D-Bag: stows down the middle

[NightJumper 0]

Quote

Your initial post used the word "always", something that I think is very dangerous to do when you're talking about the function of gear...even if you use the word "should" before it. You know as well as I that "always" is a dangerous word. IMO, you used it in a place you shouldn't have and I called you on it, that's all.

You are right, I should not have written complete sentences thinking that they would have been taken in complete context rather than individual words. I clearly gave to much intellectual credit to some readers

Quote

And I don't think anything came out of it that I want to hang my hat on. I was with some very prominent Master Riggers at that discussion and their basic reaction was "whatever". IMO, it was a crusade spearheaded by Jump Shack to prove a point that they seem to hold basically alone. Kind of like those soft Teflon coated cables. That's what I got out of it. Perhaps you can enlighten us with long-term facts?

If you came out of it with a "whatever" attitude then I am not going to waist anymore of my time on the issue as others came out with a different perspective.

Quote

How many? Where? When? Is this an epidemic? Do you know something the rest of use don't? Please, tell us if you do!!

Oh, please, as you are aware the data has been published and is therefore unnecessary to repeat. The issue is that it has occurred not how many times. And if it can be reasonably prevented then why not? No one is forcing you to change your ways but why would you denounce anyone that was willing to make an improvement?

Quote

Considering every rig out there (with the exception of some Racers) use a Safety Stow, and people aren't dropping out of the sky dead on every reserve ride, and that you can't know that every time a freebag comes down without it's Safety Stow it didn't do it's job and slip loose while preventing a bag lock, I'd say that, if there is a problem, it's certainly not large enough or well studied enough to constitute a change at this point.

So tell me how many malfunctions or deaths do we have to endure before it constitutes a need to change for you?

Quote

Sure, the systems are a bit different, but why fix something that's not broken by using a damaged band-aid?

Well see that’s where we differ. I think the people that have died or been the victim of the failures would disagree. But I would rather have someone trying to resolve an issue no matter how small the percentage than someone who blows it off as being "not broken". Again you do not have to change the way you do things but in all fairness don't take away the choice of those who want
change.

Quote

No, I'm asking you why you want to trade a system that does not have a proven history of failure (Safety Stows) for a system that has several failure points (bands breaking causing out of sequence deployments, loop-and-lock bag locks, higher maintenance criteria, etc).

I disagree because the fact is there have been safety stow failures where there has been no failures of the band stow speed bag reserve system.

I guess the bottom line is time will tell and be the final judge. The other option is we stop trying to make improvements on what we have because what we have is good enough. Personally I hope people will keep trying.

Stay safe, come to Florida and get out of the rain, the first beer is on me.

[riggerrob 561]

Quote

Because there have been reserve bag strips that have left the canopy in the container, line strips and bag locks.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

nightjumper,
If you are going to make claims like this, you had better back them up with statistics.
Anecdotal evidence is meaningless (i.e. the Golden Knight who went in 20 years ago, followed by rumors that the GK had invented a new method for packing freebags.)
I want to see statistics on dozens of accidents/incidents/malfunctions, and I would like to see complete accident reports.

[Ron 7]

Less chance of line twist due to the bag not bouncing as much.

You will have to do about 2 or 3 more stows...But that should slow the openings even more.

Bill Booth put a single stow on one of my bags...The idea was that it was the first line stow that can cause the bag to spin.

It worked just fine with just that one stow.

Javelins normally come with a single locking stow at the end....I think it is more important that it is the first stow.

Id say try it....I liked it.

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

[rigging65 0]

Seeing as how the two of us have effectively hijacked this thread and no one else seems to be butting in, I'll try and keep this semi-brief.

Quote

I clearly gave to much intellectual credit to some readers

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Quote

The issue is that it has occurred not how many times.

No, the issue is exactly how many times it has occurred...otherwise you're trying to fix a statistical anomaly. If you're going to go after a fix for every event that occurs, you'll end up fixing things that aren't actually broken, they are just things that happen by natural occurrence. No system is ever 100%, but you don't try and fix it until you're sure there is true glitch. A few events do not constitute failure, they only prove that nature can't be controlled.

Quote

And if it can be reasonably prevented then why not?

I couldn't agree more! But trying to use a system with known failures isn't a "reasonable" fix to a system with very few known instances of failure. I direct you again to my damaged band-aid analogy. If you're convinced you need to "fix" it, use something that's better...not just different. IMO, rubber bands don't meet that criteria. We can agree to disagree on that opinion, but you'd have to admit that rubber bands have their failings, yes?

Quote

I think the people that have died or been the victim of the failures would disagree. But I would rather have someone trying to resolve an issue no matter how small the percentage than someone who blows it off as being "not broken".

Would you get rid of airbags and seat belts because they damage people? People have been killed by airbag deployments, but I think we'd all agree they are the best system out there right now. Again, it's a terribly tragic occurrence when a safety system fails and hurts someone, but if you can't concretely show that it was a failure of that one, single item...and that that failure has a rate of occurrence in the real world...then how do you go about changing it? Can you prove that it was the Safety Stow alone that caused those failures? What about P/C size, bridle length, body position? Was the bag over or under stuffed? What was the airspeed? Were their similarities in the shape of the reserve tray? What I'm getting at is that there are so many variables, and so few failure instances, how do you know that's the culprit?

Quote

Again you do not have to change the way you do things but in all fairness don't take away the choice of those who want change.

I'm not taking away the choice. I'm just bringing to light that your proposed "solution" is to use a system with it's own proven failures!

I've been known to tinker with making things "better" just to see if I could. But if you're going to go down that road, I think you need to do better than using a system that has known negatives to it even before you install it as a fix. At least if you're testing a brand new, fresh out of the box idea you've got the fact that there aren't any proven failures associated with it to begin with!

Quote

I disagree because the fact is there have been safety stow failures where there has been no failures of the band stow speed bag reserve system.

Of course not. They haven't been around long enough to even get a good sample section off them! How many speed bag reserve systems are in use, and for how long, as compared to "standard" freebag systems? You can't quote positive results just because you have no failures in a short run. Come on, you can do better than that!

Quote

I guess the bottom line is time will tell and be the final judge.

Absolutely!

Quote

The other option is we stop trying to make improvements on what we have because what we have is good enough. Personally I hope people will keep trying.

I think we all want to see us keep trying, but we need to have something more concrete than an anomaly to go after and fix first. I certainly don't oppose mfgs. trying to better their products, but mfgs. can't get offended when the public cries BS and can give reasonable arguments as to why it's BS.

I've been known to get one-tracked from time to time, but I always try to keep an open mind when I work on projects...even if I disagree with them on a fundamental level. I just hope you guys will try and do the same. Sometimes when everyone that surrounds you has the same opinions on an issue, it's easy to decide that it must be the correct opinion. Exam all the option, then examine them again!

Quote

Stay safe, come to Florida and get out of the rain, the first beer is on me.

That, my friend, is the best idea I've heard all day!
Guess I came up short on the whole "keeping it brief" thing, eh?

"...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward.
For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

[NightJumper 0]

Riggerrob,

Quote

If you are going to make claims like this, you had better back them up with statistics.

Why, because you say so? Do you really think that I believe that someone with your experience has not seen, read or heard of these types of malfunctions?

Quote

I want to see statistics on dozens of accidents/incidents/malfunctions, and I would like to see complete accident reports.

Again why, is this really how many incidents we need to have in order to address, research or change things. Some people take a proactive vs. reactive approach. Sometimes it works or is worthwhile following, sometimes not. Like I said before time will be the judge. And yes I am too lazy to go through all of the material that was used to address the issue just to make you happy.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Why, because you say so? Do you really think that I believe that someone with your experience has not seen, read or heard of these types of malfunctions?

Why not enlighten the masses. Maybe there are som poor deprived individuals that have no been exposed to the facts.

Quote

And yes I am too lazy to go through all of the material that was used to address the issue just to make you happy.

And yet you wish people to believe you have a better way of doing things?

Sad, really.

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

[FrogNog 1]

Quote

Less chance of line twist due to the bag not bouncing as much.

You will have to do about 2 or 3 more stows...But that should slow the openings even more.

Bill Booth put a single stow on one of my bags...The idea was that it was the first line stow that can cause the bag to spin.

It worked just fine with just that one stow.

Javelins normally come with a single locking stow at the end....I think it is more important that it is the first stow.

Id say try it....I liked it.

So, you jumped a main in a d-bag with a single line stow (which was also the locking stow)? Was that a honking long stow? Was the bight like 7 feet long? Did your canopy have very short lines?

I'm just getting a weird visual of this pack job.

I can see the advantages, though:
* never have to replace more than one rubber band per pack job
* once you get that locking stow in place not only will the canopy stay bagged, but you're done making line stows
* up to an 87.5% reduction in baglock potential from overstrong rubber bands
* similar reduction in baglock potential from lines wrapping a bight.

I'll look at experimenting with this. And that idea I had about free-stowing my main in a bag held closed with a shrivel flap.

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[NightJumper 0]

Quote

Why not enlighten the masses. Maybe there are som poor deprived individuals that have no been exposed to the facts.

The masses? You mean the three people? I doubt that you are a "poor deprived individual" But like I said, I'm not going to take the time it would take to compile the research numbers that "the masses" want at the expense of "my" time.

Quote

And yet you wish people to believe you have a better way of doing things?

Me, not at all. I didn't invent the system but I personally do agree with it. The fact is, as a result of particular types of malfunctions a product was developed, tested, received a TSO and has been used over the last two years in over 1,500 jumps (actual jumps used) without a reported failure. And to clarify the next question that I am sure will come, no there has not been over a 1,500 reserve jumps, the same bag is also available and used as a main deployment bag. I'm not saying that this is the only, best or final system. But as agreed here, time will be the judge.

[dinog3 0]

***I'm thinking of having my rubber bands on my D-bag changed from being on the sides to going down the middle of the bag. Are there any disadvantages to this? Is it any harder to pack? Has anyone out there made the change? Any comments would be appreciated.

Quote

Hello Skymamma. This is Justin from Mirage Sysems commenting on your questions. We have inboard stows on all of our deployment bags which reduce how much the bag moves on deployment. Also, the in board stows reduce the change of line dump and because there is less mass between stows, you do not have to make your line stows as long as you would on an outboard stow bag.
I also wanted to touch on another comment that was made about placing the bag into the container without rotating the lines toward the bottom of the container. When the containers are designed the bags are designed to fit a certain way into the container that conforms to the inside as well as completes the shape of the container. We found that with some sizes, there is more resistance with the bag being extracted straight out as opposed to it being rotated on extraction. Will this cause a total malfunction? No, but it does create more resistance. JT

• Quote

[skymedic 0]

Quote

And to the person recomending placing the D-Bag in the container bridal to the top. Please stop making this recomendation. It may work for you, but it's not the way the manufacturers instructions read, and someone reading this forum and following your advice may not experience a proper deployment

JP my wings manual very cleary states that bridal to the pin is ok.

but to each his own....

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

but to each his own....

true the Wings manual does say you can pack like that - but thats beacuse the Wings D-bag is square end-on whereas most D-bags are rectangular end-on.

Rectangular D-bags should not be packed bridle up, (no matter how many times my house-mate tells me its worked for him on hundreds of jumps).

[skymedic 0]

My D bag for my 149 is square...my Dbag for my 189 is NOT..it is rectangular...very rectangular...have you seen ALL the wings Dbags?? I think not.

also i responding to JP saying that it is not acceptable at all to pack bridal to pin...when it is...from numerous manf.'s

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

also i responding to JP saying that it is not acceptable at all to pack bridal to pin...when it is...from numerous manf.'s

You are either mis quoting, or mis understanding me.

I DID NOT say it was unacceptable to pack bridle to pin.

I DID say that is is foolhardy to advise people to pack contrary to manufacturers instructions.

I DID suggest it is foolhardy to advise others to do this on a public forum without specifying what kind of gear they are using,

You said many manufacturers it is acceptable. Please indicate where IN PRINT it says this other than in a Wings Manual.

AGAIN it is foolhardy to recommend any activities not approved by the manufacturer, especially when you have no idea what other's situations are. (i.e. rig and canopy type, experience level, ect.) A rigger doing so is bordering on criminal negligence.

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

[rigging65 0]

Quote

A rigger doing so is bordering on criminal negligence.

I'd say it's a bit further along than just bordering on...

If a Mfg. gives specific instructions on how a piece of their certified equipment is meant to be used (packed, whatever) and you do something different, you are, in effect, violating the TSO. Rigs are designed, tested and certified in a certain cofiguration. To do anything outside that configuration is NOT certified. This includes using the system at speeds faster than intended....like head down.

I don't think it so much matters which part you are using outside of the mfgs. recommendations (ie - TSO vs. non-TSO). I think what JP is getting at is that it's not a good idea to throw out ideas that haven't passed through the Mfg. first, because you don't know what yahoo, without enough experience, is going to try it and not know any better. If what you're talking about is approved by your mfg., make a note of that in your post. If you think about, it wouldn't hurt to throw in "I'm not sure if that's acceptable on a different mfg's. rig though...."

For those lurking these posts, if what's being discussed is not in your rig's manual, call the mfg. directly. If they say "NO" then you know where you stand. Don't guess, don't ask a friend (even a rigger friend), go straight to the horse's mouth and get it from them. After all, no one knows a product like the company that designed, tested and certified it. Right?

How sad would it be if someone went in because they were trying something they saw posted on here and didn't know enough to see the obvious warning signs when they tried it themselves??

"...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward.
For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

[mr2mk1g 10]

Ok, fair comment, I haven't seen all Wings D-bags, I was under the impression that they were all square on, but I may well be wrong.

The other thing you can say about wings containers though is that the bigger sizes tend to be deeper (front to back in the main tray) than other similarly sized rigs. I would point to this as the reason why you are able to face line stows down in a Wings, but not in other rigs.

For example, if I were to pack with the line stows down on my Javelin I would distort the shape of the main pack tray as the rectangular D-bag is now in the rectangluar pack tray in the wrong orientaion. This would put stress on the material and distort the closing flaps so they apply the wrong pressure on the closing loop.

With a Wings it doesnt matter, as the pack tray is deaper and so can accomodate a rectangular bag in either orientaion. Smaller Wings containers like mine and yours for your 149 have a D-bag thats square end-on, again alowing either orientaion.

I was not trying to flame, just pointing out that there is a very valid reason why Wings manuals allow you to pack the D-bag in either orientation. This reason is not applicable to other makes of container so it would be dangerous to give advice to that effect.

[skymedic 0]

Agreed.

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....