masterrigger1 2 #326 August 9, 2013 Quote I've read, and commented, a number of times in the thread. The USPA does not issue the TSO. The USPA has no regulatory authority over the manufacturers. The USPA does not have either the means nor the expertise to do its own independent equipment testing. All the USPA can do is what they have already done--alert skydivers that there are concerns about a number of incidents of the reserve not coming out in time. Actually they could do one more thing--they could actually release in a consolidated form all of the information they have about all of the accidents. You are missing one thing that USPA can do. They can dis-allow any members from using gear that is questionable or unsafe at group member DZs. The previous Argus issue comes to mind..... MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #327 August 9, 2013 masterrigger1Quote I've read, and commented, a number of times in the thread. The USPA does not issue the TSO. The USPA has no regulatory authority over the manufacturers. The USPA does not have either the means nor the expertise to do its own independent equipment testing. All the USPA can do is what they have already done--alert skydivers that there are concerns about a number of incidents of the reserve not coming out in time. Actually they could do one more thing--they could actually release in a consolidated form all of the information they have about all of the accidents. You are missing one thing that USPA can do. They can dis-allow any members from using gear that is questionable or unsafe at group member DZs. The previous Argus issue comes to mind..... MEL Hi MEL, Yes, that is theoretically an option. I don't think USPA ever banned the argus. Individual drop zones did. Container manufacturer's did. Not USPA. I don't think that is a practical path for the USPA. It would open the USPA for litigation. If USPA was going to ban gear on the basis that it does not meet the TSO (or was unsafe, which would amount to the same thing) then they had better be damn sure they have testing data that shows that. I do not think USPA has either the money or the expertise to do gear testing. If USPA would release the details of the incidents than jumpers could see for themselves if there was gear which featured consistently in such incidents, whether specific AADs, Containers, sizes, or reserve types. That would allow jumpers to make decisions on the basis of safety and put market pressure on the manufacturers, which is IMHO, the most likely way to increase safety. If people won't buy it the manufacturers will change."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #328 August 9, 2013 Quote I don't think USPA ever banned the argus. Individual drop zones did. Container manufacturer's did. Not USPA. USPA did everything except put their name on it. They were joined at the hip with Cliff Schmucker of SSK (read AirTec here) during all of this. They issued notices on their web site, posted Manufacturer's SB, and also issued notifications to DZO's. Yes they were involved.... Quote It would open the USPA for litigation. If USPA was going to ban gear on the basis that it does not meet the TSO (or was unsafe, which would amount to the same thing) then they had better be damn sure they have testing data that shows that. I do not think USPA has either the money or the expertise to do gear testing. Everything we do opens USPA up for litigation. Also, by USPA knowing that unsafe gear is being used and not sharing that information to it's members opens them up for litigation. Quote If USPA would release the details of the incidents than jumpers could see for themselves if there was gear which featured consistently in such incidents, whether specific AADs, Containers, sizes, or reserve types. That would allow jumpers to make decisions on the basis of safety and put market pressure on the manufacturers, which is IMHO, the most likely way to increase safety. If people won't buy it the manufacturers will change. According to a board member that called and informed me, the reason that the hard deck was raised was because one of the leading canopy manufacturers asked for it. Their latest and greatest reserve snivels as can be seen on various videos located here and on YouTube.com. Add that to a low cutaways or AAD fires and you have dead people! Sound familiar? MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #329 August 9, 2013 masterrigger1. . . unsafe gear is being used . . . MEL Other posters have suggested that gear be (re-)tested to be sure it works to standard. Would you be in favor of that? If so, what level of statistical certainty would be acceptable? Would you want to be say, 95% confident that a particular container/reserve/main/AAD combination failed no more than one in a thousand times? Or would you want a different confidence level (99%?) or failure rate (no more than one in 10,000?)? Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #330 August 9, 2013 Mark, I would go with the low number of 95%. If 95 of 100 deployments in testing met the 3 second rule, I would consider it to be in compliance. I think expecting anything higher is improbable or maybe even impossible. MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #331 August 9, 2013 masterrigger1Mark, I would go with the low number of 95%. If 95 of 100 deployments in testing met the 3 second rule, I would consider it to be in compliance. I think expecting anything higher is improbable or maybe even impossible. MEL Hi MEL, Who would do the testing and where would the money come from?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #332 August 9, 2013 Quote Hi MEL, Who would do the testing and where would the money come from? If the FAA was petitioned and the equipment was questioned by the FAA; the it would be the manufacturer. I do believe a third party needs to also witness all testing in the future though. Who that would be is a good question though. MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #333 August 9, 2013 masterrigger1Mark, I would go with the low number of 95%. If 95 of 100 deployments in testing met the 3 second rule, I would consider it to be in compliance. I think expecting anything higher is improbable or maybe even impossible. MEL When we test parachutes or anything else, what we are doing is taking a sample. We can't be 100% certain our sample is representative of the whole; we settle for some percentage less than that, usually 95% or 99%. We are also interested in the failure rate of the population as a whole, in the case, the failure rate of a particular combination of container/reserve/main/AAD. What I think you are saying above is that you would find a failure rate of 5% to be acceptable. Is that right? If so, how sure would you like to be that the failure rate of the population as a whole is 5%? Another way: how sure would you like to be that your sample is representative? Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #334 August 9, 2013 Quote When we test parachutes or anything else, what we are doing is taking a sample. We can't be 100% certain our sample is representative of the whole; we settle for some percentage less than that, usually 95% or 99%. We are also interested in the failure rate of the population as a whole, in the case, the failure rate of a particular combination of container/reserve/main/AAD. What I think you are saying above is that you would find a failure rate of 5% to be acceptable. Is that right? If so, how sure would you like to be that the failure rate of the population as a whole is 5%? Another way: how sure would you like to be that your sample is representative? Several points here: 1. Yes 5% is acceptable on my end 2. I think the 3 second rule needs to hold up in at least 95 of 100 tests by the manufacturer. The same type parachute (not the exact same one) should be used in a SPC (Statistical Process Control) mode were a sampling on the finished product is pulled and then tested. 3. The same with a random rigger that packs the same: not necessarily the same factory rigger. MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #335 August 9, 2013 masterrigger1Quote Hi MEL, Who would do the testing and where would the money come from? If the FAA was petitioned and the equipment was questioned by the FAA; the it would be the manufacturer. I do believe a third party needs to also witness all testing in the future though. Who that would be is a good question though. MEL Hi MEL, So you are not proposing USPA ban gear without additional substantial data. You are not proposing that USPA conduct their own testing. I fail to see any difference in what I posted above. I guess USPA can take their concerns to the FAA if they want. As you are well aware that is a big can of worms to open. Ken"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3mpire 0 #336 August 9, 2013 http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/EN/RTO-EN-HFM-113///EN-HFM-113-03.pdf clicky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #337 August 9, 2013 Quote So you are not proposing USPA ban gear without additional substantial data. I never said that. I do think (since they have the incident report and etc...) they should man up and let everyone know what gear is in question. Quote You are not proposing that USPA conduct their own testing. No, I am not proposing that. I am saying that certain gear needs to be certified again by the manufacturer. Quote I guess USPA can take their concerns to the FAA if they want. As you are well aware that is a big can of worms to open. This is exactly what the PIA AND USPA should have done instead of issue a notice to riggers which was a failed attempt to put the onus on the rigger instead of the manufacturer. With regards to the "can of worms" statement. Sometimes you have to take out the "stinky trash" so to speak...Somebody's go to do it or it never gets done! MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #338 August 9, 2013 masterrigger1Quote When we test parachutes or anything else, what we are doing is taking a sample. We can't be 100% certain our sample is representative of the whole; we settle for some percentage less than that, usually 95% or 99%. We are also interested in the failure rate of the population as a whole, in the case, the failure rate of a particular combination of container/reserve/main/AAD. What I think you are saying above is that you would find a failure rate of 5% to be acceptable. Is that right? If so, how sure would you like to be that the failure rate of the population as a whole is 5%? Another way: how sure would you like to be that your sample is representative? Several points here: 1. Yes 5% is acceptable on my end 2. I think the 3 second rule needs to hold up in at least 95 of 100 tests by the manufacturer. The same type parachute (not the exact same one) should be used in a SPC (Statistical Process Control) mode where a sampling on the finished product is pulled and then tested. 3. The same with a random rigger that packs the same: not necessarily the same factory rigger. MEL Making progress. How sure would you like to be that the actual failure rate of all the rigs with the same configuration is no more than 5%? What combinations would you test? Mirage Systems, for example, lists 42 main canopies and 9 reserve canopies for its MZS-size containers, which means about 400 different possible combinations. Mirage is okay with Cypres-1, Cypres-2, Vigil-1, Vigil-2, Argus, and MarS AADs, which means even more combinations. Plus the main container might be full or empty. How would you choose which to test, or would you want Mirage Systems to test all of them? (Not hitting on Mirage, particularly. All manufacturers would be in the same boat.) Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisD 0 #339 August 9, 2013 Southern_Man *** Do we really believe the USPA, the PIA, the manufactuers, and the FAA are not studying this issue? And, do we really think that the manufactuer who solves this problem will not be rewarded with sales $$$$'s by advertising the results? When you buy gear, do so based on safety results from testing and not "how cool it looks". When we do that in mass, watch the manufactuers change there tune. The bottom line in all of this... $$$$$ Talks!!! I believe the BOD did "what they could do" to address this issue. Now, it's up to ME (and you)! We vote on this issue everytime we spend a dollar on gear. I see no evidence that any of the bodies you mentioned up at the top are doing a thing to study the issue. If they are then they are being awfully quiet about it. I'll rephrase this: Not a fuckin one of them is studying anything, not their job man.... Just manufacturers trying to make a buck. Allthoogh some of those manufacturers have your best interests at heart. And get off the USPA, while I'm at it,... The USPA is a member organization, that s us....it's some of your fellow skydivers that your speaking about, with differing viewpoints.... C Get the skydiving public to reach a consensus and stuff will change. Raise everyones' education level and knowledge! Look at what Ron is trying to say in a different way.... Those mouth-piece's have a lot of clout because so many just accept their collective viewpoint. Some of them think about the issues, and many just go with the reccomoondation. And you would be correct to think that they don't think...is this a bad thing? The bottom line is: Is this an argument that at its heart is the battle of the individual expressing their desire for personal choice or V the attempts to save individuals in large numbers? I'll tell ya one thing you all better start reaching some kind of consensus cause this infighting is not doing anyone any good! But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #340 August 9, 2013 ChrisD Not a fuckin one of them is studying anything, not their job man.... I'll take that as a personal attack. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisD 0 #341 August 9, 2013 Dude, it's not a personal attack. I'm not saying everyone isn't doing everything they can to improve gear or do the best they can. Gear has undergone a revolution in design over the years. Every stitch and improvement has been hard won and usually at a steep price. What the comment was directed at is the fact that there really isn't a study or science to this design. But people think that there is! Many individuals that I have spoken with think that gear, including AAD's underwent some kind of expensive R & D at a level that just didn't take place. Yes we have spent time and money but not at the level that the public stereotype believes took place. I have frequently promoted that the manufacturers remain in the central position to receive any and all information regarding rigging and any other issue to the detriment of many riggers that say all or any repair or modification can be done in the field. The manufacturers need this information to remain in a proactive position to improve their gear. This is not the same as designing a rig from the ground up. The evolution is just that, an evolution, not a study. If we in fact had the funds to study at the level that people think we do....this would truly be revolutionary and a number of questions would in fact have a basis for change. And the corrallary would also be that a number of common practices would be changed as well.... Your reaction, and that is what it is, a reaction, is part of the problem. You could have said so many other things that had some kind of constructive intent or educational value. But alas so much of this post is reaction as compared with thinking with at least 50 differing things going on,...no wonder there is soo much miscommunication....But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #342 August 9, 2013 mark Making progress. How sure would you like to be that the actual failure rate of all the rigs with the same configuration is no more than 5%? What combinations would you test? Mirage Systems, for example, lists 42 main canopies and 9 reserve canopies for its MZS-size containers, which means about 400 different possible combinations. Mirage is okay with Cypres-1, Cypres-2, Vigil-1, Vigil-2, Argus, and MarS AADs, which means even more combinations. Plus the main container might be full or empty. How would you choose which to test, or would you want Mirage Systems to test all of them? (Not hitting on Mirage, particularly. All manufacturers would be in the same boat.) Mark Yes, in an ideal world the manufacturers would test every possible combination, but we all know that isn't realistic so Bill's already addressed this - begin with combinations that have proven fatal in the past. Then move onto combinations that have suspected issues as directed by riggers who pack them. It sounds like you're looking for reasons NOT to do any testing because it'll be hard? I completely agree that the testing needs to be thorough and comparative, but it isn't rocket science - there's no need to make it impossible. The criteria for the tests are all there in the TSO. All we're asking is that the same tests are repeated for new container / reserve configurations. Edit - we're sort of picking on harness manufacturers here, but IMO if they're thrown under a bus by the canopy manufacturers those two groups need to sort themselves out - not just the container makers. And if it's exorbitantly expensive to do testing, there's always the possibility of collaboration with other parachuting organizations. While the TSO may not apply in other countries, it's in all jumpers best interests to know if there is a problem with common gear and as such the USPA could (I think) ask for assistance with funding the testing from the BPA, PASA, CSPA etc... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #343 August 9, 2013 >Out of interest from a terminal (belly) speed, what is the minimum theoretical >deceleration distance, before the G forces injure/kill you? During Robin Berg's hard opening (that _almost_ killed him and damaged his rig) I heard numbers like 10-12 G's during opening. Assuming a terminal velocity of 200 feet per second (about 120mph) that deceleration would stop you in about 60 feet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #344 August 9, 2013 >If 95 of 100 deployments in testing met the 3 second rule, I would consider it to be in compliance. In that case we are almost certainly in compliance now. Very few jumpers have experienced longer delays in reserve openings. (We, of course, only hear about the ones who DO experience longer delays, especially when that delay results in a fatality.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #345 August 9, 2013 Think blast handles.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #346 August 9, 2013 yoinkYes, in an ideal world the manufacturers would test every possible combination, but we all know that isn't realistic so Bill's already addressed this - begin with combinations that have proven fatal in the past. Then move onto combinations that have suspected issues as directed by riggers who pack them. It sounds like you're looking for reasons NOT to do any testing because it'll be hard? I completely agree that the testing needs to be thorough and comparative, but it isn't rocket science - there's no need to make it impossible. The criteria for the tests are all there in the TSO. All we're asking is that the same tests are repeated for new container / reserve configurations. I'm not against testing. I'm just trying to understand exactly what you're asking for. Let's say there is a container/reserve/main/AAD combination that has been involved in a fatality that we suspect includes a low reserve opening. How many test drops would you want to do for that combination? How sure would you like to be that your test drops would detect a problem? Would you do all the drops on the suspect rig, or would it be okay to test other rigs with the exactly the same combination of components? Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peek 20 #347 August 9, 2013 billvon>Out of interest from a terminal (belly) speed, what is the minimum theoretical >deceleration distance, before the G forces injure/kill you? During Robin Berg's hard opening (that _almost_ killed him and damaged his rig) I heard numbers like 10-12 G's during opening. Assuming a terminal velocity of 200 feet per second (about 120mph) that deceleration would stop you in about 60 feet. FYI: We created a new simple article in response to people asking us about typical G-forces. It deliberately does not have a lot of detail because most people would not understand it anyway. Just a few basic numbers from some of the research we have done. http://www.pcprg.com/g-forces.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #348 August 9, 2013 >Let's say there is a container/reserve/main/AAD combination that has been involved in >a fatality that we suspect includes a low reserve opening. How many test drops would >you want to do for that combination? 30 > How sure would you like to be that your test drops would detect a problem? Relatively sure. >Would you do all the drops on the suspect rig, or would it be okay to test other rigs >with the exactly the same combination of components? All on suspect rig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #349 August 9, 2013 Quote In that case we are almost certainly in compliance now. Very few jumpers have experienced longer delays in reserve openings. (We, of course, only hear about the ones who DO experience longer delays, especially when that delay results in a fatality.) Not quite! You really need to look at some recent cutaway videos. I think you might just get a wakeup call. There are several that are in the 4-6 second range and some even a little longer. MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #350 August 9, 2013 >You really need to look at some recent cutaway videos. I think you might just get >a wakeup call. There are several that are in the 4-6 second range and some even a >little longer. Sounds like we do need some additional testing then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
