1 1
eric.fradet

Curv, CPX not working very properly

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, sfzombie13 said:

so you're saying that the tso applies even after changing equipment?  i thought they had to get a new tso if they change something.  interesting. 

That is my understanding. That most of the new containers that we now jump are incremental upgrades and are still approved under approvals granted many years ago. I am not an expert on this and there are probably exceptions, but it is generally true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

so you're saying that the tso applies even after changing equipment?  i thought they had to get a new tso if they change something.  interesting. 

TSO is useless for that exact reason. You could certify something, then change it as many times as you wish as long as you log it as a "minor change". Vector Micron from February 2022 is exact same rig like 2 pinned Wonderhog from 1977 ..... In the eyes of the FAA

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Deyan said:

TSO is useless for that exact reason

TSO testing is kind of useless as you state. The real value to the TSO system is the requirement for maintaining manufacturing standards and traceability of materials. There is also a procedure for bringing design flaws to the attention of the FAA, and the manufacturer. One that does not involve accusations and angry claims on social media. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Deyan said:

TSO is useless for that exact reason. You could certify something, then change it as many times as you wish as long as you log it as a "minor change". Vector Micron from February 2022 is exact same rig like 2 pinned Wonderhog from 1977 ..... In the eyes of the FAA

Hi Deyan,

Actually, it is from 1974 when the Wonderhog was originally certificated.

Just for those perfectionist types.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

TSO testing is kind of useless as you state. The real value to the TSO system is the requirement for maintaining manufacturing standards and traceability of materials. There is also a procedure for bringing design flaws to the attention of the FAA, and the manufacturer. One that does not involve accusations and angry claims on social media. 

Hi Ken,

In no TSO standard is there any mention of any req'ment for traceability of the mat'ls. used. 

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


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

Hi Ken,

In no TSO standard is there any mention of any req'ment for traceability of the mat'ls. used. 

Jerry Baumchen

There you go, as I said I'm no expert. But there are experts here. Is there a requirement that approved materials are used?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Is there a requirement that approved materials are used?

 For FAA approval, any requirement for approved materials and traceability will be in the production certificate.  Only critical materials need to be approved and traceable; exactly which these are is a matter of negotiation between the manufacturer and the manufacturer's supervising MIDO.

Share this post


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

 For FAA approval, any requirement for approved materials and traceability will be in the production certificate.  Only critical materials need to be approved and traceable; exactly which these are is a matter of negotiation between the manufacturer and the manufacturer's supervising MIDO.

Hi Mark,

In one iteration of the FAA's Quality Program req'ments, the FAA said something to the effect that all 'special processes' had to be well-defined, detailed and to develop written procedures on just how these 'special processes' were controlled within the certificate holder's facility.  I merely wrote in my Quality Program Manual that the processes used in manufacturing my rigs were:

-  Cutting

- Sewing

- Swaging

I then stated that, within the parachute industry, these were not 'special processes' but were normal manufacturing processes.  The FAA seemed to accept this as they approved that version of my QPM.  I never wrote anything regarding how I controlled these 'special processes.'

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Re:  any requirement for approved materials and traceability will be in the production certificate

I no longer have any records for my former businesses; however, I do not recall this being in the letter from the FAA granting any of my TSO-authorizations.  That does not mean that some other ACO did not put such wording into their letters of authorization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
9 hours ago, Deyan said:

How about you are unconscious and your AAD fires..... because of your body position only ONE raiser cover opens.... How would you like a spinning line twist under your reserve?

 

9 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

you could pick apart one-offs and exceptions all day long and come up with any number of situations where something may or may not work as intended.  that doesn't make any of them likely or valid reasons to change anything. 

 

I would not consider an unconscious AAD fire to be a one-off exception that is unlikely or invalid.

Edited by dudeman17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

 

 

I would not consider an unconscious AAD fire to be a one-off exception that is unlikely or invalid.

i would since it rarely happens.  even if it were common being unconscious and having only one riser cover release is not.  if you still think it is common to have that happen, show me some statistics that cover it.  i know i have not heard of one all last year, and even one per year could be considered uncommon considering how many jumps are made.  and of course it is like all things that are dangerous, even if it happens once every 50 years it sucks when you're the once.  but not enough that it requires anything special to be done to prevent that one time.  maybe we should all just wait and see what becomes of this accusation rather than argue about the motives of the finders.  i recall that happening last time and it turned out they were right.  they may be right again and they just may save a life.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the Society of Automotive Engineers (or Parachute Industry Association) written a standard for the number of Teslas that a magnet needs to generate?

I just used rare earth magnet (purchased from Lee Valley Tools) when I added magnetic riser covers to my Vector 1.5. If anything, they were too weak because the down-wind riser cover opened when I turned sideways to the wind (relevant while crawling out on the Cessna strut with IAD students).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

they may be right again and they just may save a life.

For a post seemingly meant to disagree with mine, that statement seems to agree with the point I was agreeing with.

 

12 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

maybe we should all just wait and see what becomes of this accusation rather than argue about the motives of the finders

I'm personally not that concerned with their (ulterior) motives. If someone is out there looking for potential flaws in gear function, I'm all for it.

 

-------

 

To me, unconscious or otherwise incapacitated is the primary reason for an AAD. If someone is fully conscious and capable and they take an AAD fire, then by all rights they should have gone in. NO, I DO NOT prefer that people go in. I prefer that if they are going to place themselves in situations like skydiving that they pay attention to what they are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

To me, unconscious or otherwise incapacitated is the primary reason for an AAD. If someone is fully conscious and capable and they take an AAD fire, then by all rights they should have gone in. NO, I DO NOT prefer that people go in. I prefer that if they are going to place themselves in situations like skydiving that they pay attention to what they are doing.

whether that is the reason for them or not the fact remains that having one fire is a somewhat rare event, and being unconscious when it happens is more rare still, while not having a riser cover release on one or both sides while unconscious is yet even more rare.  even so, i would like to wait and see what happens and if there is a fix for the issue that was raised.  if it saves one life it's worth it, but at the same time i don't think it has been a factor that i recall hearing about in any fatality.  i'm not concerned with ulterior motives either, we all have them most of the time.  when it comes down to it, the only reason i got an aad was so i could travel around and jump anywhere.  turns out that the universe decided to throw covid out there right afterwards though as a sort of reminder that i'm not traveling anywhere just yet though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

 If someone is fully conscious and capable and they take an AAD fire, then by all rights they should have gone in.

Thanks for your insight. I wanted to type something else but would not want to go to dz.com prison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

Clarify that please.

 

9 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

Clarify that please.

I believe the "...by all rights..." wording is the issue.  Even if you didn't mean to condemn anyone saved because of losing track of time, it can easily be received as "those aren't deserving of being saved".  This might be especially true when a person was actually saved in that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sundevil777 said:

 

I believe the "...by all rights..." wording is the issue.  Even if you didn't mean to condemn anyone saved because of losing track of time, it can easily be received as "those aren't deserving of being saved".  This might be especially true when a person was actually saved in that way.

Yup. I have an AAD in my rig. 

Mostly it's there in case something happens and I'm incapacitated and CAN'T pull.

 

BUT...

It's also there in case I REALLY screw up and Don't pull.

 

One could argue that I 'don't deserve' a save after an incident that's my own fault.
Or one could argue that my own shortcomings and faults are part of why it's there.

(Note: In either case the AAD may or may not save me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2022 at 2:03 PM, eric.fradet said:

not sure it is a non-issue to jump a rig, with riser cover not able to open when you pull the reserve only, whatever it is legal or not, Sandy Reid is dishonest and not qualified enough to certify a rig without even tested it, It is exclusively from France since there is no other country where people like me are paid only to find out the design flaws

The fact that Mr. Fradet is not objective and he has not recused himself from investigating, his bosses need to know he is using his position to Slander one of the most knowledgeable trustworthy people on parachute equipment in public for private gain. I in fact had an issue with riser covers on a Handbury rig years ago that did not release on a totaled main it did not cause any injuries and was just a nuisance easily felt with. Mr. Fradet you have no credibility in this issue!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, accumack said:

I in fact had an issue with riser covers on a Handbury rig years ago that did not release on a totaled main it did not cause any injuries and was just a nuisance easily felt with.

That's interesting. Most likely main risers tightly packed over the top caused the problem? And a round reserve wouldn't really spin and dive as a result.

Side note trivia question - Has anyone else ever deployed a square reserve from a Handbury rig?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

That's interesting. Most likely main risers tightly packed over the top caused the problem? And a round reserve wouldn't really spin and dive as a result.

Side note trivia question - Has anyone else ever deployed a square reserve from a Handbury rig?

The riser covers had velcro on the underside of the harness and this was with a square reserve. With the the main in the container the harness was tight and pinched the covers closed.

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