0
f1freak

Whats missing?

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Both are violations of the rig manufacturer TSO.



I can see that you don't like the situation, and there are plenty of reasons for that, but why would it technically be a violation of any TSO?
Wouldn't it be the same if I jumped with my handles duct taped to my rig? Nothing to do with the rig TSO, just not very smart?

Maybe an FAA violation if one argued that in functional terms, I was no longer jumping a 2-canopy rig (but I'd have to check the wording to be sure)?



The pilot is ultimately responsible for letting you enter and exit the aircraft in their command and one those responsibilities is that those intending to jump have rigs that are in compliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There are some DZ's that allow jumpers to have non-accessible reserve and cutaway handles. Unzip the zipper and reach in there.
As one DZO commented "It's less of a challenge than flipping open a pair of Capewells."



That DZO comment seems absurd to me and I've done multiple actual cutaways with capewells; I say BS. I also think choosing to jump with handles under the wingsuit is a really bad idea...for fairly obvious reasons...

Curious though, can someone explain how that would violate the TSO of the rig being worn? I don't get that part of the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Both are violations of FARs.
Both are violations of the rig manufacturer TSO.



How so? What CFR states that you can't have your handles covered by clothing?
"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Using a system where one has to unzip the suit under stressful conditions, or using a loop that may or may not deploy if it's not pulled at the correct angle?



Thanks for the response Douglas....I think based on your tests we can safely assume that regardless of the angle, unless the suit is unzipped, the reserve handle is not able to be pulled using anything close to normal pull forces. In fact, it appeared that in order for the handle to actually travel far enough to pull the pin, that it would have actually had to come through the fabric of the wingsuit.

I don't know about you, but im not sure that I could get anywhere near 50+ lbs of pull force in any direction on those loops.....Seems to me like either you are sitting there trying to yank the reserve handle through the fabric, or you unzip the suit and pull them.

Not meaning to be an ass, that is just the way that it appeared to me in your tests. Feel free to point me in the right direction if I am missing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[reply
Curious though, can someone explain how that would violate the TSO of the rig being worn? I don't get that part of the discussion.



I don't see it as a TSO violation either.
You can go look at that recent SL military re-enactment jump and say that they had their cutaway mechanisms hidden too.

I don't care how many jumps you have or what kind of MadSkills you have, jumping with your emergency handle hidden away because of accessory equipment is just plain stupid.

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My understanding (possibly a misunderstanding) after speaking with several PIA manufacturers, is anything that hinders or modifies the container and release systems from "manufacturer-defined means of operation" is a violation of the TSO. Perhaps Bill Booth or John Sherman can kick in on this one.
There are manufacturers who specifically said they could not be held responsible in the event of one of these systems failing; it is a use of their equipment in a method other than as designed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The safest option would be to not screw with the manufacturer's TSO by hiding the handles.




Yes....I agree...


But.........


Let's assume (just for the sake of discussion) for a moment that people are going to fly these suits with skydiving gear, would this not be safer than having the modded handles?

(edited to sound less "snarky")



You keep using the word "safer". If option 1 is not safe and option 2 is also not safe, there is no "safer" option.

You know, if this discussion was in the "incidents" forum people would be calling the jumper an idiot for jumping using either option.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My understanding (possibly a misunderstanding) after speaking with several PIA manufacturers, is anything that hinders or modifies the container and release systems from "manufacturer-defined means of operation" is a violation of the TSO. Perhaps Bill Booth or John Sherman can kick in on this one.
There are manufacturers who specifically said they could not be held responsible in the event of one of these systems failing; it is a use of their equipment in a method other than as designed.



This does not make sense to me. The TSO certifies the equipment. Anything that modifies the equipment could certainly violate the TSO. The two parts of the TSO cover performance standards of the system and production approval.

Maybe it is a semantic argument but I don't see "proper use" as covered by the TSO.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Douglas may be referring to this.


AC 105-2D

13. PARACHUTE EQUIPMENT RULES.

h. Extra Equipment. The FAA does not consider the attachment of an instrument panel, knife sheath, or other material to the exterior of the parachute assembly an alteration. If attaching any extra equipment, take care not to impair the functional design of the system.


While it may not technically be a violation of a TSO the FAA will take a dim view of the practice. Plus it is just plain stupid to put yourself in that position.

Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think Douglas may be referring to this.



AC 105-2D

13. PARACHUTE EQUIPMENT RULES.

h. Extra Equipment. The FAA does not consider the attachment of an instrument panel, knife sheath, or other material to the exterior of the parachute assembly an alteration. If attaching any extra equipment, take care not to impair the functional design of the system.


While it may not technically be a violation of a TSO the FAA will take a dim view of the practice. Plus it is just plain stupid to put yourself in that position.

Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?

Sparky



Thanks for the reference, Sparky. I agree that it is a stupid practice.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think Douglas may be referring to this.



AC 105-2D

13. PARACHUTE EQUIPMENT RULES.

h. Extra Equipment. The FAA does not consider the attachment of an instrument panel, knife sheath, or other material to the exterior of the parachute assembly an alteration. If attaching any extra equipment, take care not to impair the functional design of the system.


While it may not technically be a violation of a TSO the FAA will take a dim view of the practice. Plus it is just plain stupid to put yourself in that position.

Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?

Sparky



The suit was designed for BASE, not for skydiving. No need for handles on a BASE rig.

It's pretty stupid to do but there's always 'that guy'.
"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


You keep using the word "safer". If option 1 is not safe and option 2 is also not safe, there is no "safer" option.



So by that logic a BB Gun and a Thermonuclear warhead would be equally safe, no?

Again I am not saying that it is a good idea, I was saying that if the decision was already made to fly the suit (not arguing the merits of that) - what would be the best way to go about utilizing the suit with skydiving gear....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


You keep using the word "safer". If option 1 is not safe and option 2 is also not safe, there is no "safer" option.



So by that logic a BB Gun and a Thermonuclear warhead would be equally safe, no?
Quote



You either didn't understand my statement or you are attempting to twist my words. I didn't say either option was "equally safe". I said there was no "safer option". Your question requires one to decide whether one choice (BB gun) is safer than the other (warhead) while my point was that NEITHER (suit handle mod vs unzipping the suit) is safe.



Again I am not saying that it is a good idea, I was saying that if the decision was already made to fly the suit (not arguing the merits of that) - what would be the best way to go about utilizing the suit with skydiving gear....
Quote



We have already established that answer. Given the options offered, there is no "best way" to utilize the suit with skydiving gear. You have already admitted that jumping the suit utilizing either option is a bad idea, so trying to argue which option is "best" makes no sense.

You might as well be asking if a person wants to jump a parachute that isn't airworthy, would it be safer to use the red one or the blue one?


Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think Douglas may be referring to this.



AC 105-2D

13. PARACHUTE EQUIPMENT RULES.

h. Extra Equipment. The FAA does not consider the attachment of an instrument panel, knife sheath, or other material to the exterior of the parachute assembly an alteration. If attaching any extra equipment, take care not to impair the functional design of the system.


While it may not technically be a violation of a TSO the FAA will take a dim view of the practice. Plus it is just plain stupid to put yourself in that position.

Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?

Sparky



The mod being discussed goes well beyond "attaching" something to the "exterior of the parachute assembly". It fundamentally changes the operation of the emergency handles, which sounds like a "functional design alteration" to me.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I think Douglas may be referring to this.



AC 105-2D

13. PARACHUTE EQUIPMENT RULES.

h. Extra Equipment. The FAA does not consider the attachment of an instrument panel, knife sheath, or other material to the exterior of the parachute assembly an alteration. If attaching any extra equipment, take care not to impair the functional design of the system.


While it may not technically be a violation of a TSO the FAA will take a dim view of the practice. Plus it is just plain stupid to put yourself in that position.

Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?

Sparky



The suit was designed for BASE, not for skydiving. No need for handles on a BASE rig.

It's pretty stupid to do but there's always 'that guy'.



Angling for a Darwin award no doubt. If he bounced, would the pilot not cop some flak for allowing someone on the plane with modified gear, who is not carrying out a test jump.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>You keep using the word "safer". If option 1 is not safe and option 2 is also not safe,
>there is no "safer" option.

I think there is, but you can have a safer option even if neither one is safe. (i.e. it's safer for the pilot to drink only 8 beers instead of 10 before flying; but still neither is OK.)

I think it's an important distinction to make because there WAS a way to do this that was safe enough; they just didn't choose that method of doing it. It was not "safe" but to most skydivers it was safe enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The mod being discussed goes well beyond "attaching" something to the "exterior of the parachute assembly". It fundamentally changes the operation of the emergency handles, which sounds like a "functional design alteration" to me.



My understanding (which could well be wrong) is that the wingsuit covers the hangles. It is not attached to them at all and doesn't fundamentally alter the original piece of TSO'ed equipment. It does prevent its intended operation and is stupid, but since it does not alter the original eqiupment, I still fail to see how it could void the TSO?
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>You keep using the word "safer". If option 1 is not safe and option 2 is also not safe,
>there is no "safer" option.

I think there is, but you can have a safer option even if neither one is safe. (i.e. it's safer for the pilot to drink only 8 beers instead of 10 before flying; but still neither is OK.)

I think it's an important distinction to make because there WAS a way to do this that was safe enough; they just didn't choose that method of doing it. It was not "safe" but to most skydivers it was safe enough.



Guess it depends on what you consider "safe enough".
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

I think Douglas may be referring to this.



AC 105-2D

13. PARACHUTE EQUIPMENT RULES.

h. Extra Equipment. The FAA does not consider the attachment of an instrument panel, knife sheath, or other material to the exterior of the parachute assembly an alteration. If attaching any extra equipment, take care not to impair the functional design of the system.


While it may not technically be a violation of a TSO the FAA will take a dim view of the practice. Plus it is just plain stupid to put yourself in that position.

Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?

Sparky



The suit was designed for BASE, not for skydiving. No need for handles on a BASE rig.

It's pretty stupid to do but there's always 'that guy'.



Angling for a Darwin award no doubt. If he bounced, would the pilot not cop some flak for allowing someone on the plane with modified gear, who is not carrying out a test jump.



Modified how? He made the use of his skyrig harder then the manufacturer intended but as far as I can tell there is no modification to the skyrig.
Your rights end where my feelings begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My understanding (which could well be wrong) is that the wingsuit covers the hangles. It is not attached to them at all and doesn't fundamentally alter the original piece of TSO'ed equipment



That's not what it looks like to me. Watch DSE's demo video, and you'll see that there are loop handles mounted to the outside of the suit with a lanyard that threads through the zipper pocket and then attaches to the cutaway or reserve ripcord cable with a rapide link.

The idea is that pulling the loop handle will in-turn pull on the cutaway/ripcord cable, and enact the cutaway and reserve ripcord pull. In my opinion, that alters the operation of the rig.

The design of the rig provides for the jumper being able to remove the handles from the MLW, and pull with leverage in the opposite direction of the cables allowing for the easiet possible extraction.

Consider a rig where the reserve activation involved pulling a soft loop attached to a cable, and the only direciton of force you could apply would be perpendicular to the direction of the cable, forcing the jumper to pull the cable sideways to enact a reserve deployment. Do you think such a design would pass a TSO test?

The video clearly shows pull forces in excess of 50lbs, which is way over the standard currently used in skydiving. The suit alters the basic function of the rig such that it's well outside the standard. and no longer functional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

My understanding (which could well be wrong) is that the wingsuit covers the hangles. It is not attached to them at all and doesn't fundamentally alter the original piece of TSO'ed equipment



That's not what it looks like to me. Watch DSE's demo video, and you'll see that there are loop handles mounted to the outside of the suit with a lanyard that threads through the zipper pocket and then attaches to the cutaway or reserve ripcord cable with a rapide link.

The idea is that pulling the loop handle will in-turn pull on the cutaway/ripcord cable, and enact the cutaway and reserve ripcord pull. In my opinion, that alters the operation of the rig.

The design of the rig provides for the jumper being able to remove the handles from the MLW, and pull with leverage in the opposite direction of the cables allowing for the easiet possible extraction.

Consider a rig where the reserve activation involved pulling a soft loop attached to a cable, and the only direciton of force you could apply would be perpendicular to the direction of the cable, forcing the jumper to pull the cable sideways to enact a reserve deployment. Do you think such a design would pass a TSO test?

The video clearly shows pull forces in excess of 50lbs, which is way over the standard currently used in skydiving. The suit alters the basic function of the rig such that it's well outside the standard. and no longer functional.



I was not talking about the mod with the loop handles. That i would much more readily concede could be interpreted as a modification to the rig (although even that could be debatable). I was talking about the video in the original post, where the handles are zippered up inside of the suit. Doesn't alter the rig in any way, as far as I can see. That, to me, may be stupid but I don't think it changes the TSO on the rig.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Consider a rig where the reserve activation involved pulling a soft loop attached to a cable, and the only direciton of force you could apply would be perpendicular to the direction of the cable, forcing the jumper to pull the cable sideways to enact a reserve deployment. Do you think such a design would pass a TSO test?



That is exactly what is required to pass TSO performance tests but it can't exceed 22 lbf.

Sparky


SAE AS8015 Revision B

4.3.2.4 Primary Actuation Device/Ripcord, Actuation Force Tests: A load at the ripcord handle, or equivalent, of not less than 5 lbf (22.2 N), applied in the direction giving the lowest pull force, nor more than 22 lbf (97.9 N), applied in the direction giving the highest pull force under normal design operations, shall result in a positive and quick deployment initiation on all tests. A minimum of 10 pull tests is required. For chest type parachute assemblies, the maximum pull force shall be 15 lbf (66.7 N).

4.3.2.5 Main Canopy Release, Actuation Force Tests: While in a suspended harness (with additional ballast as required to equal twice the maximum operating weight), a force at the main canopy release handle, or equivalent (if used), of not less than 5 lbf (22.2 N) (applied in the direction requiring the least force), nor more than 22 lbf (97.9 N) (applied in the direction requiring the greatest force under normal design operations), shall result in a positive and quick release of the main canopy on all tests. A minimum of 12 pull tests is required.
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



Does anyone know the reason behind putting your handles inside of the suit?



Lack of good judgement?

reducing the drag to compensate for the extra Go-pro's :D
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0