Tandem Drogues

[Bandito 0]

Has anyone ever used a Strong Drogue on a Vector tandem? if so, was the mod difficult? What was the performance like? Did it outlast the vector Drogue? Is it even legal?

[obelixtim 100]

Why would you want to, or even bother?. Vector make perfectly good drogues.

Is there a point to your question?.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[Bandito 0]

A DZ is using strong drogues on vector equipment so they must disagree with you. That's pretty much my point - trying to figure out why a DZ would choose a strong drogue for a Vector Container.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Is there a point to your question?.

Let's see, the OP only seems to post about incidents at one specific Colorado DZ, there was recently an incident at said Colorado DZ involving a Vector tandem, one of the reports claimed a two-out and downplane from 4k, and one way to get a two-out is a main canopy deployment problem that clears itself during the reserve deployment, etc, etc.

My guess is that it has something to do with that. Maybe he heard they were using a Strong drouge on a Vector tandem, and either he doesn't know if it's legal or safe, or he's just trying to find a 'sly' way to spread the word that this was the configuration thay were jumping. But again, that's just my guess.

[obelixtim 100]

I wasn't going to say it!!.

It does seem strange that he won't answer your question whether he has an axe to grind. Some of his posts on that incident seem to have been shot down as incorrect.

Mix and matching equipment is never a good idea. I'd be VERY surprised if a tandem operator was doing that, as he alleges.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[davelepka 4]

Quote

It does seem strange that he won't answer your question whether he has an axe to grind. Some of his posts on that incident seem to have been shot down as incorrect.

Axe or no axe, as long as he's only posting info he believes to be correct, I can't fauly him for putting it out there.

Let's face it, almost every fatality has one group pointing fingers and another group (generally the locals) pointing fingers back at the first group. I don't see the CO incident as any different, either group could be right and we might find out in time.

That said, I'm wondering if the rigging of a Strong drouge to a Vector tandem could have anything to do with a failure of the drouge releases? The report seems clear on a two-out, and those generally happen when there's a main deployment problem that clears itself during the reserve deployment (I guess you could incldue a low pull into an ADD fire as a 'deployment problem'). So could rigging one drouge to another tandem system create that sort of problem?

Of course, there could have been a rigging problem independent of the mis-matched drouge. Provided they were the same size, you could safely put a Ford wheel on a Chevy, but if you don't tighten the lug nuts, you're going to have a problem.

At this point all we know is that there was a two-out that became a downplane that was flown all the way to the ground. Right off the top you have a rigging or operational problem with the rig leading to a two-out, and a rigging or operational problem based on the lack of a cutaway. If you believe the report that the cutaway handle was in place (on velcro) upon impact, then it's an operational problem on the TI for not cutting away. If you believe that the handle was either off the velcro or pulled alltogether without the main departing, you have a rigging problem.

In either case, it would appear (like most incidents) that several problems (and possibly several people) were to blame.

[Bandito 0]

You attempt to shoot down each post that may bring some light to what happened at a specific dropzone. So I'd turn it around and say that maybe you are the one trying to protect them. The fact is that when dropzones try to hide regarding an incident it makes people much more suspicious - you guys should know that. DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER!


Ps - Since I have your attention, how do you feel about running auto gas in a jump plane?

[davelepka 4]

Cool your jets Bandit-boy. See my post above, and you'll find that I'm not shooting anything down and that I back you up by saying that as long as your intel is good (or at least you honestly think it is) your motivations for posting it are not relevant.

I think the facts should be revealed, and if you have them, you should share them. If it happens satisfy some personal agenda you have, then good for you. However, if that agenda leads to post mis-information, or to claim that you 'heard' such and such, when it's purely your own speculation, that's just a waste of everyones time.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Ps - Since I have your attention, how do you feel about running auto gas in a jump plane?

If you have the STC, and the gas is properly stored, go for it. Any chance your favorite Colorado DZ runs auto gas in their jump plane?

[obelixtim 100]

Quote

it makes people much more suspicious

Drip feeding insinuations/allegations can have the same effect.

I am tending now to disregard what you say, because I don't believe you are part of the investigation team, who at this point will be sifting fact from fiction. That includes any "cover up" attempts, which would be exposed in due course.....

No investigator would be releasing information at this stage of an inquiry, because it is counterproductive to the inquiry itself. Any other info is worthless without knowing the whole picture.

That is NOT the same as "covering up" as you put it.

And FWIW, my old jump plane ran perfectly fine on auto fuel , I just made sure it was properly filtered first. Avgas is simply road gas with a slightly higher octane rating. I wouldn't generally use it though, one reason being the taxes on road fuel in NZ make it far more expensive than avgas.

Avgas ran fine in my truck though, as long as I reduced the octane rating by mixing it with normal fuel....

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[Bandito 0]

Dave, I re-read your post. It's all good...

If you are familiar with the Auto Fuel situation then you know that the STC says that there can be NO ETHENOL in the fuel. So you can't just go to the local gas station...

Regardless, it baffles me that any commercial aviation operation would give the perception of cutting corners just to save a buck a gallon. In addition when something goes wrong - even if it doesn't directly deal with the aircraft, it makes people wonder, "If they will cut corners here then where won't they?".

Of course a side befefit is that it pisses the airport off

[pchapman 261]

Quote

. Avgas is simply road gas with a slightly higher octane rating.

And avgas has much lower vapour pressures, which affects vapor lock susceptibility of the fuel system.
And avgas has tetraethyl lead, which affects engine valves and has environmental effects.
And avgas has no ethanol (when much mogas has it added), which affects seals throughout the fuel system.

So they are significantly different, although I don't know all the details. In certain applications, one fuel can replace the other, but you have to know what you are doing.

[mjosparky 3]

Your posts would have some creditability if you were not hiding behind veil of anonymity. As it is you are just a noise in the dark.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Bandito 0]

That's it? Your not going to address any of the topics on this thread? Talk about noise...

[RM1 0]

Heck with it, ill bite. Since i know who Bandito is as he was kick out of the dropzone for stealing many years ago, then failed at his attempt to run a dropzone. We did have a strong drogue at our dz at one point. It was connected to a set 400 which was connected to a Strong rig that was jumped by a current and rated Strong instructor. Crazy right? We also run Auto fuel, ethanol free, this was proven recently when Bandito filed a complaint with the FAA regarding empty allegations about our planes. The FAA investigated our operation thoroughly just as they have every other time this person lodged a complaint. We have, like always, been cleared and i have the letter from them stating such.

Bandito is also the same guy who went on every news forum that he could stating the TI in question was on drugs and alcohol as per the standard at our dz. I must have missed something when Army Officers were allowed a quick hit before work.

I hope this clears some of this up. I have nothing to prove nor anything to cover up. I also have a name that im not embarrassed to post. Its truly sad that this is how Colorado works.

Neil Porter

[Bandito 0]

Dude, you should read through you post before hitting the send button! That was a hard read... At any rate, you have no clue who I am or where I get my information. With that said, I wouldn't expect you to tell the truth about any potentially illegal activities or coverups that you may have perpetrated... That would be dumb huh?
As far as drugs or alcohol, I looked through the entire incident thread and there are no mentions of it at all. Since you brought it up... Was the pilot and TM tested? After all, This is at least as serious as any fatal automobile accident in which all parties would be tested. Not to mention there's a 24/7 kegerator in the hanger.

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

Was the pilot and TM tested?

Throwing more people in front of the bus now?

Maybe you should test the grounds keeper, the manifest girl and the manufacturer of the seal press the rigger used to seal the reserve.

"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

[Bandito 0]

Nope, just the people directly involved.

I think it's refered to as Under the bus. Anyhow, if that's how you see it then who am I to change your mind?

Edited to add

Speaking of the rigger...

[crotalus01 0]

I think I get that you have an axe to grind with the DZ in question (maybe including the TM), but what the fuck does running auto gas in a jump plane (ethanol free or not) have to do with a fatality that resulted from a 2 out?
Might be relevant if there was a crash, but I fail to see the connection in a parachute malfunction - sounds like you are just trying to slag the DZ any way you can.....

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

That's it? Your not going to address any of the topics on this thread? Talk about noise...

Your credibility seems to be an issue in this thread. My post was not meant as a flame but just some friendly advice.
Here is some more advice from Will Rogers.

"If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[obelixtim 100]

***

Quote

Heck with it, ill bite. Since i know who Bandito is as he was kick out of the dropzone for stealing many years ago, then failed at his attempt to run a dropzone. We did have a strong drogue at our dz at one point. It was connected to a set 400 which was connected to a Strong rig that was jumped by a current and rated Strong instructor. Crazy right? We also run Auto fuel, ethanol free, this was proven recently when Bandito filed a complaint with the FAA regarding empty allegations about our planes. The FAA investigated our operation thoroughly just as they have every other time this person lodged a complaint. We have, like always, been cleared and i have the letter from them stating such.

Bandito is also the same guy who went on every news forum that he could stating the TI in question was on drugs and alcohol as per the standard at our dz. I must have missed something when Army Officers were allowed a quick hit before work.

I hope this clears some of this up. I have nothing to prove nor anything to cover up. I also have a name that im not embarrassed to post. Its truly sad that this is how Colorado works.

Neil Porter

Thank you Neil. 'Nuff said.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[Bandito 0]

Dan, The auto fuel side line came early in the thread which started as a question about using one companies drogue on another companies container. Go back and you will see. Even though it does beg the question that if a DZ will try to save money that way - then what is their limit? at any rate, this thread has turned into an extension of the tandem fatality post in the incidents forum.

[Ron 7]

You seem to have quite the ax to grind.

Maybe instead of hinting and sly methods you could just state what you are trying to say.

Sparky's comment about people hiding while bashing is perfectly valid.

1. Show who you are.
2. Just come out and make your accusations.

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

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Dan, The auto fuel side line came early in the thread which started as a question about using one companies drogue on another companies container. Go back and you will see. Even though it does beg the question that if a DZ will try to save money that way - then what is their limit? at any rate, this thread has turned into an extension of the tandem fatality post in the incidents forum.

The side slide of this thread, is your fault.

Post who you are, or shut up. Put facts in your post, or shut up. Your ax grinding is starting to show every one the coward that you are.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[huge 0]

Quote

if a DZ will try to save money that way - then what is their limit?

Could you please elaborate this a bit? What makes you think that DZ trying to save money is automatically cutting corners when it comes to safety?

There is a STC for autogas and it is considered to be safe. For some reason you are trying to insinuate that there is a safety issue with that. You keep referring to use of ethanol but do you know for a fact that the DZ in question has used ethanol based fuel in their planes? Info coming from the DZ says that they have been investigated by FAA and everything was ok.

You keep saying that you are just presenting facts, but in this case you haven't produced any - just speculation, guesses and misleading.