0
Skydog0223

Wings Reserve PC in tow

Recommended Posts

PIA has to take great care not to comment on the business practices or quality of individual manufactures, riggers or others. Especially those not members of PIA, like Sunrise and most riggers. In fact it's in PIA's code of conduct.

I WISH PIA was in a position to do a lot of things.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand about the PIA position. Thanks for your comments.

To conclude for myself:

I always pulled face to earth in all situations, after reading posts about wasting valuable seconds doing that I decided not to this time, ironically in the end I had too and probably took longer. As far as the equipment goes with my riggers advice we are making changes. This has been a valuable lesson, and after 34 years in the sport I've seen, read and heard a lot of things, but there will be more.

I have a 2nd rig which is 20 years old, for me it's the best I ever had, I only got my wings because I was the recipient of a 50% off a new Wings voucher in a raffle. Next time I'll buy what I really want!

My daughter laughed when I said I jumped straight after my reserve ride on my old gear, I said it's not skydiving to blame it's the gear!

Dave

Blue Skies
"Know your own limits"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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?



I guess sometimes the manufacturers are transparent and will publish sizing details and make publically available - unfortunately this information is not easily available from sunrise.

I've assembled a rig which was sized by Sunrise and questioned with the owner how tight the rig was. Sure, they were brand new canopies but it was "incredibly" tight and I told the user to contact manufacturer. Next time I saw the rig - the container looked the same (colors etc.) but the serial number was different - questioned the owner and he said they had rebuilt a bigger container.

The RPC on the wings container is certainly not one of the best and the changes which have been shown are evidence of a quiet change by the manufacturer which I suspect is performance related.
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark

What form would you like this chastisement to take?



Any form. Anything is better than nothing.

Quote

What is a definition of "excessively tight" that can be measured in test conditions?



This is not a subjective thing. I can't provide what you are asking for. But don't we all know that rigs have gotten much smaller and tighter over time? When did we start needing these "crank tools" to close a rig? Maybe before people needed these, rigs were not so tight.

Quote

If tight rigs are dangerous, why should small rigs get a pass?



They should not, except that a small person actually has a reason to need a small rig. Anyone your size, and definitely someone my size has absolutely no reason to need a small rig.

For those reading, Mark and I know each other. This is not an argumentative discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unstable

...I have had issues with manufacturers before 'custom' making containers for canopy combinations that are way, way, way too tight.



Bought one from a different mfg (not Sunrise) that made both the reserve and container... THEY couldn't pack it at a legal pull force. (first time it arrived, they had bent the pin trying to close it) Spent way too much time arguing with them over it.

So yea, it happens. >:(

JW
Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recently went through this with UPT. A sub dealer sent measurements for a new container for my wife. Canopies, Pilot 150 and Tempo 150. Got numerous messages about not being able to size it because Pilots are known to be variable. They kept talking about squeezing it into the smallest Micron possible. They wanted me to send them the canopy to size it. The bullshit finally ended when I looked at the size chart myself and found that the proper size container was not a Micron at all, but a V344. The gods of skydiving and rigging in DeLand just automatically assume the the proper fit is the smallest possible container. They did not even think to ask about what the customer wants. My wife is 55 years old, and is never going to downsize. And she does not want the hardest packjob possible. But until I intervened the dealer and UPT just automatically chose a container where both canopies would be "tight".

Moral of the story. DO NOT let the manufacturer choose your container size alone.
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
Quote

I recently went through this with UPT.



What really annoyed me with my supplier was that I told them up front that I specifically wanted an EASY reserve pack since I was not familiar with packing their rig. And this order was not going through a middle-man, so the desires were communicated up front.

I'm broad shouldered (so bigger is no problem as they could see from the measurements) and I'm not downsizing.

They did eventually offer to re-cut/size the rig, for a price.

JW
Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I recently went through this with UPT.



My Experience was with Mirage, but the exact same scenario, to the T. Customer of mine bought it to fit existing canopies, and the container made was 1 size smaller for both the main and reserve - significant difference. - packed up the system was an absolute brick.

I believe manufacturers need to start with a sound design in the first place, and not rely on overly-tight fitment in order to keep flaps in place and sealed.
=========Shaun ==========


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Unstable,

Quote

manufacturers need to start with a sound design



It has been a good many years ago but Mike Truffer wrote an editorial for his SKYDIVING magazine & recommended getting your new rig one size up for the canopies you plan to use.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) People want small & tiny; you cannot completely blame the mfrs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.pia.com/images/rocketlauncher/PDF/TECHNICAL_REPORTS/PIA-TR-401LowReserveOpeningInvestigationReport91316.pdf

I don't believe the video has been made public. The data is blinded, rigs are not identified. Even to me as a member of the committee. Each participant had to agree that the data would not be used for advertising but the data was provided to each manufacturer for their own information. Not all PIA members submitted a rig for testing and although non members were invited not all (and maybe none, I don't remember) submitted a rig for testing.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So taking a look at the data, it shows some potential problems and a very small amount of testing done and no way to identify the rigs in question.

So this is of no use to the jumper wanting to determine how their potential choices of rig actually performs in these tests.

Think how the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) testing has radically changed the safety of automobiles. They perform various tests and publish the results, naming the vehicles with poor results. Negative results effect sales and therefore the manufacturer pays attention to improving their performance in the testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skytribe

So taking a look at the data, it shows some potential problems and a very small amount of testing done and no way to identify the rigs in question.

So this is of no use to the jumper wanting to determine how their potential choices of rig actually performs in these tests.

Think how the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) testing has radically changed the safety of automobiles. They perform various tests and publish the results, naming the vehicles with poor results. Negative results effect sales and therefore the manufacturer pays attention to improving their performance in the testing.



Once again I'll remind everyone that PIA is an industry trade association of competitors volunteering to try to address industry wide needs. With one part time employee. It is NOT an independent agency and is NOT a regulatory agency with any legal powers. The goal was to try to identify any systematic problems across the industry. In spite of this thread issues are not confined to one manufacturer.

This was NOT to provide comparison between particular companies for jumpers. As I said the data was blinded even to most of the committee members. If it wasn't done this way there would have been NO testing. No manufacturer would have participated by supplying their equipment and they would not have approved PIA money for public comparison data that might have been used against them. A couple of manufacturers had data on PC drag force in real freefall but not many. This is the most data about PC drag forces and bag extraction forces across the most rigs in real conditions that exists and is public. Since it was mentioned in a meeting open to the public Sunrise did not respond to an invitation to participate, Parachute Labs refused to abide by the condition of not using the data for advertising and so did not participate, and another manufacturer was coming out with a new model as the testing took place and decided not to provide their old rig. A second round was anticipated with other U.S. and non-U.S. rigs but last I knew is not currently planned. (I wasn't at the last meeting and haven't read the minutes that just came out to members today.) All of the volunteers have their own businesses to run.

This amount of testing took two years and a substantial portion of the PIA budget for those years. This is not an industry with 100's of millions of customers and trillions of dollars in sales like the world wide auto industry. And an associated industry, the insurance industry, with a vested interest in calling out unsafe products.

Please say thank you to those of us that spend our own money and time or our companies money and personnel time to try to address industry needs. Right now without PIA there would be no universally accepted specifications for hardware and materials for parachutes. The 'Mil-specs' were abandoned by the U.S. government in 1997. PIA has filled the void. There may be nobody that knows much about parachutes writing the TSO testing standards if we left it to the FAA. SAE choose to end that responsibility in 1994 (or so) with TSO C23d and PIA picked up the slack.

Someone come up with 10's of millions in funding for an independent testing organization and I'll go to work for them.

I am about as independent and small in the industry as anybody can be. I've never worked for any parachute component or material manufacturer or commercial dealer. A sell a few pilot rigs as a convenience to my rigging customers. And I'm welcomed into PIA and able to participate in the TSO specs committee, the risk management committee, the rigging committee, (past chairman) and the technical committee that sponsored the testing. This may be frustrating and not satisfy many in the sport. If you don't like what PIA does write a check, submit an application and get involved. You'll get a vote equal to that of Airborne Systems or UPT.

Okay, rant off. But I'm tired of people that don't have a clue saying that PIA should do this or that.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish the resources were there.

Unfortunately some would only see how bad the industry and sport would be after we loose USPA and PIA.

Should there be better? OK... but nothing worth having comes free.

If you (the reader) think we should have better independent testing of (for example) real world PC pull force (peak, average, etc) for each PC on the market... GREAT!! Figure out the funding, anonymously purchase several of each, design the testing parameters, hire the videographers and go pay for your test jumps. Then you can publish your results (for free of course) for the rest of us.*

Until then, I for one will be grateful for what information and data has been collected. As Terry said, if leading up to this test you have removed the anonymity from the results, I doubt you would have seen much gear is provided by the mfgs for testing... In my mind, the test results were for each mfg to see how they did, and how they compared. This will lead (hopefully) to changes by those who didn't test well, so that their rigs are better for us in the future.

Thanks to Terry and all the others that have put their money, time, efforts and lives on the line to test the gear we often take for granted.

Must my $.02,
JW

*PS - while this sounds hard... and it is... it is also a serious challenge to think "outside the container"... Aeronautical Engineering students (or those that should be and haven't woken up to it yet)... this is the type of research you could be discussing with your instructors. Any of you have access to a wind tunnel for tests?
Too big for one student to do a comprehensive test?... what about a collaborative study between multiple students at multiple Universities... if you can design the test so that it could be safely replicated and conducted by others maybe you could crowd-source the actual testing... dunno... think about it.
Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a PC drag test done by Sunpath I think in connection with a university of there reserve PC. Saw the video and numbers at one of the PIA meetings. Well done. They couldn't quite meet the speeds in the tunnel and they used a visual measurement of the inflated diameter for their area rather then a real measurement on some part of the PC. I say this because you have to keep in mind where the numbers come from to understand what they mean. For instance it gave them a CD over 2 and it's not fair to compare that number to a test done using the flat area of the PC, think a number more like 1. In the end they got good usable data that could be extrapolated to free fall speeds.

So their really is good work being done out there. And a lot of it is being done quite responsible by the manufacturers them selves.

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
councilman24

***So taking a look at the data, it shows some potential problems and a very small amount of testing done and no way to identify the rigs in question.

So this is of no use to the jumper wanting to determine how their potential choices of rig actually performs in these tests.

Think how the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) testing has radically changed the safety of automobiles. They perform various tests and publish the results, naming the vehicles with poor results. Negative results effect sales and therefore the manufacturer pays attention to improving their performance in the testing.



Once again I'll remind everyone that PIA is an industry trade association of competitors volunteering to try to address industry wide needs. With one part time employee. It is NOT an independent agency and is NOT a regulatory agency with any legal powers. The goal was to try to identify any systematic problems across the industry. In spite of this thread issues are not confined to one manufacturer.

This was NOT to provide comparison between particular companies for jumpers. As I said the data was blinded even to most of the committee members. If it wasn't done this way there would have been NO testing. No manufacturer would have participated by supplying their equipment and they would not have approved PIA money for public comparison data that might have been used against them. A couple of manufacturers had data on PC drag force in real freefall but not many. This is the most data about PC drag forces and bag extraction forces across the most rigs in real conditions that exists and is public. Since it was mentioned in a meeting open to the public Sunrise did not respond to an invitation to participate, Parachute Labs refused to abide by the condition of not using the data for advertising and so did not participate, and another manufacturer was coming out with a new model as the testing took place and decided not to provide their old rig. A second round was anticipated with other U.S. and non-U.S. rigs but last I knew is not currently planned. (I wasn't at the last meeting and haven't read the minutes that just came out to members today.) All of the volunteers have their own businesses to run.

This amount of testing took two years and a substantial portion of the PIA budget for those years. This is not an industry with 100's of millions of customers and trillions of dollars in sales like the world wide auto industry. And an associated industry, the insurance industry, with a vested interest in calling out unsafe products.

Please say thank you to those of us that spend our own money and time or our companies money and personnel time to try to address industry needs. Right now without PIA there would be no universally accepted specifications for hardware and materials for parachutes. The 'Mil-specs' were abandoned by the U.S. government in 1997. PIA has filled the void. There may be nobody that knows much about parachutes writing the TSO testing standards if we left it to the FAA. SAE choose to end that responsibility in 1994 (or so) with TSO C23d and PIA picked up the slack.

Someone come up with 10's of millions in funding for an independent testing organization and I'll go to work for them.

I am about as independent and small in the industry as anybody can be. I've never worked for any parachute component or material manufacturer or commercial dealer. A sell a few pilot rigs as a convenience to my rigging customers. And I'm welcomed into PIA and able to participate in the TSO specs committee, the risk management committee, the rigging committee, (past chairman) and the technical committee that sponsored the testing. This may be frustrating and not satisfy many in the sport. If you don't like what PIA does write a check, submit an application and get involved. You'll get a vote equal to that of Airborne Systems or UPT.

Okay, rant off. But I'm tired of people that don't have a clue saying that PIA should do this or that.

You mistake my comment for saying what PIA should/shouldnt do. The statements of fact are that they carried out a study which was very limited in scope and actual testing which the results were only made available to those that took place in the study on the proviso that the results were not made publicly available for marketing purposes.

So I reiterate that this is really not that useful to jumpers wanting to make informed decisions relating to purchases.

The IIHS analogy was something that was done independently of the manufacturers and does involve a lot of money but has resulted in improvements in car safety and better design. The skydiving industry is a lot smaller with many characters stating there design is better because of A/B/C when others in the industry differ. Having some independent testing would be really useful to determine the validity of some of the claims.

This was not a dig at those that performed the testing, or the general issues that were raised but more of an ideal way forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I manufactured containers, and saw a video of my system doing what yours did, the first thing I would do is say " I want that rig to test", and offer you a new one of your choice in exchange..

My goal would be to see if this "situation" could be repeated, and if so, how consistently…

Considering I would already have the exact components that were involved in the original “situation” we can dispense with the canopy size, container info, etc… What I would want to know is:

1) How many days between the last repack and the handle pull?

2) What were the environmental conditions and duration of the “airing” phase of the Air and Inspect phase? (Temp / Humidity)

3) What where the environmental conditions during the actually packing of the reserve?

4) What were average environmental conditions during storage/use between the repack and handle pull?

5) Weight, build, and jumpsuit type? (to try and recreate free fall speeds)

6) Length of the reserve closing loop?

8) What patterns were used to make the container

9) What lot of material was used?

10) Who built the rig?

11) Ideally it would be nice to have the same rigger pact the reserve for the tests, but I could see how that could be touchy, so experiments in bulk distribution would have to be done to try to “encourage” the “situation” by creating a worse case scenario.

I’m sure more specifics will come to mind later, but these are the ones that come to my mind right now.. The last thing we want is to have the FAA get involved IMO.. They do not have the time to deal with us, and I can see them saying “If the FAA is going to be responsible for overseeing the operational functionality of all skydiving gear, then we are going to ground every rig until such time is available as is necessary to properly carry out the requirement”..

This is also a very touchy area with container manufactures, as if something like this is able to be reproduced consistently, and the specific causes identified, then at that point, how the manufacturer handles it will be critical.. and if there has been a fatality in the past associated with the problem area, then that is a whole new world.. However, I feel that life is more important, and safety should always be the deciding factor.

Even if there was a problem that was later identified, that was not during the TSO tests because the TSO tests did not create the conditions that are required for the “situation” to occur, that “may” not mean the manufacture was negligent or liable for any fatalities. However, could it be shown that the manufacturer was aware of “similar situations” in the past, and they made no effort to first inform users of those rigs that there “may” be a problem, and at least make an attempt to resolve the issue, then there may be a problem for the manufacturer..

As the saying goes,, “You can’t put the shit back in the horse” I can see why manufacturers could not really want to know how the “variations” of the original TSOed rigs perform in the real world.. I’m not saying that they don’t, it is just a delicate subject as a whole.. Aside from a couple of manufactures, most are in reality micro companies, and would not be able to survive a storm.. That being said, ones size does not absolve one from being proactive when “situations” present themselves..

I have had several discussions with my business partners and other manufactures about performing independent tests, as we have design and built data collection systems that the USDA Forest Smoke Jumpers and BLM use to aid in the development, evaluation, and refinement of their gear.

There is an “learning period” where one has to get past what they “know” to be true and let the data show them what is really happening..

The problem, as was pointed out, is a financial one.. I have reserve pins that I want to do some bend tests on, but the problem is, I have bills to pay, and the time it will take to properly design, build, and calibrate the test protocol and fixtures is not billable to anyone, and my investors do not like that, as I could have been working on actual billable work.. Add to that, that the manufactures are really not keen on anyone looking for skeletons in their closet, and it is a non starter..

So the issue becomes, how do we as a self-governing body, deal with “ performance situations” when all there is, is a voluntarily group made up of competing manufactures, who are all fighting for the same limited market? Add to that the “politics” of the landscape and the hill quickly turns into a wall..

If every time there is a “situation” like this, where gear did not perform as one would like, (which may not be required in a TSO speck), the complete rig was acquired and kept for testing and put in a safe pace, eventually there would be several rigs from different manufactures in the safe that can be physical compared side by side.. I mean if my rig did that once, I sure as hell would never give it the chance to do it again.. So instead of it sitting in my closet or burning it, I would think it would be better used as a test subject to help our gear evolve..

It is impossible to test for every conceivable scenario, however, when one is experienced in real life, I think it has to be dealt with… The question then comes down to, does the FAA deal with it, or does the manufacture?

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