USPA and PIA Issue Joint Skydiver Advisory

[Rstanley0312 0]

Quote

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.

Well I have a V3 and I pull my handles before repack everytime. Mine is all good but I am still curious as to what brands are being discussed here bc if mine has worked on the ground but there may be an issue it means it could have that issue when it counts despite what it does on the ground. I have heard some jumpers discuss the pilot launch being a lot shorter on a vector if fitted with a skyhook but my rigger told me it has ample launch to deploy the reserve. I am very curious about this but I also get the point that Douglas and others are making.

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

[pchapman 261]

So what do people think about different factors affecting this problem? Different ones that have been mentioned are a full main pack tray, overstuffed containers, and tight pocketing of reserves. I wonder if the pocketing causes problems at bad angles of deployment relative to the jumper, such as some cases involving an AAD fire. (Although such cases certainly weren't all the ones in the list.)

It would be nice if someone with time would go through the accident reports and find those that sound like they would be on the USPA/PIA list - if just phoning the USPA up isn't enough to obtain the list.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

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.

Clearly, you've been doing this testing all along, and you don't need additional testing.

But, to all the other Quasar owners out there, don't be sucked in to a dangerous presumption.

Just because airtwardo's rig works does not necessarily imply that every other Quasar will work.

The only information we have been given so far says that the particular combination of rig and canopies, and even rigger might come into play.

And, of course, I don't mean to pick on Quasars.

Any rig that hasn't already demonstrated the ability to deploy the reserve while the main is still in the rig could have a problem.

Is that a risk any of us wants to take?

[airtwardo 6]

Is that a risk any of us wants to take?



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


Jesus string?

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

[wmw999 2,116]

You'd have to attach it to the bag so that you could rip that puppy out of there, and then have the string disengage from the bag so that it could actually leave your back.

I'll get right on designing one

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You'd have to attach it to the bag so that you could rip that puppy out of there, and then have the string disengage from the bag so that it could actually leave your back.

I'll get right on designing one

Wendy P.

Yeah but you will probably want to attach it to a rocket.

[JohnSherman 1]

OK, this is it, my final post and the one some of you have been waiting for. I have not previously participated in one of these forums. I did not even have a password or account until about a week ago. I really don’t believe in social networking and some say I am a bit of a hermit. So be it. I felt this issue was so important I violated my own rules and got involved. I felt that USPA had violated, not only, a trust with me but with its membership.
I fear that the organization of which I am a lifetime member has not only lost credibility with its members, but most sadly, with the FAA. This will hurt the sport in the long run and that makes me sad. I have been doing this for 52 years and I think it is a great sport.
The FAA will, if they haven’t already, be knocking on our door (USPA) for the data to which I refer. I had hoped the USPA would be pro-active and not adopt the “Bunker Mentality” but alas I was wrong. The data will come out officially. However, it will take some additional time as the FAA has began an “Official Investigation” and that makes everything confidential until it is over. Who knows how long that will take.
I have been advised by the FAA not to talk of certain facts and events until it is over. Those facts do not include what I was told by the USPA staff about the 8 AAD activations with a failed reserve. Those occurrences are distributed as follows:
3 Vectors
2 Javelins
1 Reflex
1 Quasar II
I had forgotten the 8th one but have been advised by a 3rd party it was a Wings.
Additionally, I have information about testing of pilot chutes by NASA at the NASA Ames 7 x 9 wind tunnel facility at Moffett field. These tests were performed in conjunction with the development of a mid-air refueling drogue. I was the principal investigator. Tested were the Vector 1 & 2 pilot chutes and the current Racer pilot chute. A drag coefficient was calculated for each result.
Before I proceed let me put it into perspective. The Toyota Prius is the most streamlined car in the world. It has the least drag of any automobile. It has a Cd of .34, or so my son tells me. An MA-1 pilot chute is listed as having a Cd of .65
Result of tests at NASA Ames:
Vector I Cd = .79
Vector II Cd = .33
Racer Cd = .84
The Vector II pilot chute beats the Prius for the best streamlining. I showed this data to the designers of the pilot chutes. The Vector designer responded, after 3 days of study, “Well that proves you can’t test a pilot chute in a wind tunnel”.
I shrugged my shoulders and walked away.

Additionally, I invite you to view this video:

www.jumpshack.com/videos/spin_test.wmv

It needs no comment.
Well, you have it all. I have nothing more to say. I thank you for the spirited repartee. It has been enjoyable. I will now crawl back into my cave and enjoy the rest of my retirement. Good luck, Blue skies, Go fast, pull low and have fun. But don’t die.
John

[mark 102]

Quote

Any rig that hasn't already demonstrated the ability to deploy the reserve while the main is still in the rig could have a problem.

Did you notice the part of the advisory that said there may be a problem with RSL deployments also? In that case, there is a problem with reserve deployment with the main container empty.

So there may be a problem with the main packed, and with it unpacked. Which pretty well covers all the bases.

Also, without knowing what other factors may contribute (and the advisory listed a number of possiblities), a successful deployment in the loft is not conclusive.

Mark

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Any rig that hasn't already demonstrated the ability to deploy the reserve while the main is still in the rig could have a problem.

Did you notice the part of the advisory that said there may be a problem with RSL deployments also? In that case, there is a problem with reserve deployment with the main container empty.

So there may be a problem with the main packed, and with it unpacked. Which pretty well covers all the bases.

Also, without knowing what other factors may contribute (and the advisory listed a number of possiblities), a successful deployment in the loft is not conclusive.

Mark

Of course, you are correct. But we must start somewhere.

While a successful deployment in the loft is not conclusive, an unsuccessful one should be fairly conclusive in the negative sense.

Personally, my own rig has demonstrated the ability to deploy the reserve when the main is gone. But I have never tested it with the main in. If it all still appears to work, I will be that much more confident. Maybe that's not conclusive, but it is all I can do.

Nothing is a sure thing in this sport. The best we can do is to be sure that we are always doing the best we can do.

-paul

[Harmless 0]

I'll let people smarter than me interpret the data:

Just opened a Javelin container size OJ with a Spectre 150 main and PDR143 reserve. Also Has a Cypres1.


Wearing the rig with the main still packed, received about 7 feet of launch. Tried jumping up and down a few times but the freebag remained inside the container.
Placed the container on the ground and pulled on the bridle. The whole rig lifted off the ground, I bounced it a little and the freebag still remained seated. Not until I placed my foot on the harness did it unseat, however it did not require more than ~8-10 lbs of force. I believe that once I anchored the harness to the floor it allowed the bridal to pull at a different angle, which then unseated the freebag from the container.

"Damn you Gravity, you win again"

[billvon 2,383]

There is some advantage to having a reserve that does not 'fall out' of the container. Imagine, for example, your AAD misfiring under canopy; it would surely be to your advantage to have the freebag remain in the container with enough friction that the drag of the RPC does not extract it. (This helped more than one student back when we were using FXC AAD's.)

Also imagine you deploying your reserve while on your left side. It would be bad if your PC launched then took off upwards while your freebag fell out and went somewhere else (like beneath you.)

This staging function was/is sometimes performed by a staging or hesitator loop, but more often is facilitated by friction between freebag and rig. A friction fit is less likely to be misrigged by a rigger.

OTOH you want to ensure that within a few seconds of a cutaway, when you are traveling between 40 and 60mph, that you'll generate enough drag to pull the bag out. 8-10 lbs should be sufficient for that.

[Harmless 0]

My concern wasn't the amount it took while the rig was anchored, I understand the staging concept.

However, while I lifted the rig from the ground and bounced it up and down a little... I believe the force to be greater than 20lbs (only guessing from the weight of the rig plus a little bit extra force)
I guess the way to explain it is pulling vs shearing force on velcro. I should have taken pictures

If someone was in a feet to earth reserve deployment, would this added extraction force be cause for a concerning hesitation... or am I not as smart as I think I am

"Damn you Gravity, you win again"

[danielcroft 2]

Thanks for posting this information John et. al. seems like kind of a big deal to me.

[airtwardo 6]

Well John, now THAT'S a scary video!

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

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Quote

Also, without knowing what other factors may contribute (and the advisory listed a number of possiblities), a successful deployment in the loft is not conclusive.

Mark

Thanks Mark for those cheery sentiments. I know I feel better??

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[pchapman 261]

A couple comments on reserve pilot chute drag in the wake of John Sherman's comments:

1. Drag coefficient doesn't include the effect of size. One has to multiply by the area of the canopy to get a number that is directly proportional to the actual drag. So a high coefficient is good, but it isn't the whole story.

2. The US military did one fatality report where they came out pretty strongly against the Vector's pilot chute drag at low speed. So even if John might be thought to be biased in favour of his own gear, there's some independent evidence.

The accident dealt with non-extraction of the reserve after a reserve pull (without cutaway) while spiralling under a main with a problem. [Dep't of the Navy report on military fatality in Marana, AZ on 6 Mar '08]

Technically, the manufacturer's name was redacted from the Freedom of Information Act document, but reading the whole doc made it fairly evident that it must have been a CPS / UPT militarized Sigma rig. Their wording was maybe a little harsh:
"A drag force analysis of the [redacted] revealed that the solid nylon design; which constricts airflow through the 6-inch diameter base opening, produces minimal drag."

They also wrote:
"Seams used in construction of jumper pack tray reserve storage may interfere with slow deploying reserve and restrict pilot parachute from applying direct peak deployment force".
I don't know if this was observed or is just conjecture. It's also unclear from the language to what degree it is talking about PC launch vs. bag extraction.

The situation was different than for the USPA/PIA list, and sometimes you don't want a 2-out to happen too easily, but it still has some relevance.

As for John Sherman's list of rigs in the USPA/PIA list, in some sense it is good that there's a real cross section of the industry represented, so that maybe people can get on with looking for reasons rather than just thinking it's some other rig's problem.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

I'll let people smarter than me interpret the data:

Just opened a Javelin container size OJ with a Spectre 150 main and PDR143 reserve. Also Has a Cypres1.


Wearing the rig with the main still packed, received about 7 feet of launch. Tried jumping up and down a few times but the freebag remained inside the container.
Placed the container on the ground and pulled on the bridle. The whole rig lifted off the ground, I bounced it a little and the freebag still remained seated. Not until I placed my foot on the harness did it unseat, however it did not require more than ~8-10 lbs of force. I believe that once I anchored the harness to the floor it allowed the bridal to pull at a different angle, which then unseated the freebag from the container.

That got me to thinking...

As i said in a prior post, when I do it my freebag flops on the floor...but I do a pretty hard exaggerated pull much as I might in freefall.

With my shoulders punching forward, am I possibly changing the static geometry of the reserve tray in a way that in that instance allow it to come out so freely?

I'm going to have to try something else next repack...maybe sooner, to see if it comes out as freely in other circumstances.

Better safe that splat!

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

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

I don't know if this was observed or is just conjecture. It's also unclear from the language to what degree it is talking about PC launch vs. bag extraction.

There is video of the entire event.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[muz 1]

Quote

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 think it IS a training problem. Students of today probably build a different attitude towards jumping BECAUSE AADs exist. They know there's always another chance. In the olden days people 'imprinted' on the idea that noone/nothing was there to save their arses.
Maybe we should hammer concepts like the likelihood of getting hurt in a landing following an AAD fire and cases of AAD malfunction - from the FIRST day.
Just a somewhat off-topic idea.
* Edited to add: I am one of those new jumpers.

[councilman24 36]

Paul,

You used the description above "reserve will not deploy if the main is still in the container."

I don't know if there is a stituation where this is the case. In most (all I think) the reserve didn't fully OPEN before inpact in the case of a low deployment! The reserves were deploying, but maybe somewhat slower than expected.

Saying the reserve 'will not deploy....' is exagerating the issue.

Remember, we don't know all of the true facts of these incidents. For the AAD fires they were APPARENTLY at the proper altitude. But remember the AAD is reading pressure, not altitude. It is influenced by body position and possible other factors. There could be malfunctions of the AAD's (the Polish authorities believe this is the case in the recent one there, Aviacom disputes that conclusion). Cutter locations or installations could cause a slow or delayed pack opening, having nothing to do with canopy/free bag/container interactions. I've seen video of ground testing where nothing opened after the loop was cut. (non US military style rig). We know several manufacturers have moved the cutter from under the freebag to over the freebag to shorten the loop that must be 'pulled' through the flap gromments by the PC.

Saying the reserve 'will not deploy' is inaccurate. And the cause of the delayed/slow deployment may not be the dependent on the main being in the container. We don't know if is related to the reserve canopy either.

WE DON'T KNOW. I'll say it again. WE DON'T KNOW!

The ground observation that the advisory suggest is only the first part of the investigation PIA hopes to do.

BUT, checking the deployment as suggested in the advisory is a good thing. That's how I found the fLinger issue with Artwardo's Quasar. See video referenced earlier in the thread. And to Strong Ent. credit 14 days after I first contacted them they issued the recall with the return and repair procedure in place that included not only removing the flingers which I believe would have solved the problem but also changing the PC and adding a kicker flap.


The vast majority of reserves and rigs function have functioned fine when needed. We don't know what has caused some delayed reserve deployments. But remember, in all of these cases, I think, something else went wrong too. The primary parachute opening device, the SKYDIVER, failed for some reason.

When following the USPA BSR's the reserve has app. 1700' to open. When relying on the AAD is has app. 750'. Yes we expect them to open in that distance. And we want to find out why a few aren't.

I've had to qualify my statements with 'I think' because I don't have a list of the incidents either. We are all aware of some of them.

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

[councilman24 36]

I'm a little confused about what velcro your talking about. Or were you just using that as an analogy?

The first thing you should do if you believe you have a POSSIBLE anolmaly is call the manufacturer. We are working on guidance and a reporting form for PIA that will state as much. A situation very much like what you just described was referred to the manufacture and the rigger was assured that this was NOT an anomaly and was acceptable for that rig.

For many rigs being able to pick them up by the reserve bridle is not unusual or an anomaly.

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

[councilman24 36]

But not that the pull is up against the yolk and top flaps. Even for a feet first deployment the center of gravity under the PC would be at more of an angle to the rig.

Not that I'm a fan of Vectors. Part of my usual procedure of opening the rig with the main in it is based on my concern about the small Vector with the big PC diameter. But, they have all launched.

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

[councilman24 36]

Quote

As for John Sherman's list of rigs in the USPA/PIA list, in some sense it is good that there's a real cross section of the industry represented, so that maybe people can get on with looking for reasons rather than just thinking it's some other rig's problem.

I believe John referred to speaking with USPA. As far as I know PIA hasn't compiled a list of incidents. USPA initiated the advisory and sought PIA's participation, input and efforts in collecting data. Some PIA members may have the USPA 'list'. I don't.

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Paul,

You used the description above "reserve will not deploy if the main is still in the container."

Terry,

I don't really mean to be argumentative here, but if you want to pick apart what I said, you at least have to look at the whole sentence.

Quote

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.

So, first off, I am interpreting the Advisory, and I think that is clear. I said it "alludes", and I said "there may be rigs".

None of this is crystal clear.

The distinction between "didn't deploy" and "didn't deploy fully" is of little interest to the dead guy.

My main point is that I have come to the opinion that the Advisory did not make it clear how this problem could be relevant to any one of us, no matter how unlikely you think it is that you might experience a main total mal. It was easy for me to miss that this could very well apply to me and my rig. It took me 6 days to realize it.

Do I overstate the case? Maybe a little. But I think it is needed to balance the understated case presented by the Advisory.

People are absolutely free to totally ignore the whole matter.

But I think that the jumping public should have a fair shot at seeing how serious this could be to any particular individual.

I don't think that the Advisory was clear enough about that, so I will do what I can to add the clarity I feel was missing.

So, let me ask these two questions.

Can someone be hurt by overstating this warning?

Can someone be hurt by understating it?

-paul

[councilman24 36]

I just don't want people thinking that we have evidence that for a particular individual rig, the reserve was a total malfunction, forever, because the main was in the container.

This could lead to someone believing that it in the event of a 1500' emergency bailout they should open their main instead of their reserve.

That was my only fear.

In fact as I understand it the reserves were deploying. Whether they were deploying slow or actually deploying normally but deployment was initiated lower than we think, we don't know for sure. If you believe the AAD data about when the cutter was fired equals pack opening then probably deploying slower than expected.

And no, it doesn't make any difference to the dead guy.

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