Reliability of AAD's vs reserves

[RTB 0]

When we teach students to cut away from a main that they are not sure they can land. This sometimes results in cutting away from something that is quite landable. They will in this case put their trust in the reserve. The reserve however can not be guaranteed to 100%.
When we talk about AAD's we say they cannot be trusted, a mechanical devise could fail. But there has been no incident that I know of where a modern AAD has not activated when needed. So they seem to be quite reliable.

So, my question is, can we teach our students that using a reserve is always a safe option?

[tkhayes 126]

there have been MANY incidents where AAD's have failed, likely due to lack of service and maintenance - don't kid yourself.

Yes, on older models, but those older models are commonly in use by schools around the world

[RTB 0]

Quote

there have been MANY incidents where AAD's have failed, likely due to lack of service and maintenance - don't kid yourself.

Name one with a cypres or vigil
I am not talking about older models.

[tkhayes 126]

A few years back, a Cypres failed in Europe and did not fire. The batteries were old, but it passed the startup checkout.

You post was concerning students and since MANY students still jump with FXC's, the reply is valid.

Yes Cypres' are quite secure and safe and extremely reliable. I feel that we have already dumbed-down this sport to a point where it is almost OK to have a Cypres fire.

Not acceptable for student training to have them rely on it, but I also do not believe that people deserve to die just because they make simple mistakes.

[speedy 0]

I know of a case where the ADD did not fail, however once it had fired there was a slight delay before the reserve opened. Probably the pilot chute got caught in the burble. Sadly this delay was enough to cause a fatal impact.
There was a post recently where a tandem cypres switched itself of during the climb to altitude.

If the terrain where you are jumping has hills, you might no be high enough for the AAD to save you.

The only trust I put in my AAD is that it will not fire when I do not want it to.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[RTB 0]

The point of the post is not to say that an AAD is to be relied on, but a comparison of how we see the reserve as reliable and a cypres as not to be relied on.
Would you change the way you teach students if the DZ only used Cypres' and no FXC's?

[mr2mk1g 10]

An AAD is only as reliable as the reserve it fires.

Ought that factor into people's worry about AAD's thus making them more worrisome than simply reserves on their own?

Even though modern AAD's of themselves may arguably be as reliable as reserves are when viewed independently of each other, when you take the two risk elements together (as you do with an AAD deployed reserve) you multiply those risks.

Just thinking out loud.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Name one with a cypres or vigil
I am not talking about older models.

I can think of two Cypres non fires just off the top of my head that were due to maintenance, or low batteries.

Don't kid yourself, they are great but they do fail.

Here are some more after a brief search.

Quote

Date Location Category Age # Jumps AAD?/RSL?
2/9/2000 Train in Spain, Spain NOP,BIZ 31 2000 Y/?
Description: Initial reports indicate he blacked out during a skysurfing jump, and had no handles pulled at impact. He was using his own rig, with the CYPRES switched on. It is likely he "redded-out" due to high G's during a skysurfing spin. He was reported to impact while in a very fast flat spin. One foot was found out of the binding, though this may have been due to impact. It is unclear if he cutaway the board at any time. He was very current, and was a regular skysurfing competitor. He had been experimenting with alternative angle placements of his back foot, in particular, with it facing outwards rather than foreward.
Lessons:This is the first CYPRES failure of which I am aware, save one when the batteries were past being due to be changed. Further examination of the unit may provide other information. One theory is that he managed to spin on his side fast enough to generate enough lift to be falling slow enough to be below minimum CYPRES firing speeds; this seems somewhat improbable, though.

Quote

Date Location Category Age # Jumps AAD?/RSL?
7/29/2001 Albstadt EDSA, Germany NOP?,SUI?,MED? 50 950 Y/?
Description: This was this skydivers 4th jump of a day, a solo skydive. No canopies were deployed and the CYPRES did not fire. It is unclear why this incident occurred.
Lessons:More info appreciated.
Fallschirmsportverband Description: - it was his 4th jump of the day
- no main canopy deployed but cutaway and reserve were pulled
- Cypres fired, but reserve loop uncut
- fatal injuries from impact
- pilotchute, reserve and freebag where lying next to the body, pilot chute was still in the pocket
- why was Main not deployed?
- cutaway was probably pulled to low (under 80m) and reserve was deployed
- AAD was probably adjusted wrong => fired after Reserve was deployed

It is reported that AirTec investigated the AAD so it is therefore assumed that it was a Cypres.
Fallschirmsportverband Conclusions:

Quote

Date Location Category Age # Jumps AAD?/RSL?
12/31/2001 Eslöv, Sweden NOP 24 18 Y/Y
Description: After doing a stable exit and a few good 360-turns, this student tried to deploy his main at the normal altitude. When doing this, the student became unstable. He was observed falling on his back almost all the way until impact. The CYPRES activated, but for reasons unknown the reserve didn't have time to fully inflate. The time of impact is estimated to about the same time as reserve line stretch.
Lessons:An AAD is good insurance, but does not guarantee a good parachute will be deployed. It is every skydivers responsibility to deploy their own parachute in a timely fashion.

Quote

Date Location Category Age # Jumps AAD?/RSL?
3/10/2002 Skydive Citrusdal, South Africa NOP 26 Y/Y
Description: Apparently, she imapcted with no handles pulled, and a CYPRES AAD on the rig. More information appreciated.
Lessons:

Quote

5/18/2002 Skydive Chicago, IL FFCOL 28 700 Y/N
Description: This experienced jumper, on the instructional staff , went on a 2-way freefly with a low time (~35 jumps in 3 seasons) jumper. They went out launching a two way head down. The best understanding is that the deceased dove hard on the other (low inexperienced) jumper after their two way launch was released. The low time jumper did not stay stable in the head down position and transitioned to a sit. At that time, the deceased struck the foot of the low time jumper and was knocked unconcious. He fell unstable until impact. No handles were pulled. The CYPRES installed did not fire. The low time jumper was not able to reach the deceased in air before he had to save his own life and deploy his main. The CYPRES appears to have been off for this jump.
Lessons:The speed differences possible (50 mph is easy) between freefliers accentuate the need for a (functioning) automatic deployment device. Had the device been on and functional, you wouldn't be reading this.
USPA Description: This skydive involved a freefly training jump with a USPA Instructor coaching a jumper with 35 skydives. The pair began head down, and the less-experienced jumper transitioned to a sit position sometime after the exit. The instructor was still head down when he struck the shoulder and knee of the other jumper. This apparently knocked the instructor unconcious, and he fell to the ground without deploying either parachute.
USPA Conclusions:The level of freefly experience of the USPA Instructor was not reported. Fall rates can vary drastically during a freefly skydive, especially when either of the jumpers is new to the discipline. New jumpers are prone to losing balance and control and suddenly reverting to more familiar, slower falling positions, or "corking." Until they are completely comfortable with their partners, freeflyers should remain on level when in close proximity and not maneuver directly above one another.
The instructor was wearing a hard helmet and was equipped with an AAD. The AAD had cut the loop of the reserve, but damage to the unit made it difficult to determine whether the unit had malfunctioned or was turned off and activated on impact. It was sent to the manufacturer in Germany for testing.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Stumpy 256]

Quote

Ought that factor into people's worry about AAD's thus making them more worrisome than simply reserves on their own?

If i am reading you right then i don't think your logic follows. The odds only multiply if you have this scenario which is a AAD fired reserve. The primary reason you would have this is due to not pulling it yourself.

I.e. No AAD - probability of dying: (f'in close to 1)
AAD - probability of dying - much less than 1.

The only reason i could thnk of where this argument holds is where you RELY on an AAD to pull for you when you are completely capable of pulling yourself. Which as some of the far more experienced guys have said, is an extremely bad idea!

Or am i missing something?
(on a lighter note Mat, Happy Christmas and i'll see ya next year!!)

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[mr2mk1g 10]

Yup - that's exactly what I'm saying. Reliability of AAD's [to save your life] involves a consideration of the reliability of reserve parachutes as well as a consideration of the reliability of the AAD itself.

ie just because your AAD fires doesn't mean you live - your reserve may fail in a number of ways.

Thus the risk involved in having an AAD save your life for you involves a multiplication of both the risk the AAD will fail and the risk the reserve will fail.

So even if an AAD [firing or not firing] is equally reliable as a reserve opening (another debate altogether) then an AAD deployed reserve is more risky than a self deployed reserve as it involves a multiplication of the two risk elements.

So I think that means we agree... I think...

(Yeah mate, happy chrimbo. We'll have to get together some point in the new year for some FF).

[LawnDart21 0]

A "landable canopy" needs two criteria to be met:
1) Adequate function of canopy
2) Adequate function of pilot

A canopy experiencing minor issues that an experienced jumper may be able to land blind folded may be "unlandable" to the inexperienced jumper. If that is the case, then I think it appropriate for that newer jumper to utilze their reserve.

As for the reserve itself. Today's modern reserves are exceptionaly designed and functioning canopies. If I had even the slightest thought that my reserve (or my wife's) would not work properly any time it was deployed, neither of us would jump, ever. Reserves work, and work well, alot of us are living proof to that statement.

As for AADs, I dunno. My wife and I jump with them, and even though I have the same relate faith in the Cypres as I do in my reserves, I believe it important to embed a different mentality in students, that the student is the PRIMARY AAD and the mechanical one is only a back up.

The difference is most jumpers will use thier reserve if they jump long enough, where as most will not use there cypres.

Just my .02 Peace.

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.

[Ron 7]

Quote

A "landable canopy" needs two criteria to be met:
1) Adequate function of canopy
2) Adequate function of pilot

Not true. All you need to have a landable canopy is a landable canopy...The pilot is not part of that equation.

It may SEEM that based on people desire to overload a reserve canopy, but that does not mean there is a problem with the reserve.

I know several folks that have landed just fine without any input on the toggles, and I know folks that were wide awake and in control die.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[LawnDart21 0]

I was talking specifically about deciding to cut away a main. The decision to cutaway impies the jumper is conscious. If a pilot doesnt feel they can fly/land their canopy (pilot function) under a "landable mal", then I say it is appopropriate for them to cut it away for the reserve. Even if it is "landable" by other peoples estimation. I thought that was what the original post was asking.

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.

[RedassSkychic 0]

It was my impression that students are taught to cut away something that isn't "landable" so that they won't have to make the decision when they are in the situation. They should know before they go up what they would do in a certain situation so that there is no time wasted questioning. I guess my point is this way of teaching may not be related to the reliability of the reserve at all but more the decision making abilitites of the student. (however, I am not an istructor so my impression may be incorrect)

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

It was my impression that students are taught to cut away something that isn't "landable"

I don't think that terminology is used, specifically at all. Maybe it is, and I'd be happy to hear from some either still on, or just off student status to correct me if my impression is wrong.

It is my impression that students are taught:

1. To recognize a malfunction.
We do this in the AFF ground course by putting them in the harness, then showing them various pictures of MALFUNCTIONS, and teaching how to appropriately react to each. ...We also show some simply hung sliders, closed end-cells, etc. too, just to get some variables in, and talk about appropriate reactions to each.

I suppose it could be extrapolated that they would be under the impression to chop anything "unlandable", but I don't think we actually go into, and expect a student (in those terms) to determine what is "landable", vs. what is not. I think THAT would be too much to put on a 1st time jump student. Personally, I've alsways still stuck to just the very BASICS (until a bit later in the progression) of:

-Is it there?
-Is it square?
-Controllability check ...is it controllable?

And in that order. If the students answer to any of these after initiating their main pull/deployment, in this order is "no", then they immediately should perform EP's. I don't think the term or terminology (or further potential interpreted definition of) "landable" ever enters the consideration.

Is this different elsewhere, or has this somehow changed? Maybe I'm just talking nuances here too. Just another perspective though.

Happy Holidays everyone!
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[Scrumpot 1]

If you've "relied" on your cypres (or Vigil), then you are by default also relying upon your reserve! I like what MR2mk1g actually said with his post. Very insightful grasshopper!

Quote

An AAD is only as reliable as the reserve it fires.

I don't quite understand what it is you are getting at or asking here. Surely you are not suggesting that we should instead just teach RELIANCE on the Cypres??? Please tell me that is not what you are saying.

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[cbain 0]

I think what you're asking about is failure rates of AAD's versus failure rates of reserve canopies. I don't know if any statistics on the two actually exist but in my limited experience I've heard of failures of AAD's more frequently than failures of reserves. To compare to a more common situation, birth control, which does have statistical information available.

The predicted failure rate of condoms is something <5% I think, although the actual usage failure rate I think is more like 20%. (based on a year if I remember my sex ed class). Compare that to the pill which has an expected failure rate of <0.01% and an actual usage failure rate of <0.5%. (please don't take these numbers as set in stone, I'm going off of blurry memories here).

But back to skydiving here. Trying to compare the two is like comparing apples and oranges to begin with since the two serve completely different purposes. Everytime I jump I'm counting on my reserve to work because I never know when I may need it. I count on my rigger to know what he's doing because there is no room for error. If I thought my reserve had say a 5% chance of failure (not counting extenuating circumstances like two out, low pull, etc) then I would never jump because that failure rate is unacceptable for a reserve that should be functioning. My AAD on the other hand I never count on on any jump and past experience would say that the AAD has a chance greater than 5% of not working correctly. Not to mention that there are almost always extenuating circumstances in an AAD fire that could severly complicate things. So that's why I think students are taught to trust their reserve to work and not their AAD. Not to mention that everyone, in skydiving anyways, has to have a reserve to do an intentional jump, AAD's aren't required. In the course of a skydiving career I think everyone expects to use their reserve at some point, no one expects to use their AAD.

As far as landing a malfunctioning main or correcting a malfunction prior to landing. I think that is the sole responsibility of the pilot of that canopy to decide if they have a better chance with a malfunctioning main or with their reserve. It's the responsibility of the pilot to decide that, student or not. And a student with limited experience and/or skills may very well have a much better chance with their reserve than trying to land a main they can't completly control.

An example that I've heard of happenning would be if somehow my main canopy got hooked up backwards. On opening it maybe flying great but backwards. Now do I land that or do I chop it and go for silver. Personnally I think the chance of my reserve working would be better than me having the skills to land my relatively new elliptical canopy backwards without getting hurt. Given that I have enough altitude of course.

Wow, that's a lot longer than I intended but oh well, that's just my opinion of course and everyone's got one.

Christina

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

It is my impression that students are taught:

1. To recognize a malfunction....

-Is it there?
-Is it square?
-Controllability check ...is it controllable?

I'm a current student and we got "there, square, stable, and steerable." That was drilled into my head and is what goes through my head on every deployment. I also know that it is my responsibility to make that decision every time and to differentiate between a fixable problem and a non-fixable one. Being taught what is fixable (and how to fix it) and what isn't fixable has helped me make those decisions.

For example, last weekend I had an opening with some pretty violent line twists and while I was fighting to get out of them, the talk-down instructor said "Try unstowing your brakes and see if you can steer." I didn't do that because I knew that was the wrong thing to do in the situation because I had been taught it was the wrong thing to do in the situation. I was the one with complete information to make the right decision, not the talk-down instructor - he was advising me on what he thought he saw from the ground. (He later told me that it looked like I had a line over, which is why he advised a controllability check.)

As for teaching reliance on the Cypres, I hope no one's doing that. I was taught that the Cypres is there to (possibly) save your life if you are unable to do so, but that if you are conscious and physically able you damn well better be making the best decisions you can and taking action to save your own life.

Seems to me (as a newbie, anyway) that training ought to be about teaching you everything you need to know (from gear checks to packing to deploying stable to recognizing problems and how to fix them) to avoid being down to your last option but also knowing when to take that last option. Reserves aren't perfect, but I knew that when I got into this sport and I choose to take that risk every time I jump out of an airplane. I'd rather rely on it, pulling myself than rely on it *and* the Cypres to save my life.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[RTB 0]

Quote

If you've "relied" on your cypres (or Vigil), then you are by default also relying upon your reserve! I like what MR2mk1g actually said with his post. Very insightful grasshopper!

Quote

An AAD is only as reliable as the reserve it fires.

I don't quite understand what it is you are getting at or asking here. Surely you are not suggesting that we should instead just teach RELIANCE on the Cypres??? Please tell me that is not what you are saying.

No I am definitely NOT saying that a cypres or any other mechanical device can be trusted.
I am also saying that riggers are human, there is no way all reserves in the world now and for ever ever will be completely 100 % safe.
I am just saying that there seems to be a discrepancy in what we teach. I never hear anyone saying that a reserve can malfunction to a student. We do stress very hard that a cypres can though.
I have also seen students cut away from line twists that were fixable and we tell them if they are not sure cut it away. But what if they cut away something that is landable and get into more truble?

As a sideline, of course I trust my reserve, I trust all my packjobs.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have also seen students cut away from line twists that were fixable and we tell them if they are not sure cut it away. But what if they cut away something that is landable and get into more truble?

That is the gamble, right? But the odds strongly favor that choice over holding onto a marginal main.

But I know exactly what you mean - when you cutaway, you're down to the last chance. So long as you're under the main, you have it plus the last chance. Or at least until somewhere around the 1000-1500range. I think the students are told to cutaway immediately because the risk of waiting too long poses a greater threat.

I worry that this thinking might keep me holding onto a bad main too long. Until (if) it happens, can't be sure. I just keep the hard deck in mind, and still open a bit high.

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

I never hear anyone saying that a reserve can malfunction to a student.

I do. You will NEVER catch me saying anything is 100% guaranteed reliable.

That being said, I do think that "CBain's" post above pretty well encapsulises my thoughts as well on what I think it is now, you are getting at. As far as a student cutting away from what we may have later deemed for ourselves to be either "correctable" or "landable" ...yeah, that is an interesting perspective, but not one I think is worth overly fretting over. Or belongs really, in the STUDENT domain. For instance, a 330 Manta with a line-over flying stable (though not steerable) may be very "landable". But you will NEVER hear me giving a student any flak over cutting one away. We just don't teach them to KNOW that. Nor do I think at their juncture (1st jump course) SHOULD WE.

At some point we do have to instill that the reserve can be (and should be) however, reasonably relied (or maybe better stated "called") upon. I would much rather see a student chop 8-10 line-twists that sure, maybe you or I feel we COULD HAVE gotten out of; than see them try to and FAIL. That's also why we teach altitude awareness and HARD DECK decision altitude. We do teach students the technique for kicking out of line twists. However, ONLY if:

1. They have altitude awareness, and...
2. They are above their hard-deck.

Again, a "no" to either of those, and I want my students (if I had any ...disclaimer here: I AM NOT an instructor) fully confident, and NOT second guessing/being concerned over either recieving flak, or worry in any other way about cutting away. That would cause hesitation. And hesitation (as has been proven) in of itself can cause fatalities!

That's also why, in my mind the very simple 3-rule BASICS as I outlined in my earlier post, in all cases works. Adding variables IMHO only also increases risks. Risks that w/be entirely unneccessary to be added in as "variables" for the student level. At hard deck, with line twists, obviously that student triggers (or should trigger) my #3 in the chain of "good main canopy" decision tree. ...Is it controllable (meaning steerable)? In that case, for them, a cut-away is the right decision to be made.

In short, I do disagree with you that students aren't told that Reserves CAN fail. Or at least they SHOULD be. Who tells them that reserve parachuts are 100% reliable? ...Anybody??? The risks of skydiving are real. You can takes steps to MINIMIZE them, but they will never entirely go away. If they are not willing to accept those risks (as we ALL do), then they should NOT take up skydiving.

Christina (CBain) seems to have followed what you wanted, and IMO has got it right (although I'm not quite so certain about that condom thing ...I don't rely upon THOSE either! ). Anyone else have anything further? Interesting topic for thought to bring up from time-to-time actually. Way too easy to get entrenched into "just the way things are", and miss considering where appropriate, potentially other options out there. Don't think we're there with this one yet. but....

THANKS!
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[craig_b 0]

I've always liked your input Grant and you are right on the money with this one. I'm at 40 jumps, recently A Licensed off student and the term that was engrained in my head was that the canopy had to be "controllable". That didn't mean that it didn't have a malfunction in process, if you can clear the mal in time don't cut away.

As a student I was taught to pull at the correct altitude (for a student) and as you say check it out for any malfunction. Some are absolute immediate cut aways under student status no matter what but most require evaluation, quickly and effectively. The other thing I was taught is to pull, decide, cut away if needed rapidly so you DON'T have an ADD fire and end up with two out. Great respect for that scenerio was once again engrained into my mind.

Thank you for your great input and thank you for this topic.

Blue Skies!

_________________________________________
once you've experienced flight, you forever walk the ground with your head pointed skyward. There you've been and there you long to return.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

As for the reserve itself. Today's modern reserves are exceptionaly designed and functioning canopies. If I had even the slightest thought that my reserve (or my wife's) would not work properly any time it was deployed, neither of us would jump, ever. Reserves work, and work well, alot of us are living proof to that statement.

As for AADs, I dunno. My wife and I jump with them, and even though I have the same relate faith in the Cypres as I do in my reserves, I believe it important to embed a different mentality in students, that the student is the PRIMARY AAD and the mechanical one is only a back up.

Quote

I also don't know if I'm understanding the
original question correctly...

They are two separate devices,
I don't see how the reliability of one
effects the other.

Maybe 'before' the reserve is activated...

the possible reliability of the AAD factors into the
overall outcome...but once activated the reserve
sequence is following it's predetermined path...

As said above...an AAD is a mechanical device
that should never be relied upon...EVER.

Batteries low...improper calibration...
cutter malfunction...wire short..
not turned on...

It's a last ditch 'safe guard'...not a 'fail safe' item.


LawnDart says-
"that the student is the PRIMARY AAD
and the mechanical one is only a back up."

I think 'student' should be changed to 'jumper'
because no one should rely on an ADD..
(..and we're ALL still students!)



LawnDart sums it up...

"If I had even the slightest thought that my reserve (or my wife's) would not work properly any time it was deployed, neither of us would jump, ever."

If you have feelings OTHER than that...
Why jump?!

I had that sentiment brought to light for me
20 years ago when a friend I jumped with
back then, just dumped his reserve on the
last jump of the day...

"It's repack time anyway..."

** I would NEVER do that myself and certainly
DO NOT recommend it...!!!

Later he (as a rigger) was repacking his reserve,
I asked him WHY he would just go straight to
it...?
...Betting his life on just that one parachute...!

He said..."Every time we jump, we're betting
on that one parachute."

He had a point...
And I agree with the logic..."basically" anyway.

So.....here's a question to ponder,
Aircraft emergency scenario~
You're at a grand, next to the door...
plane IS going to crash...you exit...

Which handle?!



The military did studies years ago on
reserve reliability...as I recall-
Rounds had an inherent malfunction rate of 1%
1 out of 100 would malfunction for no apparent reason.

Squares had no inherent malfunction rate. 0%

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

[tbrown 26]

Modern square reserves are extremely reliable. In order to pass their TSO tests they're packed with 3 intentional line twists up against the canopy. They still have to be completely open in 3 seconds or less. No they're not perfect, nothing is.

AAD's are remarkably reliable when they're properly maintained. But I was up on a load today and looking out a window at 750 ft. It never fails to send a chill up my spine to think of deploying anything that low. The AAD deploys your PILOT CHUTE at that altitude. TSO standard sez your reserve must be open within 3 sec/300 ft. Rotsa ruck. It probably will, you hope. Which is why they're called AAD's for automatic ACTIVATION devices. In the old days the earlier models used to be called AOD's for auto opening devices, until the legal boys sat the manufacturers down and explained the liability of making such an implied warranty. AAD's save lives, I use one. But I'll be damned if I'm ever gonna let myself fall that low. I'll have to be out cold, or sound asleep or something, because that kind of ground rush would make me pull every handle I've got & probably a couple o' times.

Finally, students are taught to lose the canopy if they don't like it. Sure, sometimes they chop a spinner that might've easily been fixed by pulling down once on the toggles. But they don't have the experience to make that kind of a judgement, or to act on it quickly. Better for them to take the much smaller risk of a reserve mal than the greater risk of spinning to their death. It's really that simple.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

TSO standard sez your reserve must be open within 3 sec/300 ft.

Tom,

Its 3 sec. or 300 ft. There are 2 different test parameters that may be used to test. Every reserve I can think of are tested to 3 sec. because 3 sec is always 3 sec. no matter what speed you are traveling. 300 feet can go by real fast if you are doing 120 mph. or not so fast if you are doing only 50 mph.

But you are right, deploying at 750 ft. just makes my skin crawl.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals