one more Icon malfunction

[sfzombie13 307]

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...

[rjklein4470 23]

I don't know any skydivers who jump without the leg straps, and the rig looks really knew.  I don't thing the hesitation would have happened if the rig was on properly.  

[riggerrob 558]

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The FAA used to issue Special Inspections, but they have been replaced by Service Bulletins issued by parachute manufacturers or foreign governing bodies (British Civil Aviation Authority or Australian Parachute Federation).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.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

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The FAA used to issue Special Inspections, but they have been replaced by Service Bulletins issued by parachute manufacturers or foreign governing bodies (British Civil Aviation Authority or Australian Parachute Federation).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

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

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 December 7, 2021 by JerryBaumchen

[riggerrob 558]

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.

[riggerrob 558]

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.

[Deyan 31]

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 January 10, 2022 by Deyan

[eric.fradet 17]

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...

[lazdog23 7]

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-

[piisfish 135]

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 ?

[lazdog23 7]

Various amounting to the discussion here and 1 additional thread, with some of the same people commenting... but the internet is a big place :)  

Edited January 19, 2022 by lazdog23

[lazdog23 7]

We would like to inform you that Aerodyne Research has issued a technical bulletin regarding the AAD cutter placement. It can be found on the Aerodyne support pages here:

http://www.flyaerodyne.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/TB-250122-Bulletin-AAD-Cutter-placement.pdf

Thank you,

 

Aerodyne Research

[Deyan 31]

33 minutes ago, lazdog23 said:

We would like to inform you that Aerodyne Research has issued a technical bulletin regarding the AAD cutter placement. It can be found on the Aerodyne support pages here:

http://www.flyaerodyne.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/TB-250122-Bulletin-AAD-Cutter-placement.pdf

Thank you,

 

Aerodyne Research

What about the lockups after the ripcord pull? How is the cutter relocating going to fix those?

Are you planing on changing the RPC cap to concave in order to accommodate for the extra thickness of the cutter? The rigs after the modification look like shit by the way.

[carrier louis paul 0]

13 hours ago, lazdog23 said:

We would like to inform you that Aerodyne Research has issued a technical bulletin regarding the AAD cutter placement. It can be found on the Aerodyne support pages here:

http://www.flyaerodyne.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/TB-250122-Bulletin-AAD-Cutter-placement.pdf

Thank you,

 

Aerodyne Research

so if I understand well, in 2008 Aerodyne was forced by French Parachute Federation to publish the service bulletin SB210108 for an alternative cutter location above reserve PC, then Aerodyne has been complaining for 12 years the French Parachute Federation to revoke the "French" placement of the cutter pretending there is no safety reason regarding improvement of safety to change the "normal positionning of the cutter below the reserve PC".

French Parachute Federation finally agreed to do so in october 2020, before French Civilian Aviation Agency made mandatory in november 2021 the change for cutter placement above reserve PC.

And finally Aerodyne in january 2022, highly recommend the cutter placement above reserve PC after discriminating for 12 years the French position.

The least we can say is that Aerodyne does not know its own equipment, will you trust such a manufacturer ? what's next ?

[pchapman 261]

The bulletin doesn't make it really clear, but I see that it applies only to the Nexgen Icons (which have been produced from around mid-2013 onwards) since it is for the "IX" series Icons only (= Nexgen). And only the smaller sizes, I-1 to I-5, plus the S-5 (the smallest of the S series).

The Nexgen manual showed the AAD cutter only the "under the pilot chute", while the manual for the pre-Nexgen Icons shows both possible locations.

Although the change is "recommended", I wonder how many jumpers will bother to get all that sewing done to move the cutter...

[phantomII 36]

This same shit happend with the Atom containers from PdF in the early 2000 years.
After having the alteration done the top flap stood up and was, in my eyes, a serious danger if somebody brushed over my container.
I really didn't like that and got rid of the rig.

[carrier louis paul 0]

1 hour ago, phantomII said:

This same shit happend with the Atom containers from PdF in the early 2000 years.
After having the alteration done the top flap stood up and was, in my eyes, a serious danger if somebody brushed over my container.
I really didn't like that and got rid of the rig.

at least it helps the reserve container to open in case of total malfunction ! not a surprise in fact, Icon rig is a bad copy of Atom rig, actually Aerodyne is a bad copy cat machine of everything on the market

[phantomII 36]

33 minutes ago, carrier louis paul said:

at least it helps the reserve container to open in case of total malfunction ! not a surprise in fact, Icon rig is a bad copy of Atom rig, actually Aerodyne is a bad copy cat machine of everything on the market

Funny, back in the days we used to say that the Icon is the better Atom.

[andrew_rawls 1]

On 1/14/2022 at 4:09 PM, eric.fradet said:

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...

Eric, I have the utmost respect for your knowledge and contributions to sport parachuting. Still, I'm wondering what substantive evidence you have or could share where you mention that based on your research and tests, if the PC is inside the container, then it's best to have the cutter above it, which is something contrary to how the #1 selling container on the market is engineered.

Regards,

Andrew Rawls, MBA
D-40168, FAA Senior Rigger
www.senditskydiving.com

[eric.fradet 17]

14 hours ago, andrew_rawls said:

 

Eric, I have the utmost respect for your knowledge and contributions to sport parachuting. Still, I'm wondering what substantive evidence you have or could share where you mention that based on your research and tests, if the PC is inside the container, then it's best to have the cutter above it, which is something contrary to how the #1 selling container on the market is engineered.

Regards,

Andrew Rawls, MBA
D-40168, FAA Senior Rigger
www.senditskydiving.com

 

The idea of a reserve not deploying in time after an AAD firing is totally unacceptable and defeats the reason for having an AAD in the first place, and it is worst when we speak about reserve Pilot Chute failing to clear the side flaps when manually pulled by its handle.

in 2008, all the major rig manufacturers using a retractable reserve pin cover (Parachutes de France, MIRAGE, PARATEC) accepted , as a precautionary measure, the change in the cutter position.

On Vector rig the reserve pin cover flap uses a tuck tab which is a folding tongue underneath instead of sliding into a slot at the top of the midflap ( which I call retractable), it is a safer design.

Since 2008, AERODYNE has not worked on a device to retract the cutter body in the top of the reserve P/C contrary to the others manufacturers using a retractable reserve pin cover.

As a consequence of which, collateral damage inherent to this cutter location such as deformation of the closing flap above the cutter and markings on the grommets are only observed is on NEXGEN generation rigs.

The ICON rigs before the NEXGEN generation of rigs do, in fact, have a tolerance to accept the cutter location above the reserve P/C without damage, and therefore a shortened cut of the closing loop which is a guarantee of perfect operation in the event of an AAD firing due to a total malfunction.

Otherwise a cutter located below the flaps, makes the container have to open from the inside out, and that takes more energy and results in a delay in container opening.

I have to isolate Icon rig from other rigs with 4 flaps above reserve PC :

Aerodyne uses a stiffer plastic than other manufacturers 1.5mm plastic instead of 1.0 mm makes a difference enough to re-enforce a wrong way and makes the Icon a very steamlined rig (not sure of the exact term in English and that's not a compliment).

When we proceed to reserve manual test on Icon rigs, we found out the main issue is the double (10 cmX 8,5 cm) stiffener of the central flap #5 ; since it is not flexible enough it does not bend and does not help the reserve pin cover flap to lift outside while the pin is extracted.

Also on last Icon rigs, the reserve pin cover flap is excessively long, recently Aerodyne made them longer, probably because the flaps kept coming loose during free fall and this change participate to keep the container locked when open from the out side in : by manually pulling the reserve ripcord specially on ballistic Icon rigs.

In this situation, reserve flap #6 is caught by pinching in between reserve flap #5 and reserve pin cover flap.

Keep in mind what when the main is still in his container, the flap #5 clearance is limited because it is largely encompassed by the main side flaps which does not help.

Now Aerodyne could make necessary corrective actions to change all of these defects but then, the rig …will be named differently !

[BMAC615 205]

Thank you @carrier louis paul for raising this important issue. It is quite likely your posts, at least in part, resulted in this latest technical bulletin. Also, thank you @eric.fradet for your detailed responses and clarifications.

Edited January 31, 2022 by BMAC615

[ChrisHoward 8]

On 1/29/2022 at 7:11 PM, andrew_rawls said:

which is something contrary to how the #1 selling container on the market is engineered.

 

You can not compare these 2 rigs. There is more differences between these 2 rigs than just cutter location.

[iranianjumper 2]

on seconds 10 - 11 on this video , what drops from container after pilot Chute goes out ?

it is marked by red on the picture .

[glh 4]

Rigger needs to remove all his tools before closing packjob,Would probably work like it is supposed too with out extra items that don't belong inside!