Liemberg

And once again you demonstrate your inability to grasp the invalidities of the report. Only 2 AAD's cutters were compared. Both in completly different circumstances, with an unequal setup of the loop. Go re-read the report... @ Texel they did 2 things: 1. They took 3 different brand AAD's in a weight vest, jumped with them from 13000ft - opened at 3000ft and made a 270 degree turn with them from 700ft under a 2,56 loaded canopy. The Argus fired there, while the other 2 gadgets (Cypres2 and Vigil) didn't. However it did not cut the loop that was inserted in its cutter. 2. After that they took a discarded 2 pin tandem cypres1 into an FXC test chamber with one cutter rigged like the loops had been rigged during the jump and (since they had 2 cutters obviously) a loop without any tension at all) into the other cutter. Maybe that is entirely unscientific but as the saying goes: "It aint rocket science..." "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Look Paul, If I take three different AAD's in the same belly pouch for "a spin around the block" you can cry "unscientific" and call the findings irrelevant but that doesn't change the findings - whatever they may be... Not being impartial doesn't seem to be one of them - could have only sent the Argus on the "spin around the block" now couldn't he? OTOH one of those issues may well be that at that riggers DZ a well known skydiver had a premature reserve opening that killed him when he operated his AAD outside the parameters of what the manufacturer said that was possible with extreme canopy piloting. And THAT manufacturer had been forwarned by another extreme canopy pilot who had done some testing of his own - testing that (how ironic!) was discarded as "unscientific" with the manufacturer activly preventing publication of the results in USPA's "Parachutist". When a rigger worth his salt finds something whether he is doing "a personal test" or just doing a repack + inspection or looking over a system after it has been used, he reports his findings if it is possible that there may be issues involving other systems than the one were "the anomaly" was found. Of course there's a potential for conflict with the manufacturer who may not like the findings. However, lots of service bulletins have started this way. I am not looking forward to situations where for instance reserves don't open after the loop has been cut and the rigger decides not to report what has happened since he knows beforehand that the manufacturer wil say that the thing wasn't packed the way it should have been and then invariably tries to crucify the bearer of the news... Luckily that didn't happen with the Mirage recently when a few people on the same jump went low, several loops were cut and several reserves didn't open - though it may well be that with a different packjob those systems would have worked as intended. So if I send an altimeter up with the plane to see if it is still good I'm not actually testing that altimeter??? Go figure... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Thanks, it certainly did. Then again, I haven't seen the DVD Jerome talks about so I haven't got the faintest clue if the knot being pulled inside the hole is the cause of "the failure". I can envision it being the case though. Jerome seems to think it isn't. Usually there are no knots in that part of the loop that is directly above or below the cutter, so a cutter that fails to go through a knot yet cuts through a standard loop under the normal tension should be a non-issue, IMHO... However: In the past I have seen video of another brands AAD cutter cutting right through a steel ripcord cable - maybe "overkill" but sometimes peace is reached through superior fire power; so who knows?... The fact that temperature and humidity were not recorded doesn't invalidate the findings where the three AAD's were compared, albeit only once. I think we can all agree that, whatever those readings were, they must have been the same for all three AAD's... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Side comments tend to mix up issues. The issue here is jumping with loosened side straps and believing to possess the free fall skills to deal with the extra risk caused by that behavior. Anybody else doing this 'jumping with passenger thing' can go right ahead and ruin every video for all I care. Crappy video doesn't prompt people to go to court and it doesn't prompt aviation authorities to impose restrictions. Other than that a written reprimand ought to be sufficient - all passengers lived happily ever after, didn't they?

When they don't however... What Aviacom SA chooses to label as "the negative opinion of one individual" others may see as an interesting attempt to verify several of the assertions of three different AAD manufacturers. One of the tested AAD's apparently scored "well below par" in that test. Whatever you can say about flaws in the test, the testing conditions were the same for all three AAD's. Nobody (AFAIK) has said that there had been some sort of scientific hypothesis testing going on - rather impossible according to my former statistics professor because you can't say anything about "a population" when your random sample is small and anything under 500 as sample IS considered small there... Since 500 test jumps are virtually impossible, for the curious one test jump is still better than no test jump at all. Aviacom SA wants to show that they are backed up by the facts? Why not repeat the test then, document it, film it and upload the results to skydiving movies dot com for all to see and repeat the bold statement? That could prove to be a lot more convincing than "shooting the messenger"... For the time being I see one AAD firing in a situation where 2 other AAD's didn't fire. I also see one AAD's cutter not cutting the loop after it has fired (for whatever reason) while another AAD brand's cutter did cut the loop when the loop was rigged in the same way as it was on the Argus. Somehow that resulted in ME "developing reservations" about the gadget and I had not given it any thought before this all started...

I would not be too sure about that. And Jan's 'actions on the internet while on the board' certainly will not help to seal Jacko's faith, should he decide to sue. Of course a defense as proposed by "vanpilot" (paraphrased:It was just bad luck that I got caught and others didn't...) has the weakness that that is invariably the case with any misdemeanor or crime so there I wouldn't hold my breath, but a "witch hunt" and "punishing twice" is frowned upon in most legal systems in the western world... Reinstating the ratings of people that actually had passengers fall out of the harness, while at the same time revoking this one? I wouldn't want to go to court as USPA if that were the case... Of course the "crappy video / stealing the scene from the student" argument is completely beside the point when it is about revoking ratings - next thing you know you could lose yours since you "don't look good on television"... And how about all those pictures floating around of TI's pretending to be asleep behind their passengers? It would be laughable for anybody that knows what is realy going on but from the logic of what is happening here it is but a small step towards being accused of dozing off on the job... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

BOLD STATEMENT? I guess we can conclude that the above at least means that there is an INCIDENT i.e. an Argus AAD activated and was no longer available for testing. Since it is outside the scope of Mr. Oosterveers report I also understand that in the report we are not informed about the reasons and circumstances for that activation, though one cannot help being curious about that one. It is also clear that with the (only?) Argus unit gone, the test had to be postponed. So far, so good - but the report continues... Of course I would like to "put nonsense to bed" as much as the next member of our great and lovely "Skydiving Family" but for me, for the time being, Aviacom SA's answer "doesn't quite cut it..." With some good soldering skills, could one put an old cypres cutter on an Argus AAD? Problem solved...

In the Netherlands it is allowed for C and D license holders if and when the manufacturer of the rig allows the Argus AAD in its system. If you are asking about the wisdom of the KNVvL and its technical committee I only can say that I don't know and that in the past I have often wondered about that exact same question...

Actually it is this same incident that was at the basis of the recent mirage cutter mod... You are posting in an old thread. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Apparently you are one of the few, if not the only one, who has studied this phenomenon on a somewhat deeper level than what is usually the case in this small industry. Thanks for that. From your findings would it be safe to say - from a design point of view - that a cutter directly under the pin, below the last closing flap is "the better functional design"? (apart from looks / cosmetics) This would allow the grommets to always "start peeling from the top" whatever the loops length, tension, the pack job underneath, etcetera. Then again I could be too optimistic and this "container lock" on the remainder of the loop inside could still be possible. After all a lot of us have seen - either live or on video - main containers with spring loaded pilots remaining closed after the ripcord had been pulled and that one - as everybody knows - is usually positioned right on top of the last closing flap... I'm glad I'm not designing containers cause there's enough involved to get a permanent headache... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

I dunno Mick, for a story to be any good it has to be credible. Overhere that often means reliable and identifiable sources. "Fresh" user accounts wil always meet suspicious scrutiny...

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust... 2596 AS however is a dutch zipcode... Babelfish does have its limitations...

In that respect it doesn't differ that much from other emergency*) procedures (i.e. cutting away a malfunctioned main canopy) We teach this all the time with a suspended harness, stressing the necessity to be altitude aware, pull the handles in the right order etcetera. Come to think of it, you could use the suspended harness for 'down wind training' in much the same way...(like where are your hands when you flare a canopy and it keeps going at 20+mph? Where are your feet, what happens with the pattern you are flying etcetera...) When it is 'engraved in my system' to check my altitude before cutting away, how hard can it be to do the same with 'the last turn prior to landing'? Some things in skydiving will inevitably be experienced under high stress conditions - we can train and explain, but when then planet starts to spin after opening or the pilotchute wont come out of its pocket our students are fundamentally on their own... Those that can't stand the heath maybe should stay out of the kitchen... *) though "emergency" may be a bit of an exageration when it is about downwind landings, the stretch of unobstructed landing area I need and the speed I make over the ground makes me keen on avoiding them as soon as there is significant wind. Maybe it's an age thing, but you'll have to put large obstacles in my landing path before I consider them when the wind is above 10 knts... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Plane burning? Tail gone? Or only a broken carb heat cable?... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

With some rigs (Vector, Talon etc.) the way the riser covers are connected / integrated with the left and right flap of the main container results in a 'pronounced seam' right where your toggles are when you pack them facing out. The surface of the reserve container at that same spot is smooth. It has happened that toggles got caught under that seam and fired on opening. If they are not against that seam, they can't get caught... Just my $ 0,02... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Unfortunatly, that is true to a certain degree... Though I don't believe I'm invulnerable, I certainly believe to be more immune to some of the problems someone with (say) 20 or less jumps may encounter. I often jump in weather conditions (wind, visibility, turbulence) where I would insist that other less experienced jumpers stay on the ground, I can get away with smaller landing area's and more obstacles in the vicinity, I jump with a higher wingload than a student, am comfortable with lower exit altitudes or jumping without an AAD etcetera... Elsewhere in the thread "Andyman" says he offered his opinion about what they were doing and was told that since he's no TI his opinion didn't matter and in general I believe that to be true also, harsh as that may sound... I do think however that the majority of the 'certified meat haulers' DOES have a problem with loose lower connectors just for the sake of 'better video'. Since 'better video' is a matter of taste and students tend to get a warm and fuzzy feeling from any footage where they are halfway recognizable whatever else is going on, it is perfectly OK to do as you please - though 'stealing the scene' may not be the nicest or most professional thing to do but it is, as such, NOT a safety issue. Filming the tandempair while looking into the sun also ruins the video but I think we can all agree that we rather have someone do that and be out of our way on opening than make the best footage in the world, right in the students well lit face yet slam into us when we release the drogue. Jumping with the passengersharness attached in a way that deviates from the guidelines set forth by the manufacturer IS a safety issue... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

When given the choice, I would rather deal with a beginning sidespin with tight lowers than with lowers "loose enough to do the stand up next to the student / crawl on the students back routine"... YMMV... Granted, the guy is good. Probably better than most of us and certainly better than me - but AFAIK nobody is bullet proof... When one fine day the captain decides to give twenty lashes to one of the deckhands in order to restore the ships discipline, the one on the receiving end is almost never the only one who has been sleeping while on watch. He's just the poor bloke that got caught. However, when he IS the one caught and you want all the others to keep their eyes open for the rest of the journey, what would you do if you were the captain? "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Because in order to learn the advanced stuff, you have to survive the beginners stuff? Not much point in giving a student a canopy that has an excellent flare and much better flying characteristics if at the same time that canopy has the potential to kill or seriously hurt them when they are making all sorts of student mistakes like flare unevenly, make sharp turns to close to the ground, flare to high and let the canopy back up etcetera. Given the choice I'd rather have one in every 10 students limp a few days and be bruised up a bit than one in every 50 students undergoing major surgery or ending up in a wheelchair or a coffin... And if you think stupid student mistakes will not happen with some sort of advanced high tech state of the art learning program - think again. Better yet, train more students... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

With a wrestling whuffo strapped to the belly of one of the participants who wants to throw a drogue before reaching main deployment altitude? Few. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Let me guess: Like me, you also prefer your exit to be slightly to the left and slightly to far?

I don't think there would be much point. The handcam on a tandem catches the passengers face in freefall AND the canopy ride. The freefal part is captured 'inevitably', without realy aiming the camera, just from the way it is positioned on the TI's left hand. Under canopy, most of the time you have the opportunity to make some nice footage and things can be as calm as you want it to be - you don't have to make consecutive stall turns on fast canopies to get footage your passenger wants. When you are doing AFF or coached jumps chances are you are NOT with your student under canopy. If you would want to take a camera on that type of jumps it would make more sense to have it on the helmet. Small remote lense technology HAS grown up BTW, but that is not to say a glove with an upright positioned sony PC 10 / 105 /109 /1000 is inherently unsafe. However, with my setup (see attachment) it is a no-brainer; what is on my hand is hardly more than an 'oversized' altimeter. If that were dangerous (i.e. altimeter @ left hand) we would have noticed by now... "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

If "alike" means that it happens with F-111 and ZP in the same manner after the same amount of time being packed (fabric sticking together, canopy remaining in the shape of the deployment bag) - well, I'm afraid that just isn't true. I would be nervous when opening a ZP canopy that's been packed for more than 120 days but I would jump F-111 that's been in the bag for as long as a year... (O daredevil me! ) This year I purchased two used student rigs that had Skymasters in them (ZP top layer) and Raven 3 reserves. Apparently the mains had been packed somewhere last season and (since they were going to sell) they also didn't bother to repack the reserves. With both mains and reserves packed since october 2005 (mains I'm not sure, just a guestimate - I only have the reserve log card) I had an opportunity to see how they came out of their bags in march / april of this year. The Skymasters had turned to 'bricks' where you had actually have to shake it violently and layers sticked together that had to be peeled apart. The Raven 3 reserves came out fine without any sticking together and keeping the shape of their D-bag and would have opened like they had been packed a month ago. I think it has to do with the coating of the ZP-fabric which tends to stick together after a while. ZP reserves, anyone?

It exists already, on lots of AFF student equipment. It is a handle in the lower left corner that can be used to open the pouch completely. Airflow along the bottom of the container almost always is enough for a deployment. No reason why you couldn't build it on a private rig. That said, the disadvantages (complexity of the system, more things to check) probably outweigh the advantages. "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

Write down in your 'business terms and conditions' that your tandemstaff can refuse to take passengers without being obliged to give a reason or explanation. Nobody is going to challenge that beforehand. Next comes the hardest part for the always money hungry like you and me: Completely refund any (down)payments when you decide to bring the paragraph in effect. (Yes, you probably could charge an adminstrators fee; don't! Of course a paragraph where you are not responsible for any "result damage" like aditional travelling expenses is a smart plan too...) You are not discriminating the obese, you are excersising your right to decide who you are going to jump with and who not... All the rest ('reasonably fit, not under the influence, no history of certain diseases etcetera...') can be in the small prints on the DZ's website - where a warning of a too high BMI also could be placed. I should have become a lawyer... And by the way Rob, "Discouraging"? What's wrong with: "I'm sorry but we are not going to jump with you"? "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...

If its got a remote, +4 meg or better, a wide angle quality lens and it is small - I'll jump it! (the attachment is a video still, but I'm sure the tehnology is available rigth now!) "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words...