0
MakeItHappen

NTSB and Skydiving

Recommended Posts

Quote

My personal opinion is not much will really come of the recommendations made to the FAA



Agreed -- look how long it took to get changes to Part 105.

What might really help is if these recommendations become known in the skydiving community, and skydivers vote with their $ to jump at places that seem to be taking the right steps, and avoid the places that don't.
"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

My personal opinion is not much will really come of the recommendations made to the FAA



Agreed -- look how long it took to get changes to Part 105.

What might really help is if these recommendations become known in the skydiving community, and skydivers vote with their $ to jump at places that seem to be taking the right steps, and avoid the places that don't.



I think we'll see an increase in Ramp Checks for a time. Hopefully that will have the intended effect of motivating the slack ass operators to clean up their acts, yet not harass the operators doing it right.

I think that the most likely major change (and it's not all that likely) is that the FAA will implement a "Jump pilot signoff" like there is for tow pilots, or banner pilots. Not a bad idea for the USPA to begin to plan an answer to this, so if the FAA does come knocking, we have a plan ready, rather than let them figure out the requirements.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I did not hear the NTSB conclude with any conviction that restraints were "not used" but rather that they had failed because they were single point restraints attached to a side bar rail vs. double restraints or single restraints bolted to the floor."

In regard to the above comment, when Cathy Gagne was giving the presentation under "Survival Factors", she described the condition of the seatbelt system, post accident. This was at 1:35:20 during the meeting.

If the two people that were said to not be wearing seat belts in the accident, really were, then they would have found broken components. I do not remember hearing any mention of broken seatbelt parts during their presentations.

Because of the lack of broken seatbelt parts, that is probably why the NTSB concluded that the two were not wearing seatbelts.

Could it have been that they had been considering bailing out, even at the low altitude that they were at, and disconnected their seatbelts? This could be a possible explaination as to why these people who normally wore their belts were said not to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For all the people who are worried about what this may cause, I suggest that you all watch the video.

The NTSB seems to be frustrated with how simple mistakes are costing lives. Many of these mistakes cost little or nothing to prevent. Such as checking for enough fuel before flight, proper storage and handling of fuel, and pilot training specific for skydiving operations.

We should also note that the NTSB recognizes the USPA as an authority to work with the FAA to make recommendations to improve safety. This will prevent the over-regulation that we are all afraid of.

The part of their recommendations that I have a problem with is saying that operators must follow the TBO recommendations for engines. This is where it gets expensive.

I have a problem with blanket orders like this because it does not account for operators who operate and maintain their equipment carefully. It puts them in the same category as those who abuse their equipment.

This is once again a damm good thing that the NTSB recognizes the USPA. The NTSB recommends that the USPA make recommendations for how to improve maintenance of skydiving aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


This is once again a damm good thing that the NTSB recognizes the USPA. The NTSB recommends that the USPA make recommendations for how to improve maintenance of skydiving aircraft.



I'm not a fan of the Group Member Program, but in this case it's not a bad thing. The fact that the USPA has the GM program gives DZOs collective bargaining power with the government. Most of what the USPA does under the osposis (sp) of the GM Program, could just as easily be done with no GM Program.

Martin
Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


This is once again a damm good thing that the NTSB recognizes the USPA. The NTSB recommends that the USPA make recommendations for how to improve maintenance of skydiving aircraft.



I'm not a fan of the Group Member Program, but in this case it's not a bad thing. The fact that the USPA has the GM program gives DZOs collective bargaining power with the government. Most of what the USPA does under the osposis (sp) of the GM Program, could just as easily be done with no GM Program.

Martin




Agreed - I was just thinking that myself. I, too, am not a fan of the GM program. But I'm going to have to factor instances such as this into my consideration of the matter.

Lots to think about before the elections this year....
Signatures are the new black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


This is once again a damm good thing that the NTSB recognizes the USPA. The NTSB recommends that the USPA make recommendations for how to improve maintenance of skydiving aircraft.



I'm not a fan of the Group Member Program, but in this case it's not a bad thing. The fact that the USPA has the GM program gives DZOs collective bargaining power with the government. Most of what the USPA does under the osposis (sp) of the GM Program, could just as easily be done with no GM Program.

Martin



Auspices.

osposis sounds like a nasty disease.:D
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just wanted to respond to part of your post in reference to the shoddy DZs getting more business based on the fact that they are "cheaper" in a competing market.

The whole purpose of this NTSB "project" is not to make the good guys go bankrupt. It is to make the sport safer for people like you and I from DZOs, A&Ps and/or engine/parts manufacturers who cut corners trying to make an extra buck at the expense of our lives.

Those people need to be weeded out of our industry and will be in the event of more stringent regulations. I used to be a California jumper and was raised on the SoCal NorCal playground. Some of you folks are used to the Skydive Monterey Bays and the Perris/Elsinore DZs. My experience at some of those DZs is different from some of the things I have witnessed out here.

I'm not into publicly mentioning any DZs or pilots in particular but I can tell you that I have found out first hand about all kinds of FAA regulations and pilot requirements swept under the rug to promote a DZ or two and bad things happen because they get away with it.

Just like breaking the law, you are good until you get caught and then you are in trouble... You can cut corners or cheat the system until something bad happens and it catches up.

I hope the "little guy" DZs are able to stay in business if their pilots are properly trained and their airplanes meet regulations. But sorry to say, if you are or have been operating with pilots without commercial licenses, tainted fuel to save a buck, shoddy maintenance or mechanics who are willing to just sign off on something because they are too lazy to fix it or a DZO decides himself that his pocketbook does not warrant it as a necessary repair or inspection... I am sorry. I guess not enough people have been affected. Maybe the better idea is to just let things go and become more widespread. More airplane crashes, more dead people, more bad media and more allowable negligence that is obviously becoming more mainstream. That seems like a much better idea to me. :S

The NTSB was absolutely correct in their statement that it does not matter whether you are using an airplane to travel to Europe or to get you to 14,000 feet safely on jump run. We are paying customers and we deserve to know ahead of time that our expectations for safety are being met. The skydiving industry has relied too much too often on that whole concept of "You signed the waiver." Our waiver at Quantum Leap should have read: The airplane you are about to get on has engines well over their TBO/inspection/whatever you call it in "airplane terms" and our mechanic is highly incompetent and cannot effectively maintain airplanes. Still want to skydive??? How many people are going to sign that waiver?
Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Our waiver at Any dropzone USA should have read: The airplane you are about to get on has engines well over their TBO/inspection/whatever you call it in "airplane terms" and our mechanic is highly incompetent and cannot effectively maintain airplanes. Still want to skydive??? How many people are going to sign that waiver?



There will always be at least two loads worth or more because there are so many dipshits & asshats in the sport these days they wouldn't know or care why pink shit is coming out a fuel tank marked 100LL or any other monkey shit and think to ask questions, this is why the likes of --- ---- is still in business even after the first FAA crack down 10 years ago, there were bandwagon riders then and there will be next week too..... as long as they get to altitude and for cheap who gives a shit, hey a got a rig on and I'll get out!:D:D:D
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen,

I wrote out a nice post a few days ago in response to yours about seatbelts failing. Unfortunately the computer I was working on locked up and it didn't post. Been too frustrated to post until I got back on my own.

The restraints (they weren't seatbelts) did not fail. They failed to stop the occupants. We hate when the press uses "parachute failed to open" when more likely the statement "jumper failed to activate parachute". These occupants failed to use restraints or use them properly. They wore them loosely and in places on their harness that did nothing to restrain them really.

And this subject has been talked about for years on this forum. People need to get in tune with their restraints and understand a little physics in order to protect themselves to the maximum extent possible. This is not something new. This has been something learned from the Perris Otter crash in 1992. We should have been "doing something" 14 years ago.

Will they finally listen? Those who come here to read still are the choir. And preaching to the converted...well, is it saving anyone?
Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm surprised nothing has been mention by the NTSB about the door being open for takeoff. It was a right engine failure. The ensuing right yaw would have put the relative wind right into that door causing drag. Sure, the pilot should have banked into the good engine. But I see that door being open as a huge culprit to this crash also.

Otter pilots: Please stop the practice of taking off with the door open. I don't care how hot it is. The possible drag at a critical moment might lead you to the same accident.
Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The part of their recommendations that I have a problem with is saying that operators must follow the TBO recommendations for engines. This is where it gets expensive.

I have a problem with blanket orders like this because it does not account for operators who operate and maintain their equipment carefully. It puts them in the same category as those who abuse their equipment.



The FAA can not make it mandatory for Part 91 operators to comply with engine TBOs, unless they were to issue an Airworthiness Directive. And even then it would probable not get through the NPRM hearing. Something like this would effect ALL operators, Part 91-135-121 alike. There are many operators out there the run "ON CONDITION". All would have to comply. Now you have AOPA, NBAA and GAMA lobbiest breathing down the FAA neck.
In my opinion the worst that will happen is that the FAA will want skydiving operators to draw up and submit their own ON CONDITION Program for the engines and an Inspection Program for the aircraft.
This would be along the lines of Part 135 without making it 135. This way each Owner/Operator is stating that this is the way that our aircraft will be maintained and we will do it this way. Once the FAA approves it that's it.
Its not cost prohibitive and each operator can tailor their program to How Much the fly the aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well no shit Chris, I used to buckle up in that airplane all the time wondering if this thing crashes what good will this belt do? Quite frankly I don't know what a belt in any crash will do with an otter configurated like N203E. You are sitting on a bench facing aft with a long belt coming out of a rail on the inner wall or on the floor. It is impossible to tighten it short of tightening yourself to the wall which would make it impossible to sit on the bench. So no matter how you buckle it, the slack is still there meaning in a crash or violent movement situation you will not be held in place but rather a rag doll attached to a single point of attachement.
Quite frankly, QL's otter is just one of many jump ships out there that I have ridden to altitude in with the same exact problem. If we look at safety restraints in a car, their design is way more effective. Lap and chest restraint. I think that was one of the contributing factors for the pilot surviving the Freefall Express Cessna crash. Had that pilot been wearing a safety restraint like the jumpers on N203E, I don't think he would have been so lucky.
Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote




I am sure the financial impacts may be more complex and severe than I have illustrated above and each DZ and situation is different but I can assure you when these kinds of tragedies happen, it is not good.



As usual the burden is placed upon the persons least responsible. Many DZs do comply and spend the necessary time and money to meet the required standards, it is the few whom do not that create and support the problem, this problem is perpetuated by the support of the student public and their local jumpers, If you want to see safety and change, don't jump at these locations, stop sending your friends to train, you can be much more effective by withholding your cash than the government can be with increased survaillance.
I heard people state! Well I didn't know there was a problem? I'am sorry this is a poor excise and not a reason, if you wish to play the game of risk, you are foolish if you do not arm yourself with knowledge before you walk into the fray! And no it is not USPAs responsibility or the DZs to force you to exersice some common scense!

Quote

Being able to use common sense would be great! But how can we when problems with airplanes and incompetent mechanics are hidden from the general public? How much does the general public know about Vyse, the P factor, TBOs on an engine or how much flight training the pilot has? What kind of common sense are you referring to? I think common sense speaks that if the place is in business with a fairly good safety record and is a member of the USPA, how much more research can the standard person do to insure safety? That is the problem right there. The general public assumes that although there is risk in the sport and you can die doing it, most of those fears are associated with the act of skydiving out of an airplane itself, not whether or not an operation is following all of the regulations and mandated rules related to getting you to altitude.

.


Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The whole purpose of this NTSB "project" is not to make the good guys go bankrupt. It is to make the sport safer for people like you and I from DZOs, A&Ps and/or engine/parts manufacturers who cut corners trying to make an extra buck at the expense of our lives.



I agree with the basis of your statement but not the reality of it, I don't believe that many DZOs whom run less than stellar operations cut corners to make an extra buck! I think it is mostly done as an effort to stay in operation, the margin for possible profit is very small, rub this against the increasing requirements, costs of operation, and expected and requested services from customers, this creates a big problem when paying the bills! People always forget that "Increses in operation", "Increases in staff", increases in anything comes out of the same pocket the profit of the operation, if this is minimal or nonexistant, coners will be cut!


Quote


Those people need to be weeded out of our industry and will be in the event of more stringent regulations. I used to be a California jumper and was raised on the SoCal NorCal playground. Some of you folks are used to the Skydive Monterey Bays and the Perris/Elsinore DZs. My experience at some of those DZs is different from some of the things I have witnessed out here.



If jumpers and potential students would not support them, they will go away, and I have very little faith in any government backed and supported program creating anything other than more confusion.


Quote


I'm not into publicly mentioning any DZs or pilots in particular but I can tell you that I have found out first hand about all kinds of FAA regulations and pilot requirements swept under the rug to promote a DZ or two and bad things happen because they get away with it.



Agreeded!


Quote


Just like breaking the law, you are good until you get caught and then you are in trouble... You can cut corners or cheat the system until something bad happens and it catches up.




Well Yes! If you are ethical in your feelings about getting caught, the system of today will allow you to place an attorney on retainer, he will write a few letters, and he can hold any action at bay for an extended amont of time, and the reality of being caught dirty is that you may die of old age before the government gets around to doing anything about it!


Quote


I hope the "little guy" DZs are able to stay in business if their pilots are properly trained and their airplanes meet regulations. But sorry to say, if you are or have been operating with pilots without commercial licenses, tainted fuel to save a buck, shoddy maintenance or mechanics who are willing to just sign off on something because they are too lazy to fix it or a DZO decides himself that his pocketbook does not warrant it as a necessary repair or inspection... I am sorry. I guess not enough people have been affected. Maybe the better idea is to just let things go and become more widespread. More airplane crashes, more dead people, more bad media and more allowable negligence that is obviously becoming more mainstream. That seems like a much better idea to me.



NO! it should be addressed! But what I am saying is that "WE" allow this problem to exist by our support of these people, "WE" can solve this problem with out intervention from the government. Money (or the lack of) has created and fosters this situation, regulation does not effectively address money concerns, But close down the bank! and the problem is solved!


Quote


The NTSB was absolutely correct in their statement that it does not matter whether you are using an airplane to travel to Europe or to get you to 14,000 feet safely on jump run. We are paying customers and we deserve to know ahead of time that our expectations for safety are being met. The skydiving industry has relied too much too often on that whole concept of "You signed the waiver." Our waiver at Quantum Leap should have read: The airplane you are about to get on has engines well over their TBO/inspection/whatever you call it in "airplane terms" and our mechanic is highly incompetent and cannot effectively maintain airplanes. Still want to skydive??? How many people are going to sign that waiver?



As I have said before "Buyer Beware!"


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Being able to use common sense would be great! But how can we when problems with airplanes and incompetent mechanics are hidden from the general public? How much does the general public know about Vyse, the P factor, TBOs on an engine or how much flight training the pilot has? What kind of common sense are you referring to? I think common sense speaks that if the place is in business with a fairly good safety record and is a member of the USPA, how much more research can the standard person do to insure safety? That is the problem right there. The general public assumes that although there is risk in the sport and you can die doing it, all of the regulated and mandated rules and laws are being followed to prevent that.




When I started jumping, I had no intentions of ever becoming, a rigger, pilot, A&P mechanic, etc. but as I sat in the aircraft climbing to altitude I realized there were many parts of this process that I did not have any knowledge of, or any control over, My approach to common sense, is to arm myself with knowledge about what is going on around me!
A USPA group membership, FAA inspection, or safety record is a poor excuse for people to assume that all is well, and not do their home work! Safety has a price! and if you really want it you must pay for it with work and knowledge on your part to better increase the probability of your safety.
If you are a lion trainer, would you want to know when he was fead last? maybe some insight as to what activities pisses him off might be good to know?
Many people walk around with this false sense of security that everything is OK and that they are being looked out for, by the powers that be? They lack responsibility! Statements that I hear! "Its to much work to do this! or that", "I pay them good money! why should I worry about that?" You are not forced to know, but if you don't find out, and arm yourself with knowledge, than you have no position of complaint if you get bitten by the lion!


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm surprised nothing has been mention by the NTSB about the door being open for takeoff. It was a right engine failure. The ensuing right yaw would have put the relative wind right into that door causing drag. Sure, the pilot should have banked into the good engine. But I see that door being open as a huge culprit to this crash also.

Otter pilots: Please stop the practice of taking off with the door open. I don't care how hot it is. The possible drag at a critical moment might lead you to the same accident.



It's bad practice for reasons in addition to that one.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



As I have said before "Buyer Beware!"


.



Buyer has to be AWARE first.



Thank you John, that is my point exactly. I worked first hand for the DZ full time as a rigger, instructor, manifestor, packer, office person, etc for over 2.5 years and I did not know the things that I know now after this NTSB investigation about our airplane. How many DZOs are going to tell customers that the plane "might" have problems or that a pilot isn't even commercially rated. I am not saying that our pilot was not because he was but there are other DZs out there who were using pilots who were not commercially rated to fly jumpers. These are not exactly the things you are going to share with potential customers to bring in their business. Just what sorts of homework relating to common sense are you referring to?

I taught many first jump courses and remember in each course speaking about our safety record. 12 years of business with a clean safety record with the exception of one canopy wrap and a "fluke" fatality under what I consider a terrible and experimental canopy (story for another thread).

Then after 12 years and no warning to us (the general public or staff) the engine blows up, otter crashes and 7 people are dead.

Doing your homework is one thing but gaining the inside scoop or knowledge is another. I don't find it non-sensable to have the expectation that a DZO is there to provide a safe environment to the best of his abilities and that includes making sure the airplane is sound for operational activities.
Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

***

I agree with the basis of your statement but not the reality of it, I don't believe that many DZOs whom run less than stellar operations cut corners to make an extra buck! I think it is mostly done as an effort to stay in operation, the margin for possible profit is very small, rub this against the increasing requirements, costs of operation, and expected and requested services from customers, this creates a big problem when paying the bills! People always forget that "Increses in operation", "Increases in staff", increases in anything comes out of the same pocket the profit of the operation, if this is minimal or nonexistant, coners will be cut!

Quote

I agree that these increases come out of the profit margin but then what is the alternative? If you don't have the revenue to support the business by making it a safe one, I think your solution is the best one. "Close down the bank! and the problem is solved!" When you start cutting corners to save a buck at the expense of the safety of others, it is time to close your doors and hope to start a more successful DZ on another day.

That would be like me saying when someone brings their reserve parachute to me for a repack, I am a little poor this month and cannot afford to purchase Cypres loop material for your reserve closing loop. So instead, I am going to just use the same one over and over again (without telling my customer). Surely if I use this rationale on all of my customers, over time I will save money and perhaps be a more profitable rigger. But eventually, someone is going to be either in freefall or under canopy and due to wear and tear on their reserve closing loop it is going to break and they will have a premature reserve deployment. Heck, they may even be head down going 200 mph when it breaks. But oh well, it was their responsibility to know better... They should have done their homework...? :S

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


But eventually, someone is going to be either in freefall or under canopy and due to wear and tear on their reserve closing loop it is going to break and they will have a premature reserve deployment. Heck, they may even be head down going 200 mph when it breaks. But oh well, it was their responsibility to know better... They should have done their homework...? :S




In my opinion Yes! They should have done their homework! Question when you deliver a new rig with complete assembly and the manuals, what do you believe happens to the most important items that you give them?
#1 the most important item is the manual! Why? do you ask? What you have given them is a life saving piece of equipment! For this item to serve it's intended purpose, the end user must be knowledgable of it's manufactured uses and limitations of use, this also address, required inspections and maintanance.
If they had read the manual and "did their homework" (instead of throwing it in the closet with all of the "EXTRA" unnecessary jump items), they would be knowledgable that the loop is to be replaced at every inspection. Than if you didn't change it, they could call you on the carpet for substandard inspection, and make sure that all other potential customers know that you do not follow the FAA and Manufactures statdards of inspection.
Should they expect you to do this? Replace the loop?YES! But again "They" are the end user and should check!
We are all lazy to the extent that we perfer to believe that every process performed is done to the standard that is required, than we scream and complain when we find that it is not, When ultimately "We" are responsible to check and verify as the end user! especially if the process may effect our ability to survive!
Yes! I am a Master Riger and DPRE! and Yes! I change loops every inspection, and I also get bitched at because I charge $60.00 plus for an inspection.
We need to change the mind set that everything is taken care of for our benefit and safety! Sorry to fog peoples vision of grandure! But it is not! If we educate ourselves, ask questions, check to verify what we have purchased or paid to have been performed we will provide ourselves a safer activity and weed out the offenders.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In my opinion Yes! They should have done their homework!



What should a first time jumper exactly check to do this homework?

What should an experienced jumper do the first time they get to a new DZ?

Quote

If they had read the manual and "did their homework" (instead of throwing it in the closet with all of the "EXTRA" unnecessary jump items), they would be knowledgable that the loop is to be replaced at every inspection.



Which manuals specify that the closing loop must be replaced for every inspection?

DV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


What should a first time jumper exactly check to do this homework?

What should an experienced jumper do the first time they get to a new DZ?



I would spend much time researching the history of the operation, time in business, accidents, BBB in the area, Airport manager, Local FSDO. I would visit the DZ during operation, Watch, Look, Listen, See if they are organized, is the info they give standardized, or do you get diffrerent answers from each staff person, how is the equipment stored, aircraft hangered? whom is responsible for maintanance? Whom is the pilot, what ratings, is he current? What condition is the facility in? Do the staff and customers happy? Is there friction and confusion? These things should give you as a student or erxperienced jumper a feel for this location, if you like what you see, feel, hear go somewhere else. I know many will say, "That is a lot trouble just to make a jump" Yes it is! But we aren't buying widgets here, we are placing our lives in possible danger, how can you complain for safety and not except your part of the responsibility to make sure you are safe?

Quote

If they had read the manual and "did their homework" (instead of throwing it in the closet with all of the "EXTRA" unnecessary jump items), they would be knowledgable that the loop is to be replaced at every inspection.


Quote


Which manuals specify that the closing loop must be replaced for every inspection?




From the cypress packing manual!

Packing

Generous treatment of CYPRES loops with silicone improves the reserve container opening considerably

General information:
At every repack the loops must be checked carefully and be replaced.
Be smart, use the CYPRES Loop system regardless if you have a CYPRES or if you don't have a CYPRES.

Refer to the CYPRES Packer's Checklist for determining if an existing CYPRES installation is proper for the particular harness / container system, and if the CYPRES components are installed and located in the correct places.

Grommets
Grommets with rough edges ultimately will destroy any loop. Replace damaged grommets immediately.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reserve loops

The reserve loop must be placed under a tension factor of at least 5 kg once the reserve has been packed. The loop material has a maximum extensibility of 7.5 percent. Maximum extensibility is the length to which the material can be stretched before it will break.

By contrast, the maximum extensibility of Kevlar material, which is considered to be quite rigid, is 5.2 percent.

We recommend that you pull on the loop twice, as firmly as possible, prior to installation. The elongation of the loop after installation should not exceed 3 millimeters in the case of a one-pin container, and 6.5 millimeters in the case of a two-pin container.

The loop material has a diameter of approx. 1.6 millimeters and a tensile strength of approx. 180 kp. The threaded area (where the loop is pulled through itself) has a higher tensile strength.

Because both the loop and the pull-up material consist of polyethylene, all actions which might build up excessive heat by friction should be avoided. Otherwise, the material will loose some tensile strength at temperatures above 100 degrees Centigrade (C°), and might even melt in extreme cases. Such stress can be put on the loop when the pull-up is passed through the loop or pulled out after packing is completed.

! Therefore, be sure to extract the pull-up only from below the ripcord pins !
and only very slowly.


The looped end of the CYPRES loop should be impregnated with silicone except for 1/2" next to the disc. Ready-made loops provided by Airtec have already been treated with silicone the first 2". Running loops should be impregnated completely.

Generous treatment of CYPRES loops with silicone

is improving the reserve container opening considerably.

In addition, we suggest that you prepare one further reserve loop of the appropriate length when installing CYPRES, and leave it together with the disc and a CYPRES pull-up (2 with a two-pin CYPRES and two softbodkins with two-pin Pop Tops) in the nylon pocket along with the stowed cable. This will provide you with a new loop and pull-up whenever you need one.


Plan to have sufficient loops for scheduled reserve repacks. Then the loop(s) in the spare pocket will always be available in the event of a real reserve deployment and repack.

Replace the spare loop(s) as soon as possible or
at each repack.

Stowing the canopy:

When stowing the reserve canopy into the freebag, be sure to take into account that:

1. The processing unit is located in the middle of the wall between reserve and main compartments of the container.

2. On one-pin containers in which the release unit has been placed above the pilot chute, there will be extra thickness (8.4mm) caused by the release unit's placement on top of the pilot chute.

Try to pack the reserve so that CYPRES' visibility is minimized.

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.

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