, regains awareness, pulls reserve, PC in tow, does not make it.

You might say "oh it's possible but unlikely" well these are the types of scenario that get skydivers killed simply because not enough thought and testing or sufficient repeat testing goes into making some skydiving equipment. It's no good looking all nice and stylish if it's dysfunctional.

The bottom line is my equipment failed me, what should I do now?
"Know your own limits"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a belief that reserve systems are designed to be deployed while unstable. This has been used as a defense of standard RSL's;

Quote

>I am with the "need to deploy stable" crowd.

That need is often overstated. Reserve systems are designed to deploy while unstable; one manufacturer (Jumpshack) actually recommends deploying the reserve while belly-to-earth. A head-high position, such as you would get immediately after a normal cutaway, is recommended if possible. Note that this is exactly the type of opening an RSL gives you from most cutaways.



From AC-105e, d. 2. g;

"(g) Since body position and other factors may cause a delay in the actual parachute opening altitude, the devices should only be used as a backup to manually deploying the reserve parachute."

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread seems to have a lot of opinions and not a lot of facts. To the OP - would you be so kind as to give us the size of your main and reserve container (Should be the W-number either on your packing data card or on the data panel tucked into your mudflap).

Quote

The reserve was an Optimum 160, the container was custom made for these canopies



I'm curious as to how Sunrise sized this particular rig. Let's look at the W-number and see what we can conclude. I have had issues with manufacturers before 'custom' making containers for canopy combinations that are way, way, way too tight.
=========Shaun ==========


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skydog0223

On Friday 8/25/2017 I cutaway from a spinning Spectre 150 main. At the point of main release I was back to earth and even though not low around 2500' I opted to pull the reserve as time is of the essence. What I next witnessed quite frankly scared me a little to say the least. I was looking at a fully deployed reserve bridle and PC and nothing else! ............

This was my 4th reserve ride.

Blue Skies, Keep Safe!



---------------------------------------------------------------------------

May I suggest a different approach?

That reminds me of my third reserve ride ..... and dozens of incident reports.
They all start with the jumper forgetting about arching as he/she feels line-stretch. If you continue arching during deployment, you halve the chances of a spinning malfunction. I learned this during my first dozen wing-suit jumps.
Some TIs habitually "control" students' legs for the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peer pressure? One thing that PIA could do is to chastise manufacturers, dealers, and riggers that are responsible for rigs that are excessively tight, which I'm pretty sure is causing some of this. There is just no reason to have a tight rig unless that is what it takes to make a rig small enough for a very small person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peek

One thing that PIA could do is to chastise manufacturers, dealers, and riggers that are responsible for rigs that are excessively tight, which I'm pretty sure is causing some of this. There is just no reason to have a tight rig unless that is what it takes to make a rig small enough for a very small person.



What form would you like this chastisement to take?
What is a definition of "excessively tight" that can be measured in test conditions?
If tight rigs are dangerous, why should small rigs get a pass?

-Mark

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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