0
Skydog0223

Wings Reserve PC in tow

Recommended Posts

There is definitely a lot to consider in the design process. The bottom line for me is I've lost confidence in this equipment.
The point I want to make is when I had my PC in tow on my Wings reserve the PC was fully inflated with the bridle fully extended, the distance from where the bridle attaches to the bag and the side of the container is at most 6" I would've expected the snatch force to be enough to extract the bag. I did a simulation in terms of time, when I flipped to my belly if the PC had not extracted the bag the time required to go back on my side get hold of the bridle and physically pull the bag out would probably have put me at less than 1000' 5 seconds from the ground approx.
"Know your own limits"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rigs are tested every day, in a whole lot of different situations. Most rigs are designed and built based on a background of what has gone before, what works and what doesn't. A lot of that involves formal testing, modifications and improvements.

Most testing is done by jumpers themselves, on DZs around the world and involve hundreds of thousands of jumps. No formal test scheme in the world can replicate that.

The rigs also have to pass the scrutiny of riggers around the world, most of whom are well trained and fairly heads up when it comes to identifying and fixing problems, and this is because they are the ones who pack reserves and pass them as serviceable. They have their own reputation to protect, as well as their conscience, when they take on the responsibility of peoples lives.

Rigs or components that don't do the job are identified and discarded, usually driven by market forces.

Go back in time and you will find anything that becomes known as a dog, or a "death rig" quickly disappears from the market.

In this case, the problems are fairly easy to identify, and are fairly easily solved, as several posters on here have pointed out.

I think the manufacturer does have a problem here, and I would expect him to take some measures to rectify things, as reputations, once destroyed, are very difficult to recover.

If riggers start refusing to pack these rigs, because of a perceived design flaw, that will be the end of it. It is an area of concern, for sure.

I would be having a close look at the design of the reserve container, because it is not on for the reserve to stay in the container, when the pilot chute has cleared cleanly, even in a back to earth scenario.

That said, no rig in the world can be 100% fool proof, and it is a measure of how good rigs are generally, that there are quite a few fools out there jumping them safely.

As far as your list of test criteria go, the first four are irrelevant to this situation, they became even more so when we progressed from silk canopies to nylon. And that was a long time ago.

As for the rest of your post, most of your ideas would be of limited use, simply because it is impossible to replicate the huge variety of conditions and situations rigs are exposed to thousands of times on the DZ.

And the FAA?

They won't touch this with a barge pole. Not their remit or area of expertise.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forget the FAA. They don't test any thing. They don't even do TSO testing, you just submit your own data to them. They might if presented with enough evidence and if their arm was twisted hard enough ask the manufacturer to do follow up testing to confirm compliance with the TSO standard. They wont even issue parachute AD's any more. This industry is completely internal. It's up to us to monitor and correct problems our selves. So when some one famous or well liked dies it will make a splash and people will stop buying their rigs and the company will fold. Problem gone. It's a shitty way to do business, a good company will be gone and I think they are a good company, and people will be dead. We can do better but only if we choose to.

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a serious note. What would it take to swap a Javelin PC for a wings? At one time reserve PC's were considered interchangeable. Interchangeability of TSO'd parts. At most a manufacturer might state that the rig should have a reserve PC with a spring diameter of ... Then people started building more custom designs like center loops, hard caps, etc. It made since that they they started including statements in there manual saying that only their PC could be used. So I think you would need an approval of comparability from a FSDO. It's a mod. But a master rigger can apply for it. Plenty of presidents. Approval to retrofit a dyper design onto an existing reserve canopy. Approval to retrofit a canopy with turn slots, three dog house. Approval for an after market 4 line release to make a canopy steerable. So a master rigger gets an approval to install the Javelin PC. He gets a stamp. I send him my rig. He stamps it and signs it and sends it back with the better PC. Or better He stamps the PC and sends it along with a slip of paper to staple to the card. They used to sell the four line mod as a kit. I don't think you had to be a master rigger to assemble it?

So who wants to do some paper work?

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's pretty much been shown in the field that the Wings design will not reliably extract the freebag in a configuration of a jumper on his back with the P/C pulling the bag toward the shoulders. And that it is not strong enough to flip a jumper in this very stable position over. It is reasonable to believe that if you give the system a chance to pull in the correct direction it will.

I have not decided in my mind if this can be considered a defect or just a normal function of design. However, I've not heard of any other container demonstrating this limitation. On that basis I would not recommend this product to any jumper looking for new gear. And I make it a policy to make sure any customers who own them are aware of this.

If knowing these facts are not enough to make Sunrise address the matter they are going to find themselves in market share trouble. Talk of the FAA or PIA addressing this is not realistic. Only the market can decide this one.
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

If knowing these facts are not enough to make Sunrise address the matter they are going to find themselves in market share trouble.



Surely there are individuals from Sunrise Manufacturing monitoring this thread. In many other cases where gear design was called into question, representatives from the manufacturer joined the discussion with facts, data, and perhaps alternate points of view.

Would somebody from Sunrise care to join the discussion? I mean this not as an invitation to debate, but I don't believe anybody knows the design intent and qualification data as much as they do.
=========Shaun ==========


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

I've not heard of any other container demonstrating this limitation.



There are videos of other containers exhibiting similar behavior.

I think you overestimate the drag of a pilot chute at subterminal and overestimate the lever arm of a bridle exiting to the side of an inverted jumper.

-Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark

***I've not heard of any other container demonstrating this limitation.



There are videos of other containers exhibiting similar behavior.

I think you overestimate the drag of a pilot chute at subterminal and overestimate the lever arm of a bridle exiting to the side of an inverted jumper.

-Mark

I haven't seen any others. But I would like to if they exist. I think you are right about expectations being unrealistic.
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
mark

***I've not heard of any other container demonstrating this limitation.



There are videos of other containers exhibiting similar behavior.

I think you overestimate the drag of a pilot chute at subterminal and overestimate the lever arm of a bridle exiting to the side of an inverted jumper.

-Mark

I've had quite a few sub terminal openings and never had a problem with the pilot chute extracting the bag, including a couple, while not on my back, were pretty much vertical, making the angle of pull quite sharp.

If the pilot chute can't do that job properly, even sub terminal, where the snatch force isn't great, it is not suitable for use. I'd replace it.

This is a life or death issue. No point having a reserve, if all it does is get you to the scene of impact a bit quicker.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While this conversation is interesting, the ultimate solution to the OP is first jump course stuff:
-Containers are designed to work on your belly. Deploy stable (on your belly).
-Arch through deployment (to keep you on your belly).
-Use every bit of emergency gear available. This specific instance is a really good example where a MARD would come in handy (know what's bigger than a reserve pilot chute? Your main parachute). Even an RSL could have helped. Both are options to order with new Wings, and can be added to this existing container.

Other applicable lessons from student days:
-Stow your breaks correctly (excess line goes to the inside, brake line goes to the outside) every time.

Human error happens. RSLs and MARDs help. Choosing to jump without one "because I've never had one" is silly - and this jump showed exactly why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obelixtim


As far as your list of test criteria go, the first four are irrelevant to this situation, they became even more so when we progressed from silk canopies to nylon. And that was a long time ago.



You are taking the list to literary.. It was to represent that there are influential aspects that can be recreated, which may or may not have a negative affect on the ability for something to do what we want it to, which may very well be different than what it was designed to do..

The actual scope of influential aspects are very unique / pacific to the actual test subject and the scope of the test. My comments were in regards to how I would hope the manufacturer of my container would react after being made aware of this situation, whether it was designed to deploy in a back to earth orientation or not, ( it is possible that it may not have been which as has been pointed out). In reality, it may very well be performing exactly to the manufacturers design intent, and if so, perhaps all it needs is a note in the user manual stating that pulling the reserve handle in any orientation grater than 20 degrees off of belly to earth may result in a lack of free bag extraction?.. But to perceivably ignore the apparently multiple examples of the same scenario (which they very well may be on top of it but has not let the market know) is not a good way to handle it IMO.

obelixtim



As for the rest of your post, most of your ideas would be of limited use, simply because it is impossible to replicate the huge variety of conditions and situations rigs are exposed to thousands of times on the DZ.



But we are talking about a very specific condition in this case. I agree with you and mentioned as such in the last lines in my previous post "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… "

Test orientation at time of reserve handle pull: back to earth...

I'm not saying that the manufacture should get distracted by testing any other conditions unless they pop up as this one did.

They may be well at work evaluating pilot chutes, corner construction, pack volumes, etc.. The image of it not being addressed does not look good considering that most of the world thinks we are dare devils with a death wish and have no regard for safety.. there has to be some way that a manufacturer can acknowledge their customers concern without being driven out of business... Maybe not..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So just to clarify something you overlooked, a first jump course does not cover the myriad of possibilities that can happen. So what happens if you are incapacitated in some way, you are on your back because you CAN'T get to your belly and you cannot pull? But fortunately you have an AAD to activate your reserve, still no guarantee. Also an RSL or a MARD in this case is not of any use.

For me this was the first time I pulled on my back in 3149 jumps, the situation was such that I didn't want to waste any time getting my reserve out. In a previous similar situation years back I got stable after chopping a Stilletto 120 and had an uneventful opening on a Javelin container with a PD126 reserve. I am a proponent of this camp hence no RSL no MARD, but in recent months after reading about various situations also advice from a prominent AFF instructor who advises students not to waste time getting stable I decided on this occasion to do the same. The irony is I'm glad it happened to show me the problem with the Wings container. Maybe other containers have the same issue, I don't know.
"Know your own limits"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not the container Dave - that's what I'm saying. It's body position, training, and gear choices.

Deploying on your back is not a good idea - and that is FJC material. That was my point.

I'm glad you jump an AAD in case of the unconscious jumper scenario. Hopefully, this is an example of some reasons to further stack the deck in your favor with additional gear options (RSL, MARD), to reconsider your EPs that resulted in you being on your back waiting for a reserve to deploy, and to review how you stow your brakes to hopefully prevent the toggle fire that started the chain of events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sammielu

and to review how you stow your brakes to hopefully prevent the toggle fire that started the chain of events.



My risers (using as an example here) are manufactured in such a way that excess stowage is the opposite from what you describe as "correct", what would you suggest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sammielu

It's not the container Dave - that's what I'm saying. It's body position, training, and gear choices.

Deploying on your back is not a good idea - and that is FJC material. That was my point.

I'm glad you jump an AAD in case of the unconscious jumper scenario. Hopefully, this is an example of some reasons to further stack the deck in your favor with additional gear options (RSL, MARD), to reconsider your EPs that resulted in you being on your back waiting for a reserve to deploy, and to review how you stow your brakes to hopefully prevent the toggle fire that started the chain of events.



If its not the container, how come there seem to be a number of similar incidents, with one common factor?

There have been quite a few fatalities over the years where people have deployed reserves too low or not at all after wasting altitude trying to get stable.

Chopping a high speed spinner can easily put a jumper on their back.

An old adage is: never sacrifice altitude for stability in an emergency situation.

I expect my reserve to save me whatever attitude I deploy in, and if there is a rig that won't do that, its a rig I would never jump.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


-Use every bit of emergency gear available. This specific instance is a really good example where a MARD would come in handy (know what's bigger than a reserve pilot chute? Your main parachute). Even an RSL could have helped



I disagree with this logic. I expect a reserve PC to cleanly extract a reserve freebag from the container without requiring a MARD. Period. Every time. If you have a container that requires a MARD to do so at sub-terminal activations, I would consider that a major design flaw.

Quote


-Stow your breaks correctly (excess line goes to the inside, brake line goes to the outside) every time.



Why? Do you have evidence or documentation to support this claim?
=========Shaun ==========


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UPDATE:

After just over a month I jumped my Wings again yesterday a couple of times. The original pilot chute/freebag assembly has been replaced with a revised one from Sunrise. Also the rigger installed a MARD. I've studied the original PC, it has a fairly low speed inflation speed, as to the pull force? The Mesh diameter measures 12" with the overall diameter being 24". On the new PC the mesh diameter has been increased according to my rigger but I don't know the exact difference, I'll check at the next repack. According to their website their reserve PC has 80% fabric, I calculated that the original on mine has about 94%

Thanks to everybody who commented on this thread and thanks to my rigger!

Blue Skies
"Know your own limits"

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