re: skydiving fatalities, why not require the manufacturers to meet the TSO?

[emfbowne 0]

I’ve grown tired of people on this forum trying to defend manufacturers whos equipment clearly fails to meet the TSO requirement. Those of you that argue the firing height of the AADs needs to be raised clearly do not understand the issue. Folks, IF your pilotchute fails to create enough drag to extract your reserve from your container, it isn’t going to matter if your AAD fires at 750 feet or it fires at 5,000 ft - you are going in!

The solution is NOT to raise the firing height of the AAD, the solution is to mandate the manufacturers to meet the TSO that their equipment is already supposed to comply with or get the containers off the market until it is made to comply.

This is pervasive within the industry, why can’t these manufacturers publish the extraction forces of their pilot chutes to prove the reserves will deploy when the AAD fires? Maybe, because the manufacturers don’t have a clue as to how to go about measuring that ???

So, while some manufacturers have been out spending money making gadgets that serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever except to be one more p.o s. that can get in the way to actually cause more malfunctions – or - manufacturers who are more concerned about making containers that look “way cool” (because as skydivers that’s where our priorities should be – it’s ALL about looking good when you bounce – really????) there have to be some manufacturers that worried about making containers that actually does meet the TSO requirement. Who are they? Don’t we as the consumers have the right to know?

Let me remind you all TS135 requires a video record of the qualification test. Why not just make those videos public so we all know whos gear’s worth buying and whos isn’t? Why can’t we hold the manufacturers accountable if they lied about their TSO results?

I would think the last two deaths this weekend - on the eve of PIA’s symposium would finally force PIA to do it’s job. PIA you are the authority in this industry. It’s time to start looking at the facts and it’s time to hold container manufacturers accountable for designing safer equipment that meets the TSO requirement. The problem is not the firing height of the AADs – changing that will not save lives and people are going to continue to die. The issue is with the container. PIA, do you care more about doing what’s right or do you care more about your bank account? Do you have the chutzpa to tell manufacturers “we’ve had enough fatalities, comply with the TSO or get it off the market till it does!”?

Maybe it’s time for an independent, unbiased research facility, run by people who care about the skydivers and the industry instead of one that’s run by the manufacturers who pay money while others who should know better look the other way and stick their head in the sand. Wake up people, someone knows the truth here - PIA do your job!

[mik 2]

Quote

I’ve grown tired of people on this forum trying to defend manufacturers whos equipment clearly fails to meet the TSO requirement. Those of you that argue the firing height of the AADs needs to be raised clearly do not understand the issue. Folks, IF your pilotchute fails to create enough drag to extract your reserve from your container, it isn’t going to matter if your AAD fires at 750 feet or it fires at 5,000 ft - you are going in!

The solution is NOT to raise the firing height of the AAD, the solution is to mandate the manufacturers to meet the TSO that their equipment is already supposed to comply with or get the containers off the market until it is made to comply.

This is pervasive within the industry, why can’t these manufacturers publish the extraction forces of their pilot chutes to prove the reserves will deploy when the AAD fires? Maybe, because the manufacturers don’t have a clue as to how to go about measuring that ???

So, while some manufacturers have been out spending money making gadgets that serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever except to be one more p.o s. that can get in the way to actually cause more malfunctions – or - manufacturers who are more concerned about making containers that look “way cool” (because as skydivers that’s where our priorities should be – it’s ALL about looking good when you bounce – really????) there have to be some manufacturers that worried about making containers that actually does meet the TSO requirement. Who are they? Don’t we as the consumers have the right to know?

Let me remind you all TS135 requires a video record of the qualification test. Why not just make those videos public so we all know whos gear’s worth buying and whos isn’t? Why can’t we hold the manufacturers accountable if they lied about their TSO results?

I would think the last two deaths this weekend - on the eve of PIA’s symposium would finally force PIA to do it’s job. PIA you are the authority in this industry. It’s time to start looking at the facts and it’s time to hold container manufacturers accountable for designing safer equipment that meets the TSO requirement. The problem is not the firing height of the AADs – changing that will not save lives and people are going to continue to die. The issue is with the container. PIA, do you care more about doing what’s right or do you care more about your bank account? Do you have the chutzpa to tell manufacturers “we’ve had enough fatalities, comply with the TSO or get it off the market till it does!”?

Maybe it’s time for an independent, unbiased research facility, run by people who care about the skydivers and the industry instead of one that’s run by the manufacturers who pay money while others who should know better look the other way and stick their head in the sand. Wake up people, someone knows the truth here - PIA do your job!

At my DZ there are many thousands of jumps completed every year using equipment that is not TSO approved. I have seen Cypres fires on these rigs with no problems. I can imagine there will be situtations where these non-TSO approved rigs could encounter problems eg ig not maintained properly, if reserve closing loop misrouted to avoid aad cutter etc.,

Point is - I assume your post relates to the Z Hills incident. If so - or even if not - why do you believe that there is some manufacturing error that is causing fatalities or other problems?

***********************************************
I'm NOT totally useless... I can be used as a bad example

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

Point is - I assume your post relates to the Z Hills incident. If so - or even if not - why do you believe that there is some manufacturing error that is causing fatalities or other problems?

Please excuse me for butting in but:

1st Clue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaYQ6iP8zlg

2nd Clue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5_KLch6ziA

3rd Clue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zva4gHVX_zI

4th Clue: A history of 15 previous accidents with simular circumstances: AAD fired, reserve failed to deploy.

Question to all: During this time, how many and what kinds of rigs have successfully deployed a reserve under simular circumstances? They can't all be failing. If we knew the answer to this question (information AAD manufacturers could supply) we could understand the depth, of the impact, these events are having.

[wmw999 2,114]

It really looks to me like the introduction of hte bagged square reserve has introduced a failure mode that didn't exist previously. Obviously it was an improvement in some ways, but round reserves came out a little bit at a time.

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)

[topdocker 0]

Quote

It really looks to me like the introduction of hte bagged square reserve has introduced a failure mode that didn't exist previously. Obviously it was an improvement in some ways, but round reserves came out a little bit at a time.

Wendy P.

So back to the sleeve? At least it could snake out.
And probably be easier to find later....

top

Jump more, post less!

[wmw999 2,114]

For reserves? Nope, back to the diaper. I actually used to diaper my square main -- it was extremely reliable for me. I made (yes, made) a diaper that accommodated all of the lines being stowed on it, but which compressed only the bottom part of the canopy. Used it for about 300 jumps. But when I started jumping again in the 2000's, I just went with what was on the rig.

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)

[theonlyski 3]

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say you're either very close to or work at Jumpshack.

Millions of jumps are conducted each year, generally incident free... Shot hits the fan and its all because a reserve PC doesn't meet TSO. Maybe it's got more to do with the possibility of a faster than normal speed, less than optimal deployment position and it just being their unlucky day.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[jurgencamps 0]

Not to a specific incident, but it helps if people do not put a reserve in a to small container.
Every system is as weak as the weakest link in the chain.

[topdocker 0]

Quote

For reserves? Nope, back to the diaper. I actually used to diaper my square main -- it was extremely reliable for me. I made (yes, made) a diaper that accommodated all of the lines being stowed on it, but which compressed only the bottom part of the canopy. Used it for about 300 jumps. But when I started jumping again in the 2000's, I just went with what was on the rig.

Wendy P.

My team probably has 25000 jumps on diapered mains. I love them, but not sure it would work for a reserve. The pilot chute would have to stay attached to the reserve, like a round. Would we now loose people because of a horseshoe?

top

Jump more, post less!

[dudeman17 267]

Back in the 80's Bill Gargano TSO'd a diaper deployment system for square reserves. I used it once, had to chop a 7-cell for some reason and deployed a diapered Hobbit out of a Handbury rig with a 2-pin / 2-riser reserve container. Seemed to work fine.

[wmw999 2,114]

That's an excellent point. But, you know -- we don't have a lot of horseshoed mains with pilot chutes attached, would we with reserves?

I think that, more htan anything, this is proof that there really are very few "advances" that are entirely without downsides. They just have to be considered.

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)

[jonstark 8]

Quote

Why can’t we hold the manufacturers accountable if they lied about their TSO results?


Do you have the chutzpa to tell manufacturers “we’ve had enough fatalities, comply with the TSO or get it off the market till it does!”?

Maybe it’s time for an independent, unbiased research facility, run by people who care about the skydivers and the industry instead of one that’s run by the manufacturers who pay money while others who should know better look the other way and stick their head in the sand. Wake up people, someone knows the truth here - PIA do your job!

These are some serious allegations. Are you saying that manufacturers are falsifying test data and that the PIA is remiss in acting on knowledge of this?

It sounds as though you must be aware that a reserve, to be TSO'd, must deploy in a defined amount of time as well as distance in both high and low speeds. The manufacturers have long been struggling to accomplish this most difficult feat yet we the jumpers insist on stretching the envelope and expecting everything to work as advertised. It just ain't so.

Admittedly there have been design flaws and/or deficiencies identified over the years that may have passed TSO testing yet have proven to be less than desirable in regular use. That's the reason for Airworthiness Directives and manufacturers' service bulletins.

When a piece of equipment is operated outside of the normal or TSO test regime or in a manner inconsistent with it's published limitations do you still believe it should function as tested?

How about putting the onus on the users? If a jumper is going to go head down at nearly 200 mph with a reserve that is neither tested nor certified at that speed should a manufacturer be held accountable for a failure of that system?

For you to accuse manufacturers of falsification of test data is very bold. I suggest if you have direct knowledge of actual instances you contact the FAA or at least file a "Malfunction or Defect Report", FAA form 8010-4. This document WILL get the attention of the entire industry. I guarantee it.

jon

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

For reserves? Nope, back to the diaper. I actually used to diaper my square main -- it was extremely reliable for me. I made (yes, made) a diaper that accommodated all of the lines being stowed on it, but which compressed only the bottom part of the canopy. Used it for about 300 jumps. But when I started jumping again in the 2000's, I just went with what was on the rig.

Wendy P.

I too used a diapered main for thousands of jumps with no problems...in fact the rig packed up smaller, lighter and with noticeably cleaner lines (cool factor covered)

Personally I don't think the bag alone is the problem here...it's the 'cool factor' container design IMO.

The wide at the bottom angling in at the top is to me an obvious 'bottle stopper' configuration. In the parachute labs posted vid of the swinging around by the bridle...the situation is obvious.

Now I believe that the bag would have extracted much easier than the video shows had the pull force been straight back instead of in-line with the 'bottle stopper' wide end forced through small hole...but guess what THAT'S about the pull force direction with an RSL deployment.

I certainly don't recall this situation presenting itself back when the containers were 'square' not tapered...maybe we've opted for form over function and now we're faced with a component re-design to make the pretty one work as well as the ugly one?

And in regard to a horseshoe on a diapered reserve...just blue-skying here, but why do we 'have' to have a reserve pilot-chute with a bridle anyway?

The whole idea is to get the container open and the canopy into the wind in a reasonable staged manner for deployment. Why not something along the lines of a top-skin blister with a spring-loaded pouch integral to the canopy. It would blow open the flaps and start the diapered, tail-pocketed reserve into the wind-stream.


Hey old-timers...remember the ole 'selling point' of the L O N G - wide bridle being it creates enough drag to lift the bag and deploy the reserve in case OF a horseshoe? Yeah right...damn pilot-chute can't even pull the bag out these DAYZ!

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

[chuckakers 369]

Why not place a nice Racer photo with this ad?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[diablopilot 2]

The X210R was a diapered reserve.

The problem is the jumpers and riggers that violate the TSO limitations.

Riggers who stuff canopies into rigs that they are not sized for, changing loop lengths, and packing way to high pull forces.

Jumpers who continually exceed speeds that TSOd components are certified for.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[BigMark 1]

I wonder if sunrise asked to inspect the hand deployed reserve wings container?

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

Quote

Point is - I assume your post relates to the Z Hills incident. If so - or even if not - why do you believe that there is some manufacturing error that is causing fatalities or other problems?

Please excuse me for butting in but:

1st Clue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaYQ6iP8zlg

Jumper is on his back, freebag is behind him. He reaches with his left hand to just outside the cameras view and pulls the top of the freebag.

[inline Grab.JPG]
[inline Pull1.JPG]
[inline Pull2.JPG]

Looks a lot more like the bag was stuck between his head and shoulders than the bag is stuck in the container. Given that it looks like he's head low, it would make even more sense.

ETA: in that video you have it saying that the PC isn't oscillating and because of it, it's not creating any drag. By that mentality, a round canopy that isn't oscillating will not create drag... yet I bet there's thousands and thousands of paratroopers and older skydivers that would disagree... Right?

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

ETA: in that video you have it saying that the PC isn't oscillating and because of it, it's not creating any drag. By that mentality, a round canopy that isn't oscillating will not create drag...

Ski,

All round parachutes oscillate, in fact their angle of oscillation is published for each model. That is why we cut holes in them, to direct the flow and reduce the oscillation. Drag devices don't go into oscillation phase until they go into tow. Tow means that the device being loaded with more load than can support. Like when a bag gets stuck in the container. That's when the tug of war begins and you see the oscillation. That is the condition in the photos you posted but the pilot chute isn't draging, it isn't dancing, it isn't jerking on the bridle like a dog playing tug, it is just lazyly being drug through the air with no resistance. It should be violently oscillating with a very high amplitude and frequency.
I have wind tunnel tested simular designes in the NASA Ames 7x9 wind tunnel. See:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zva4gHVX_zI
While the specific PC was not the one tested it is simular to the 3rd one.
Additionally, the jumper himself said the bag was trapped in the container and he was more verticle than on his back. I hope the drag of the pilot chute was at least enough to stand him up and get him off his back if he ever was.
Until this pilot chute is tested and it's "Effective Square Footage" published and deemed acceptable it should be grounded in all cases.
Oh 1MT: The OP calls for release of the videos required during certification testing. I had forgot about that. Don't you think it would be a good idea.

john

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

All round parachutes oscillate,

Thanks for bring back a bad memory.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[3mpire 0]

This is a general reply, but I'm pretty interested in learning more about what a "diapered" square main deployment would look like but I don't want to hijack this thread about TSO issues so I started a new thread over in gear and rigging:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4464283;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Peace!

[BigMark 1]

Just for clarification was this a wings rig?

[billvon 2,379]

>but I'm pretty interested in learning more about what a "diapered" square main
>deployment would look like

A diaper is a device that 1) provides a place to stow some lines and 2) keeps part of the parachute constrained before the lines pay out.

[racerman 0]

I had a diapered X-210R in my Racer in the 80's.