0
Communications

USPA and PIA Issue Joint Skydiver Advisory

Recommended Posts

Quote

This is how I found the Quasar problem. See youtube video from my basement, posted by the owner.



I believe this is it.

Danielcroft:

Quote

Can someone please just tell us what the bloody issue is?



See Post #70
"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John,

You apparently have seen much more information than I have. You've said so. In fact, I have not seen ANY information beyond what was either posted on this website or published in Parachutist. Where did I say I had? I was consulted on a near final draft. I added what I thought was some useful wording.

There have been some incidents. We all have heard about at least some of them. The one you describe above included. I know of no evidence indicating any make or model of rig, canopy, or AAD is more dangerous, OR less dangerous than another.

Quoting from the advisory...
Possible factors may include, but are not limited to, body position of the jumper, the reserve pilot chute getting caught in the burble, inhibitory actions by the jumper, entanglement with the jumper or other equipment, condition of the container and reserve components, exact combination of components utilized, fit of the reserve canopy in the container, AAD setting or functionality, reserve packing methods, container design and reserve pilot chute spring strength, as well as various combinations of these factors and other factors that have yet to be determined.

Out of eleven possible contributors, not an exclusive list, container design is one, possibly in combination with others. This throws AAD's, riggers and jumpers "under the bus" as much or more than container manufacturers. I just realized the one thing left out was the reserve canopy itself.

The advisory first reminds jumpers to adjust their pack opening altitude to have a their main open by at least 1800' or 2500' depending on license. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Second it suggests a rig owner should pull his reserve when due for a repack under the observation of a rigger to observe the PC launch and subsequent "table" deployment. Best done for worst case with the main packed. If something seems wrong check it out, let the manufacturer know, and PIA would like to collect the data.

Hmmm, this is what I've done my entire rigging career. Nothing new here except someone is looking for possible trends. Sounds like a good idea to me. I have found in asking a number of folks that a lot of riggers remove the main first if it's packed or attached. Not because they don't want to see what happens with it in but because they need to remove it anyway to inspect and pack the reserve and they just do it first. This suggests maybe doing it second.

Third, the advisory reminds all skydivers to learn how their equipment works and how it should be used. This would include learning how not to set an AAD incorrectly and how to pull a reserve ripcord. The fact that we have as many AAD fires as we do means that somebody is forgetting something. A lot/most/all most all (pick one) would have been bounces in the 'old' days. Hmmm, still sounds like a good thing.

Where does any of this throw anyone, let alone rig manufacturers, under the bus? The answer about whether a particular brand of container, canopy, AAD, etc. is dangerous is NOT "some of them are and some of them aren't. USPA won't tell us". The answer is that a PARTICULAR combination of an individual rig, individual reserve, all of the associated components, AND the individual skydiver may not function as expected all of the time. Yep, sometimes parachutes don't work. Your own Racer manual says so.
Quoted from the Racer manual online today..

" IT IS ASSUMED THAT INTENTIONALLY JUMP -
ING FROM AN AIRPLANE IN FLIGHT OR FROM
A FIXED OBJECT IS DANGEROUS TO LIFE AND
LIMB. PARACHUTES DO NOT ALWAYS WORK
AS DESIRED. WHEN YOU TAKE IT UPON
YOURSELF TO PARTICIPATE IN PARACHUTE
JUMPING, YOU ACCEPT THE FACT THAT NO
MATTER HOW CAREFUL YOU ARE, OR HOW
GOOD YOUR EQUIPMENT IS, YOU CAN BE SE -
RIOUSLY OR FATALLY INJURED."

You seem to have some preconceived absolute answer. Is there a conflict of interest there?

I remind you once again, YOU ARE PIA! Let me know when you'd like to help.

BTW, you didn't mention if I've resolved your issue with an apparent conflict of interest for the reporting. Have I?

Concerning TSO testing.. Have you tested every size of each model of your container wiith every canopy, brand, model and size that might possibly fit in it? Large and small? I'm sure you haven't. No manufacturer can. This is where we might learn something from rigger observations.

Oh, and to answer your question, no. Your description of 'any and all' is too broad. I expect that both organizations have personal, proprietary, and meaningless information. Information of use to skydivers, riggers, and manufacturers? Of course.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As a point of information concerning any and all rigs, I have a question. John Sherman would seem to be someone who could answer this.

Aren't harness/container systems required to pass TSO testing for approval ? In addition to just the reserve canopies, I have been under the impression that the entire reserve system (harness, container, pilot chute, freebag, and canopy, etc.) are supposed to open in something like 3 seconds or 300 ft. of initial pilot chute release. Izzat so ?

Is real TSO testing being conducted, or are the test results submitted just another "conspiratorial dog & pony show" ?



What your forgetting is that no manufacturer is required to test every size. And remember that most H/C and canopies are TSO'd separately. No manufacturer of a H/C can test every reserve, and each size that might fit in it, large or small, in every size of container. Add in the few test required with the main closed, but what main and what size, and very few combinations are tested.

You can find the current and last two TSO standards in the FAA Parachute Rigger Handbook. Note that TSO C23b, which the Vector, Mirage and the Racer among others are certified, was superceeded in 1984. Does that mean that these containers have never been drop tested with reserves designed and marketed after 1984? Probably not but maybe.

So has your combination of container size, reserve make, model and size with an AAD installed and the main closed with the same size main as yours ever been drop tested to meet the 300' / 3 sec standard. Not likely. Almost certainly not.

Does that mean that it won't work? No. Does that mean that it will work every time? No.

That's the reality of our sport and our equipment. Everyone from designers, manufacturers, riggers etc. intend for the equipment to work. But there are no guarantees.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One example is low reserve deployments. Research shows that In the past 10 years there has been about one fatality per year in the U.S. in which for uncertain reasons. the jumpers snuck the ground without a fully functional Reserve parachute after apparent reserve activation at a sufficient altitude. Although most of these incidents occurred after the automatic activation device (AAD) initiated reserve deployment. others occurred after a manual reserve ripcord pull or activation by a reserve static line (RSL). PIA bas tasked its Technical Committee to collect and review relevant data. to work within the industry in order to identify any trends or specific causes and to make any relevant recommendations.

The above paragraph taken from the advisory and indicates that there is problem with any and all parachutes. If that is not acquisitory to all rigs then I don't know what is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where does this paragraph acquse the H/C? By rig do you mean H/C? Or canopy, AAD, rigger? My guess, and it's only a guess, based on popularity is that one reserve canopy may correlate better with these problems than any H/C. Or maybe not, I don't know. But does that mean that's it's the canopy? I don't know what one thing, or many things, have caused these fatalities. You seem to. There are various people that believe all of the above are the problem. I hope we find out. Or it may just be the what your manual says, PARACHUTES DO NOT ALWAYS WORK.

How about the rest of my post?

BTW John I have on hand a reserve you remanufactured in 1974 (I think). A 24' T-10 you cut modifications in. And no I'm not packing it. Along with my prototype SST I got from Sam Brown of the Rainbow Flyers, which gave me a 1400' reserve deployment hesitation.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Terry,

It is likely that all you say about the unpredictability of a reserve systems is true.

And I'll admit that when people are needing an I&R and the rig is sitting on the ground with the main open, I often will tell them to just keep the main. I'll change that habit as a result of this advisory.

But then, we are still left with the question of how to make our current systems sufficiently reliable that we are not faced with such an unpredictable outcome.

Right now, there are a lot of things tied to the idea that a reserve is "supposed" to open in 300 feet. Our deployment altitudes are chosen with an eye to this, and our AADs are most certainly programmed with this parameter in mind.

Maybe you cannot answer this, but if you can, or even if you have a theory, please try to say something.

Is it likely that this problem will be improved by giving the parachute more time/altitude to deply? Or do you think that these are situations where the parachute is going to fail even if it had unlimited time/altitude for deployment?

If the situation will likely respond to additional time/altitude, then it is already time to make some serious adjustments to the systems we use.

Telling people to open higher will go a long way to warding off tragedies if altitude will help. (BTW - I like your idea that we should be talking about saddled-out altitudes as opposed to pack opening altitudes.) But I don't think that gentle suggestions will get the job done.

And we also need the AAD manufacturers to change the firing parameters to help with the portion of the population that will decide to rely on their AAD instead of taking matters into their own hands.

Many times in the past I have said that I feel we have a training problem if this "wait for the AAD" attitude is as common as it is. I get a lot of flack for that.

I'll change my tune some here. Maybe it is not a training problem. Maybe we are training as best we can, but these people still fall back to the idea that the AAD will save them. Even if it is not a training problem, we still have to do something to address the problem. If it is simply the case that the we want to keep the types of people who think like this in the sport, then we need to accommodate them as best we can. If we cannot train them out of this, we need to give them other tools that will address the issue.

This is why I say that maybe it is time to raise everything up a substantial amount, and to make adjustments in the AADs as well. If we expect it to take 700 or 800 or even 1000 feet for a reserve to open, the AADs must do their thing higher if they are to be acceptably reliable for the type of person who wants to jump these days.

Some may say that we can already adjust the firing altitude of our AADs, and maybe, depending on how much altitude we want to add, this is a possibility. But it leaves a whole lot on the jumper, and I think it is a stopgap measure at best.

So I think that we must have the AADs changed to give a wider margin to accommodate the jumper who is, despite our best efforts, going to rely on the device to save them. And them we must adjust everything else to take this change into account.

If this problem has been going on for 10 or more years already, then it is high time that we do something real about it.

So, do you think that an extra 500 feet would make most of these problems go away? Would 1000 feet be better? How high do you think an AAD should fire if we want to reduce the risk of a failed deployment to where it is negligible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love the way polititians mince words.
Had to go all the way back to 1974 to find something to accuse me of. That's 36 years ago.
Terry, I don't have a belief about anything. What I know has been proven.
I hope you enjoy the video at the private link I sent you, feel free to share it. I will tonight.

I am sure you have learned, by now, how to "sit up and dump"
As to the rest of your post I am preparing a PM for you but I don't want to muddy the water anymore than it has been. We must focus on the release of the data in question.
BTW: I asked the question, about releasing the data, in legalieze, just for you and I was correct you fell for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

I didn't accuse you of anything.:S Looked like pretty good work to me. And properly labeled. I just thought you might find it fun to know your early work was still around. I wouldn't pack any 24' flat. But I used to jump one.:)

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

John,

I didn't accuse you of anything.:S Looked like pretty good work to me. And properly labeled. I just thought you might find it fun to know your early work was still around. I wouldn't pack any 24' flat. But I used to jump one.:)



......................................................................

Agreed councilman,

I deployed a military-surplus flat-circular reserve in 1979. And the last time I jumped with a T-10 reserve strapped to my belly was in 1986.

While much of Sherman's early work was "state of the art" - in its day (1970s) - it has had its day and should quietly retire.
When training young riggers, I advise them to not waste their time on gear more than 20 years old. This is my lazy way of saying not to waste their time researching all the Service Bulletins related to acid mesh, pre-Cypres AADs, soft 3-Rings (1982 and 1983), fragile mini 3-Ring risers, or square reserves that were never intended to be loaded more than one pound per square foot, etc.

The bottom line is that young riggers' brains will be stuffed to over-loading by the time they grasp the basics of maintaining modern gear (electronic AADs, Spectra suspension lines, mini 3-Rings, ZP fabric, BOC, etc.) and they lack the brain capacity to waste any brain cells on gear they will rarely see on a modern DZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the post below is myself speaking as an individual. Not as PIA rigging committee chairman, as 'PIA', or any other interpretation.

I've done the same thing you have with respect to mains. But, I don't much like it when they keep it and hook it up themselves. I've had two customers put it on backwards.:S It's just that if it is in there I've left it until the reserve was open. I've been surprised how many riggers I've talked to routinely took it out first. That's NOT wrong and I don't mean to imply that it is. Just some times a missed opportunity.

I don't have a clue if any reserves that seems to have taking too long to open would have been streamers or totals, meaning never would have opened. I didn't see the equipment.

Would more altitude solve the problem? Probably most of it. Should we build in more altitude? We already have app. 1700' assuming making a decision to use emergency procedures at 1800'. This is when relying on the primary opening device, the jumper. I don't think we need to recommend anything higher than that. But that's not being followed and never has been by everyone. All you have to do is remember low pull contests. And mistakes and other issues happen. How many failed reserves do we have when opened at that altitude? I don't know but there are always entanglements, etc.

AAD's are designed to be a last hope when the jumper has already failed to do what they should, or couldn't do. And to not activate when a jumper is doing what they normally do. It's a balance. I wish a friend of mine knocked unconcious at the 1985 Freak Brothers would have had one. She had a frap hat on and after that death a lot of us that knew her and jumped with her said we were going to get a hard helmet. Some said an FXC 12000 (for the newbies the only AOD available at the time).
Not one person followed through and changed their equipment or habits. And this was pre AAD days. That's the way skydivers were/are. And I still jump a frap hat at times.

Do we need higher AAD activation altitudes? Hell if I know. And how many two out incidents would we add if they went up? What we may have lost perhaps is the controlled panic that I felt when I had malfunctions. (none since 1987 or with an AAD) I've always joked to make wind tunnels more realistic, for the old ones with bottom props, they should take the screen away. IT'S A JOKE!

This problem isn't 10 years old, it's as old as the sport. I had a 1400' reserve total in 1981. Luckily I followed the USPA recommendations and cutaway/pulled at 1800'.

I think John's warning in his manual says it well, and better than some. Paraphrasing, even good parachutes don't always work and if you do this sport you can die.

One of the unique things about this sport used to be that once you left the airplane you were dead unless you took a POSITIVE action. Few situations in life are like that. AAD's took that certain consequence away. That's a good thing. But has it changed the mindset of newer jumpers? Probably. Can we train that away? Probably not.

If there is a fundimental cause I'd like to find it. But it will take more than ground testing and observation to find out. But what we can find, like the Quasar issue, is worth finding. Do I think we will eliminate it? No. As we all should know, parachutes don't always work.

To answer you directly, I don't have an opinion whether AAD activation altitudes should be increased or how much.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"
Quote

John,
....

Quoting from the advisory ... exact combination of components utilized, fit of the reserve canopy in the container ... "

...................................................................

Any time a skydiver asks a rigger to pack a 170 square foot reserve into a container originally designed for a 135 reserve, that skydiver becomes part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Are you seriously suggesting that the average jumper has any hope of
>evaluating the ability of his reserve system to operate within the
>parameters that may be required?

Yes. Even the most novice of jumpers can read the operational limitations of the equipment they are buying. Is that enough to completely understand their gear? No, it's not. To learn more about it they have to learn to pack their gear, inspect it, learn how it was tested, learn how it's repaired etc. It's a process that can take years or decades.

>I dare say that even most riggers are not capable of making decisions
>like the ones you propose.

We have seen jumpers here deciding not to use Cypreses or RSL's or use a certain reserve size based on their own opinion of what's safe and what's isn't. You may consider them incapable of making such decisions, but they do in fact make them.

Do you consider yourself capable of making decisions on what gear to use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Terry,

I appreciate your comments.

One thing I'll mention.

I wonder if the Advisory could have been worded a bit differently for better acceptance.

Though the recommendation to examine a reserve deployment included saying that the main should be in place, mentioning simulation of a total malfunction, reminding us that this also simulates a low exit in an aircraft emergency where you would go immediately to your reserve might have helped to get a clearer idea of what were are dealing with here.

Now, maybe some will say that this is obvious. And there is no doubt that it should be. But it took me some time to get there myself. Though I would never claim to be the world's smartest skydiver, I am certainly not the slowest one either. So I am sure that there must be others who failed to make this connection.

I admit that I glossed over that information, and my first thought was that I have never packed myself a main total, and I really think it is unlikely that I ever will. I keep my gear in tip-top shape, and I never let anyone else pack for me. So it was pretty easy for me to say to myself that I don't really have to worry much about main total malfunctions.

In addition, I thought to myself that my reserve had proven itself 5 times. (They were all CF mishaps. None were a main mal of any sort.) So I just did not see this stuff likely to be terribly relevant to me.

Sure, this was wrong thinking on my part. But none of us is perfect, and having that extra bit of information would have totally changed the way I looked at things.

I wonder now how many people will upon reading this post say, "Holy ****. I didn't think of that!". Maybe none, but I think that there will likely be some.

This realization really hit home for me, and it made me see that a gentle recommendation to watch at the next repack is nowhere near a strong enough message. My rig is in my locker at the DZ right now, so I have to wait until I am there to test. But I will test with the main packed before my next jump. I encourage everybody else to do the same. Sure, you might have to pay a bit for a rigger to reclose the rig. But that is a small thing compared to having a reserve that fails to deploy when you need it. This is not something that should be waiting for the next repack. This is something to check before the next jump.

Again, thanks for your thought! I really appreciate your taking the time to answer.

-paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know Paul, I am the world's slowest skydiver because I didn't consider it in that context either. I have had a PC in tow and went straight to the reserve. (It cleared upon reserve pack opening, two out. Wimpy PC, low air speed, older style but best at the time pin, and big mid winter pack job. And of course a 2000 maybe foot exit, when else would it happen?) But, I've never had to do an emergency bailout. I've had times I wanted to!

So we bring our own perspective to these things.

And it is a good suggestion. We may revise the wording somewhat in response to comments and this is a good one. I'm also working on some guidance along with the reporting form to come.

Thanks for the input.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"

Quote

John,
....

Quoting from the advisory ... exact combination of components utilized, fit of the reserve canopy in the container ... "

...................................................................

Any time a skydiver asks a rigger to pack a 170 square foot reserve into a container originally designed for a 135 reserve, that skydiver becomes part of the problem.



The rule at Parachute Labs is and the sports should be. IF YOU CAN GET IT IN IT SHOULD COME OUT. If a container is so designed as to capture an overstuffing it is unsafe. No rigger should be asked to make a decision about fit. Canopy volumes vary so much that the container manufacturer can't predict how it will fit. We provide a canopy volume chart. It is only there as a guide for ease of packing and cosmetics. There is nothing uglier than an overstuffed Racer but it will work. Give it a try!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just thinking too - when people talked about TSO testing - most of the big manufacturers have been around for years - Racer, Javelin, Vector, Infinity - their TSO testing was mainly done 20-30 years ago right? If I recall correctly, as long as they are only making minor changes to the equipment they don't have to do new testing. While I'm sure that they do their own testing, did they have to test a modern version of the rig?

From what I've seen modern versions of most rigs have way tighter reserve containers than ones from 20-30 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I was just thinking too - when people talked about TSO testing - most of the big manufacturers have been around for years - Racer, Javelin, Vector, Infinity - their TSO testing was mainly done 20-30 years ago right? If I recall correctly, as long as they are only making minor changes to the equipment they don't have to do new testing. While I'm sure that they do their own testing, did they have to test a modern version of the rig?

From what I've seen modern versions of most rigs have way tighter reserve containers than ones from 20-30 years ago.



Here is the rule. If you make a minor change which in your opinion does not affect the airworthiness of the item, it is a minor change. You must still test but you have 6 months to advise the FAA-ACO. If it is a major change you must advise immediately.
I can't speak for the others but I have certified our products in all versions of the TSO b,c,d. I believe the NAS 804 C23b is the best standard for structure (strength) and compatibility. Therefore, I have never changed the label on the Racer. It is a "Standard Category" (unlimited) to weight and speed. Tested to 5000#. This level of strength testing will assure the shedding of body parts before failure. TSO C23c (AS8015b) has no provision for compatibility therefore it shouldn't be used with anything. A component so certified is effectively unusable. The Racer Tandem System is certified under this Standard and I must say, it was much easier to certify than the previous one (C23b). See:

http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=Compatibility&SortBy=DATE_D

for further information. All comments about the paper are solicited
AC-105 provides instruction for mixing or matching approved components. This is the document that allows for the use of a canopy from 1 manufacturer with a container from another. Without it only complete systems from the same manufacturer would be allowed. There are forces in this sport who would (and have tried to) eliminate this option.
John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> If I recall correctly, as long as they are only making minor changes to
>the equipment they don't have to do new testing. While I'm sure that they
>do their own testing, did they have to test a modern version of the rig?

The last time I checked, the modern Micron w/Skyhook is still using the TSO approval for the two-pin Wonderhog; all changes since then have been considered minor. Not sure if that's changed since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To learn more about it they have to learn to pack their gear, inspect it, learn how it was tested, learn how it's repaired etc. It's a process that can take years or decades.

_________________________________________________

And I believe that was his point-for newer jumpers they initially feel lost when it comes to gear and decisions about it and so have to rely on TSO/riggers etc and have trust in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

One of the Incidents I am thinking of used a Quasar II and not a V3, how does that play in?



So is it basically being suggested that Vector is one of the "problem" containers?
Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

One of the Incidents I am thinking of used a Quasar II and not a V3, how does that play in?



So is it basically being suggested that Vector is one of the "problem" containers?



It is no longer necessary to identify which containers may or may not be a problem.

The Advisory alludes to a situation where there may be rigs out there where the reserve will not deploy if the main is still in the container.

From the Advisory, it is clear that the vast number of combinations and factors that may contribute to the problem will never yield to simple analysis and data gathering. There are just too many variables to adopt a "wait and see" attitude while the cost of each new data point will likely be someone's life.

What we are left with is that any rig that has not be tested and shown capable of a reserve deployment while the main is still packed might have a problem.

It really doesn't matter what brand of rig or canopy you have. The only way to know is to do the test and see how your rig performs.

This is a lot like the reserve ripcord problem of a few years ago. The problem may be extremely rare, and we might never be able to predict where the problem could occur. But the person who has the problem is likely going to die if it becomes necessary for him to make such a deployment.

Testing is pretty inexpensive, and it quite literally could save your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Testing is pretty inexpensive, and it quite literally could save your life.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I jump a Quasar II that was recalled a week after delivery due to the fingers.

Part of the fix was a redesigned pilot chute, I 'practice' my EP's each and every repack, simulating a total with the main, I've also varied my body position each time as well.

Every time I've pull my reserve (never yet in the air) the PC leaps out with such force that the bridal goes to near full extension and the bag falls out on the floor...a very simple 'test' that adds priceless peace of mind.










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

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