kallend 1,623 #1 July 19, 2004 www.sunpath.com/downloads/bulletins/sp03.pdf... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #2 July 19, 2004 Wasn't there a bullitin about this a few months back, following the fatality in Miami (wasn't it miami?) The bullitin simply wanted riggers to inspect the adjustment hardware on the MLW...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #3 July 19, 2004 QuoteWasn't there a bullitin about this a few months back, following the fatality in Miami (wasn't it miami?) The bullitin simply wanted riggers to inspect the adjustment hardware on the MLW... Yes. The new SB supercedes the previous one.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BabaLouie 0 #4 July 19, 2004 Perhaps I have missed this in a previous thread/forum but is there any idea of age/DOM and number of jumps for both of the failed student rigs? Are the student Javalins beefier in their construction and material or are they simply a Javalin with a MLW and different deployment system? thanks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelem 0 #5 July 19, 2004 The old bulletin is at http://www.sunpath.com/downloads/bulletins/sp02.pdf My interpretation of this new bulletin is that it is just a clarification of the previous one, and a requirement to inspect all the rigs now in addition to every reserve repack. There are pictures of some of the rigs in question in the two bulletins. When I was jumping them I noticed very little difference between the adustable and non-adustable rigs in terms of sturdyness. The only differences I noticed were that the leg straps had clips on the adjustable ones, and the adjustable ones were longer (both types were ripcord with either skymaster 230 or skymaster 290 mains) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tahoedog 0 #6 July 20, 2004 The only difference between this SB and the old one is that this one grounds the rig until a Master Rigger/equivalent does some official documentation as to the condition of the webbing and okays its use. Unfortunately, the riggers are given no understanding of why the MLW adjuster is ripping these rigs apart after they pass inspection (disclaimer: this is my unproven theory). Realize that, according to reports, the SDC rig was inspected three times prior to use. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #7 July 20, 2004 This is a common wear area on adjustable harnesses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rdutch 0 #8 July 21, 2004 This should have been done a long time ago. When the FIRST student died, and after inspections there was more than one frayed harness found. I know that replacing every student harness out there is a lot to ask, and very expensive, re-designing your harness is also expensive, but sunpath owes it to their customers to do just that. Will this SB fix the problem? I dont know, but I really think it isnt the answer. But there is a history and proof (2 dead skydivers, proof enough? ) that the system in use now is flawed. Asking Master riggers to inspect the harness is a good idea, but can you ask them to do that every month? All of these rigs have been repacked by riggers, which means they were inspected also, routinely. So that shows that the regular inspection interval isnt enough to catch the problem, and this fix is a band aid and nothing more. Killing your customers is bad business, especially STUDENTS that have no idea what they are jumping and trust the gear they jump. Gear manufacturers should be on top of these things the instant they happen, seeing the time between the fatalities shows that there wasnt enough done, and now 2 people have lost their lives due to negligence. Maybe the first was an accident, but why wasnt something done to ensure that it diddnt happen again? I know, and we all know that skydiving is dangerous, but we take (most of us) a good look at what gear we jump and rely on their respectability and reputation. Sunpath makes great rigs, one of the best out there, that said 2 people are dead due to a lack of testing, and a lack of following up and fixing what is clearly a problem. There will never be a perfect rig, parachute ect. And sometimes people die in this sport, but 2 fatalities due to the same problem is too many. If your an instructor and jump rigs that this Sb applies to, check the rig EVERY time you put a student out. Anyway, just be carefull, and If you work at or own a dropzone with the applied rigs in use, contact the manufacturer and ask them how they can explain and prove to you that this sb is the answer, and how they can back it up with their investigation. You owe it to your customers. They trust you to make sure their gear is safe because they usually know nothing about this sport. Ray Small and fast what every girl dreams of! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tahoedog 0 #9 July 21, 2004 To clarify, this had little to do with whether or not there was wear apparent on the webbing. The multiple inspections which took place before the fatal jump did not indicate any trouble areas. I contend that the way that the rig is configured places much more stress on the front end of the adjuster, causing a much narrower section of webbing to be stressed, setting it up for disaster. I'll email details to those who would like further clarification. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrogNog 1 #10 July 21, 2004 Do you mean it's more like a "link radius" issue, or a stacking issue, which could theoretically cut the webbing on the first jump if the hard opening and other required conditions were met? -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JKT 0 #11 July 21, 2004 Given that the same locking mechanism is used on leg straps (I assume - it looks the same to me), what is the difference here between the stresses on the leg strap webbing relative to that on the adjustable MLW on these rigs? Why would one be more likely to fray and break than the other? Is it possible that the two sides of the harness webbing weren't set to be the same length in these incidents which increased the chances of one side being under far more stress than the other?----- Official 100 jump wonder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
696GrocuttT 0 #12 July 21, 2004 QuoteGiven that the same locking mechanism is used on leg straps (I assume - it looks the same to me), what is the difference here between the stresses on the leg strap webbing relative to that on the adjustable MLW on these rigs I could be wrong about this, but I would have thought that the stress on the leg strap hardware is about half that of the MLW adjustment. If you think about it the force you put on the leg strap will be divided between the 2 ends of the leg strap that go into the hip ring (if you have one). The hardware is only on one of these. I'm not sure how the load on the webbing/hardware affects that wear rate. But I do know that I've seen lots of wear on both adjustable MLW's and leg strap hardware. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #13 July 21, 2004 It has more to do with the angle at which the junction is stressed - as you can see form the pictures, the webbing bunches at one end over time, depending often on the size of the student and the angle at which the webbing is pulled tight relative to the buckle. Legstraps are always pretty much stressed directly square with the webbing. Like any gear - it needs to be inspected and repaired/replaced when fraying or wear is present. Articulated harnesses eliminated the problem, TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JKT 0 #14 July 21, 2004 QuoteI could be wrong about this, but I would have thought that the stress on the leg strap hardware is about half that of the MLW adjustment. If you think about it the force you put on the leg strap will be divided between the 2 ends of the leg strap that go into the hip ring (if you have one). The hardware is only on one of these. However, your harness is also "split" in two (with the second half behind you and built into the container), so wouldn't the force be similar at the MLW adjuster as it is at your leg strap buckle? The shearing effect caused by uneven distribution of the webbing through the friction lock of the adjuster would be the more likely cause as mentioned above, which is why I'm asking whether or not, in these two incidents, it is known if the two adjusters were at the same setting - if they weren't, then the forces would be distributed unevenly and that could be one of the reasons why one side was more prone to shearing than the other.----- Official 100 jump wonder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
696GrocuttT 0 #15 July 21, 2004 Quote However, your harness is also "split" in two (with the second half behind you and built into the container), so wouldn't the force be similar at the MLW adjuster as it is at your leg strap buckle? I don't think its the same. Again I could be wrong about this but I'm pritty sure there isn't a lot of force that goes through the container itself (and the webbing in it). If there were why would the laterals be designed to go horizontally from the bottor of the container to the MLW. Any comments from the riggers out there. I'm sure most if not nearly all of your weight is carried by the MLW, hence the name. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #16 July 21, 2004 I think the force must go straight down the MLW. Think about it - the canopy connects straight to the MLW via the 3-ring-circus. Your weight connects straight to the MLW via the leg strap articulation points (or simply where they are sewn on). This buckle is in the middle. The MLW must take virtually all of your weight, the container is simply there to hold the canopies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #17 July 21, 2004 QuoteAll of these rigs have been repacked by riggers, which means they were inspected also, routinely. You really believe that? There are plenty of riggers out there that simply repack and go to the next one rather than do the proper "recertification" total inspection needed.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #18 July 21, 2004 QuoteI'll email details to those who would like further clarification. I'd like to know more about you and how you reach your conclusions. I'm not attacking them, but they'd carry more weight is I could know what wualifications you have to be making them.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #19 July 21, 2004 QuoteThe MLW must take virtually all of your weight, the container is simply there to hold the canopies. The container provieds little to no suport or structure. There is a hidden half of the harness within the back pad. Interesting stuff, try to find a loft that does master rigger type repairs and ask to see the next rig they have "open" for major repairs. We recently had a guy out here that had a mal that caused his container to be seperated from the backpad. It is easy to see at that point how even the loss of the entire container will still allow for a complete harness to ensure the jumper doesn't "fall out the back". Like wise I've seen the results of a premeture main deployment that ripped the reserve container completely off the rig, aster emergency proceduers the jumper landed safely unde their reserve with a complete harness, sans reserve container.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #20 July 21, 2004 I was told by a loft that their master rigger inspected the rig as soon as this bullitin came out and they found a rig that recieved a 3 because the metal was able to rotate. This same rigger said that they inspect the rigs every week and the damage was not there at the last inspection. They were able to think back and they can pretty much identify the jump that the damage occured on. Something that I want to know is which side did the harness break on? How large were the students? Under/over TSO? How far let out were the adapters? Were the deployments stable?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #21 July 21, 2004 I believe the rigs were regularly and thoroughly inspected. Assuming otherwise would be a potentially fatal mistake, in my opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #22 July 21, 2004 If you are talkinga bout the specific rigs at SDC, then I would be in agreement with you. They are a top notch organization, with good riggers. But assuming all riggers are created equal, and they all inspect that which they should is IMO a possibly faital mistake.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #23 July 21, 2004 Agreed, 100%. I also think SunPath needs to do a little more about this particular issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #24 July 21, 2004 Is this adjustable MLW arrangement new on the Jav? Did it replace an older design... I just find it surprising that 2 fatalities have occured in about 1 year with at their core an equipment failure, if this same tyep of equipment has been used for a while....Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tahoedog 0 #25 July 21, 2004 Quotewhat is the difference here between the stresses on the leg strap webbing relative to that on the adjustable MLW on these rigs? The major difference is that the direction of forces of legstraps on the adjuster are directly opposite one another, distributing forces along the entire width of the adjuster. In contrast, MLW adjuster has forces exerted at a significant angle. TKHayes demonstrates my point as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
