1 1
carrier louis paul

one more Icon malfunction

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, lyosha said:

Well that certainly should shut the peanut gallery and apologists up.

 

Boy I wish the USPA took as proactive an approach to protecting it's members.

according to the post it was the french equivalent of the faa, so it would be more accurate to ask the faa to take the proactive approach to protecting us, not uspa.  correct me if i'm wrong (it happens) but didn't we form the uspa et al to keep the faa from harassing (over-regulating) us?  maybe we need to convert to the french stye faa and have a government agency that protects us.  pipe dreams...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, lyosha said:

Well that certainly should shut the peanut gallery and apologists up.

 

Boy I wish the USPA took as proactive an approach to protecting it's members.

In the USA, USPA has no say in parachute certification or performance standards. Instead, the Federal Aviation Administration regulates parachute performance and certification standards. FAA Technical Standard Orders (C23-? for parachutes) are based upon old military specifications and have been gradually updated to reflect advances in civilian skydiving technology.

The FAA used to issue Special Inspections, but they have been replaced by Service Bulletins issued by parachute manufacturers or foreign governing bodies (British Civil Aviation Authority or Australian Parachute Federation). SBs carry the same weight of law as FAA issued Airworthiness Directives.

USPA often reprints ADs, SBs and SPs in "Parachutist" Magazine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

In the USA, USPA has no say in parachute certification or performance standards. Instead, the Federal Aviation Administration regulates parachute performance and certification standards. FAA Technical Standard Orders (C23-? for parachutes) are based upon old military specifications and have been gradually updated to reflect advances in civilian skydiving technology.

The FAA used to issue Special Inspections, but they have been replaced by Service Bulletins issued by parachute manufacturers or foreign governing bodies (British Civil Aviation Authority or Australian Parachute Federation). SBs carry the same weight of law as FAA issued Airworthiness Directives.

USPA often reprints ADs, SBs and SPs in "Parachutist" Magazine.

Hi Rob,

Re:  SBs carry the same weight of law as FAA issued Airworthiness Directives.

I disagree. 

A mfr may make a SB that they have issued 'mandatory' but it is still not mandatory by the FAA.

An AD is issued by the FAA and is mandatory.

IMO as to how this splitting of hairs' would stand up in court is not really known.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 hours ago, eric.fradet said:

this is a sensitive subject. Yes after incidents of total malfunction or delay in manually reserve opening found by riggers during reserve packing cycle, Aerodyne has been contacted but denied any issues claiming testing were not done on a regular basis.

We noted that malfunctions did happen on recent rigs (two last years) and it looked changes that had been carried out by the manufacturer (in particular on reserve closing flap) which at least affected the certification of the parachute since FAA has not being notified.

 Due to this situation, we asked French FAA equivalent to carry out tests with an independant and neutral laboratory called DGA (Direction Générale de l'Armement).

in november 2021, Aerodyne president Pal Bergan and European representative Herman Landsman were present in Balma (France) to meet the French authorities and to conduct tests.

A test protocol was drawn up by DGA and Aerodyne signed it up, means before starting each test , Aerodyne should validate what the rig was compliant (packing method, reserve PC power, type of canopies inside, reserve loop length, mounting of AAD, reserve manual force, etc)..before proceeding with the test in accordance with rules of art, which means parachute well tighten and chest strap, in a human body which fits to dimensions of the harness rigs, in a stand up and laydown position.

The first day, we proceed to 17 tests and got 3 failed by manually deployment and 5 total malfunction by firing AAD located underneath the reserve PC, which makes a total of 8 on 17..

I cannot tell you more, since it is still under investigation.... 

 

 

 

Hi Eric,

Re:  it looked changes that had been carried out by the manufacturer (in particular on reserve closing flap) which at least affected the certification of the parachute since FAA has not being notified.

I am going to comment on this based upon my own personal experience.

Many years ago ( about 20+ yrs ), I received a routine letter from the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office.  It went out to all certificate holders ( TSO holders to most of you ) within the Seattle ACO region.  It said that we had to notify their office of any changes ( i.e., Minor Changes ) within 6 months of the effective date.

I telephoned the letter writer & told her that there was no FAA req'ment on time-frame for submittal of changes and that she had no authority to issue such a letter.  She agreed with me but asked that I do as the letter said.  I informed her that I always submitted my changes within 6 months.  That was the end of that.

Also, back in the '60's, Security Parachute Co. was the depository of their specifications.  Specifications being all of those drawings, documents, etc, associated with a TSO.  What that meant is that Security merely made changes & never notified or submitted them to the FAA.  The FAA became aware of the changes during their Safety Inspection visits.

IMO it is a very loosely enforced 'req'ment.'

Hope this helps in understanding some of this 'Minor Change' stuff.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I have been out of the parachute business for 3 1/2 yrs now, so I am not aware of any changes to the FAA regs, guidelines, etc, since then.

 

Edited by JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Rob,

Re:  SBs carry the same weight of law as FAA issued Airworthiness Directives.

I disagree. 

A mfr may make a SB that they have issued 'mandatory' but it is still not mandatory by the FAA.

An AD is issued by the FAA and is mandatory.

IMO as to how this splitting of hairs' would stand up in court is not really known.

Jerry Baumchen

Dear Jerry,

We "barracks lawyers" could debate this "until the cows come home." In my interpretation, FARs and CARs always loop back to "in accordance with manufacturers' instructions." meaning that any time a rigger ignores a manufacturer's instructions, he/she is also ignoring/violating FARs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that the bigger problem is pilot chute springs remaining the same diameter while containers get narrower.

Back when I started rigging (in 1984), 24 or 26 foot diameter, military-surplus, round reserves were the norm. They had about the same pack volume (600 cubic inches) as the PD 253 square reserves now only worn by skydiving students.

That was when Mirage, Vector, Talon, Javelin, etc. designed their modern, piggyback containers. Since then they have kept the same basic configuration, but built progressively smaller versions. As containers get narrower and narrower, the old 6 inch diameter pilot-chutes springs are squeezed into progressively narrower and narrower containers. At some point, the narrower container begins to interfere with pilot-chute springs' launches. 

Parachutes de France was the first to address this problem with reserve pilot-chute caps shaped like race-track ovals. They were packed with the narrowest dimension across the narrow width of the reserve container.

Rigging Innovations addressed the problem with their "Stealth" reserve pilot-chute introduced in 1991.

When Mirage was revived during the 1990s, their first batch got Stealth pilot-chutes, but then they switched to their own narrower spring.

UPT introduced a smaller diameter spring for the their smallest V300 version of the Vector 3/Micron. The smallest Vector 3s will only hold reserves with 99 to 109 square feet.

Javelin was one of the few containers to retain its original, large diameter spring, but because it is outside the side flaps, is far less likely to hesitate. Mind, you narrower Javelins are more difficult to pack neatly because the entire container is not much narrower than the pilot-chute cap and it became more difficult to conceal pilot-chute fabric and mesh.

The South African-built Vortex looks like a Javelin clone from a distance, but the smaller Vortex also have smaller diameter pilot-chute caps.

Racer had a similar problem with their narrowest Racer containers, so Micro Racers got narrower pilot-chute caps to better match the proportions.

The usual caveat allows ambulance-chasing lawyers to copy any or all of my post, but they must pay me $1000 per word.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 12/7/2021 at 11:22 AM, eric.fradet said:

The first day, we proceed to 17 tests and got 3 failed by manually deployment and 5 total malfunction by firing AAD located underneath the reserve PC, which makes a total of 8 on 17..

I cannot tell you more, since it is still under investigation....

Hi Eric,

I've received a statement from Pal Bergan saying :" All ground tests by pulling the reserve ripcord were successful."

So which one is it?

I find it strange that almost 2 months later they haven't identify the problem and came up with a solution.

Edited by Deyan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if Bergan told you that he was lying, not a surprise, he is used to.
Aerodyne has a habit of hiding problems.
Currently the situation is as follows:
before grounding Icon rigs, French Civilian Aviation gives one last chance to Aerodyne to fix its problems of reseve non-opening by manual action.
As Aerodyne will continue to deny and refuse to admit the reality of the facts, Icon rigs will be grounded, it is only a matter of time.

I agree it takes long, but it is because it is right now in discussion, the only way for Aerodyne to prevent its Icon rigs from being grounded is to solve their problems of malfunctions by opening manually the reserve, but it will cost them too much in terms of money and image to accept that,  especially because they start from very far away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aerodyne does not normally take an active role in forum discussions, but we are aware of various conversations that are ongoing on some of the rigging forums regarding recent static ground testing on the Icon containers in France. Aerodyne is currently conducting diligent, in-house verification of all testing.

In real world applications, as the manufacturer, we stand by the millions of safe jumps done on our systems over many years, and our never-ending drive to keep jumpers safe in the skies. Aerodyne will keep everyone informed as soon as possible, and we value our clients greatly.

-Aerodyne Research-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, lazdog23 said:various conversations that are ongoing on some of the rigging forums regarding recent static ground testing on the Icon containers in France. Aerodyne is currently conducting diligent, in-house verification of all testing.

Various conversations? Where else than here ?

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.

1 1