skytribe

To quote a previous post from RiggerRob which really deals with this. This was probably posted prior to the R-Max reserves were actually released.

Each to there own when it comes to equipment choices. The fact that Airtec say their stuff is 100% reliable - with an asterisk and a legal disclaimer. "Since 10th January 1991 no CYPRES failed to activate when the conditions were given. Therefore CYPRES showed a level of reliability within the reach of 100% at that time." This is clearly a distortion of the truth - if the conditions that were established by the AAD manufacturer were wrong - even though the unit fired. They count that as a reliable activation. Sorry but there are a number of accidents which have resulted in misfires, the software has been updated, new version of the cypres have appeared, there have been fatalities from AAD's that have fired too low for successful activations. AAD cutter placements have been moved on rigs to account for the potential hesitation of the 2 inches of closure loop having to feed through grommets, but having a potential of container lock if the cutter fails to cut successfully. (at the request of Airtec) there have been firings as a result of radio interference (on cypres 1 units) there have been lockups as a result of atmospheric conditions combined with a change of components - leaving the unit in a state that appeared to functional when it wasn't requiring servicing that could have meant having to do additional steps to validate it was functioning before each jump and wait literally years before this was corrected. So forgive me if I don't believe the 100% reliability statement and determine it is purely marketing language. None of the AAD's are 100% and using this in the marketing is rather distorting the truth. The other manufacturers are not saying their devices are 100% Yes, they are a great backup device. Yes, I do jump rigs with them installed but do I for one second believe they are 100% reliable - hell no.

Which is really my point - none of the devices is perfect and each of the companies does things which some may consider questionable. Your money, your choice. I don't believe any of the devices is much better than the others.

That would definately be one that springs to mind and one which was investigated by a UK coroner who also questioned the business ethics of Airtec for not disclosing the problem as soon as it became known.

More like 5 years now. The M2 just like the Vigil and Cypres are devices which you ideally don't want to use. All the unit function and have documented saves. Mars is not a new company and has been around quite a while. That being said, it is definately the 3rd manufacturer in terms of units out in the public. That said it is a good unit and has been extensively tested - especially so after the fiasco with the Argus. Airtec like to tout themselves as the best - never had any issues etc. but that is pure marketing speak. The units work as well as any other unit - no better/no worse. They have had problems and I have reason to question their business ethics when a problem arises - they are aware of but don't make it public until they have a fix/resolution. This has resulted in a fataility which MAY have been avoided if the issue was made public. Also the servicing of units has been a cash cow for them for many years and the switch to 15.5 year service life instead of 12.5 from an arbitary date and making servicing optional is IMHO a ploy to maintain the steady cash cow income while making the units more competitive with the competition. Vigil - nice company, easy to work with and very open when it comes to any issues and there have been issues - just look at the SB. But they are responsive when it comes to problem resolution. M2 - new player. The issues they have had appear to have been more preventative on the cutters and they resolved easily. The unit has simpler interface to turn on and the screen is a little bit more difficult to navigate than the other two but most people turn on and forget about it. Its there safety net and they don't alter the settings. The original M2 had a signifcant cost benefit over the other two but the newest changeable mode one is now more closely costed to the other two so it really is a moot point which one you want to buy if buying new. Any three of them would be fine - hopefully you never have to use it.

http://www.ffp.asso.fr/wp-content/uploads/1994/01/Sac_harnais_QUASAR_STELLAR_edition_01-1994.pdf

EASA doesn't regulate the manufacturing of sport parachutes since 2006. I don't care what the manufacturer claims. They do not have an FAA or EASA TSO. Based on the EU law, if it's approved in one of the EU countries, the rest should allowed it too. That's the loophole they are using. Funny times ahead with the Brexit. It can happen that since TS only have the UK approval, some EU countries might ban their products once UK leave the union.... Does Thomas Sport have an FAA TSO? Just from a dim distant memory - Didn't Thomas Sports have a TSO through bilateral airworthiness agreements with Australia or something like that.

It looks like the pins bent because of the snag and eventually resulted in something that enabled it to release. ie. the ripcord was extracted. So the question becomes - if the ripcord pins were beefier and didnt bend at all would the snag resulted in a ripcord that was impossible to release because it couldnt be bent. Now the problem did not appear to be the ripcord - the problem looks like the ability for the snag to happen in the first place.

I may be off a little but just from recollection the clear and yellow stuff are different materials. Yellow (used in cutaway cables) is Lolon coated cable if i remember correctly. The clear cable is definately a different material and I think is PVC coated galvanized aircraft cable. I would be cautious about changing them out as the yellow cable is a lot softer and easier to get nicks and bur's in. Hence flexpins on tandems take some abuse over time. I would generally say stick with original materials or at least discuss alternative with them before changing anything.

Reading the last post http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4781573;page=unread#unread Pre-order, massive ( 2 year) delay and didnt meet the requirements. That is why waiting for actually tangible products is definately the way to go. Although this is a different product - it simply outlines the risks of pre-ordering.

I guess you didnt order a C6 then.... When a product is out and tangible and able to order and get hold of one, then you can give a true opinion on the device. No problem with innovation and new companies creating new products but talk to me when you have a product I can buy and not an idea. Ever invested in a kickstarter which didnt deliver ? I dont have a problem with either company or either product that is going to be delivered but merely saying wait until the products materialize before giving opinion on a product. That way it is based upon reality.

Exactly !!!!

Asking for opinion on two devices which are not available is still mere speculation. I still think your better to ask for opinion on devices which exist and are in use. Wait a few months and then you can ask the question on these two devices. How about giving me opinions on the Iphone 12 or Galaxy s12 phones ? They will be released in 3 years time. I'm sure you can actually pre-order one now if your really want. Or perhaps lets ask skydivers about there opinions on the Sky Systems C6 helmet..... Really ask opinions on products that are real and available - stuff that is in development is really simply speculating as features get cut or change or sometimes products simply dont appear in the end ( ala C6 helmet).

And my comment was not a slam on either manufacturer - just saying wait and see how the released products end up before asking for an opinion on them.

Let me just say this is a stupid question - you are asking for speculation on two units which are not even available. If you want opinion on units - try asking about units which are available and hence people will have used and had opinions on based upon actually using.

Well that would depend upon which system was being used.

Microline slices through most material very quickly. As a seasoned CRW dog I did a dive with other experienced dogs with a canopy lined with microline. No wraps or anything just zipped up the line when some tension on the formation. Microline ripped through 2 pairs of socks and ended up with deep cuts on both ankles. Never ever again..... Sabre 2 is also not an ideal canopy for flying with more traditional CRW canopies. CRW is hard on canopies - you will see that CRW canopies have a reinforced nose and retracting pilot chute to avoid entanglements. The fact you are asking this questions is good but CRW is not something to just randomly try with friends. Go to a CRW camp or find an experienced CRW dog to get some coaching. If the coach says yeah - lets do it on the Sabre 2 - find another coach. The Rawdogs have a list of CRW coaches around the country which can help in finding someone to teach you. Often they have spare canopies or can locate the correct equipment to use. Ensure you have decent knives and a thorough safety brief before going up and trying dives. Every wrap/entranglement are different but having the knowledge beforehand about what to do if something happens is essential.

1st jump course stuff. Water, Tree, Buildings, Power Lines all should be covered in 1st jump course. If not then I suggest you go find an instructor and go through this again. I still recall this information from nearly 30 years ago, even though I've yet to have to use it in real life. That being said, avoidance is obviously a better course of action and making decisions early to avoid getting into bad situations. If its a choice of landing off in a large open field that I know is easy with no problems or risking flying over hazards and I should make it to the landing area. Make the decision early rather than get caught out at low altitude with no options. Know what the winds are doing and pay attention to where you are - that includes where you get out of the plane.

I question every owner who brings a rig to me without an RSL. Most common reasons 1. is that I bought it used and it didnt have one, hence I dont have one. 2. I have an AAD so I dont need one. 3. I'm experienced enough and can pull both handles. 4. I'm on a high loading and will have line twists on my reserve. 5. Using an incident from the 90's as a justification. I can shoot down most of the excuses and show manufacturer evidence that show having an AAD reduces risks not increases them. Tests jumps that have been made with MARD/RSL showing to the contrary and incident reports that demonstrate that experienced jumpers still have problems being stable after cutaway and pulling in time. Each to their own, in making a decision but at least make it based upon current information and thinking.

Vigil 1's are not waterproof / restistant or whatever they want to term it. Vigil 2's are better but as stated they need to be sent back for inspection.

If your looking at AAD issues then apart from looking at the missing blade issues - look at the potentional other issues. The AAD manufacturers wanted to AAD cutter moved above the pilot chute to shorten the cut closure loop that needed to be dragged through the grommets in the event of an activation, causing some hesitation. What this did for many of the container manufacturers who moved the cutter location was create a potential scenario where if the cutter doesnt cut the loop completely you now have a container being held closed by the cutter/not cut loop. Even if you pull the handle. Having two cutters as a redundancy wouldnt necessary solve that problem. Some manufacturers said we will not move the location as we wanted to allow manual activation even in the event of a AAD failure. The AAD failures are rare - so don't focus on the missing cutter. If you have one of two cutters it really makes a very small difference. Two cutter systems are only made by some manufacturers but ultimately its something you have but really dont want to use. The location move is an example of solving one problem and creating another.

I’m not talking tampering. Just normal use and good intentions. I have heard of the owner causing an extremely hard pull after tightening the closing loops to fix a raised PC. Tacking the extra loop does not solve this issue. Derek V But your concerned about people tightening the loops (which is tampering). How often does that really happen - especially if you make a point of letting the jumper know that if the pilot chute sits up then bring it back and i'll tighten it. I have more concern with other riggers opening pack jobs that they didn't do to put in AAD's and then thinking its acceptable to reseal the pack job in direct violation of AC105. Not that I'm advocating it but just a thought (thinking out load) - is it possible to seal the free ends of the quickloop and then put them under the cap - that way they would likely be broken if otherwise used after the original pack job. Even paper seals could be used to seal the free ends together.

And while we are going through the list - One pin teardrops. Although there aren't a huge amount of these in the USA. My feeling is there are TSO'd equipment and if someone wants to tamper with any rig - its possible without leaving any obvious signs. Anyone I pack for I'm more than happy to tighten the reserve pilot chute as the pack job settles. While we are talking about gear that people have problems with - how about a wings. They seem to have issues with reserve pilot chutes not extracting every time, reserve pilot chutes that don't seat down as nicely as other semi exposed pilot chutes.

The owner obviously didnt look very hard as I work at a DZ in the NW and we do not turn away Racers. Sure they are a bit of a pain to pack as I don't do many but have 2 customers who bring their racer rigs in once a year to get packed. I have zero problem inspecting, repacking Racers and I know my fellow colleague at the DZ will do them as well.

Absolutely guarantee brakes were set correctly as per the manual. The reserve has double brake lines connected to a single toggle. There aren’t that many reserves that have double brake lines. The cloth loop was intact meaning it didn’t break also. If it wasn’t on the correct side of guide ring I may think that incorrect stowage may have been an issue. On mains with no brakes set for opening the elastics still break. These still go through a guide ring. So there is not a single answer. I simply am saying there are possible other causes however small this may occur. In the case of the double brake line setup the manual clearly states how the toggle / line should be stowed. I’m guessing there is a reason why the manufacturer specifically states this, if only to avoid potential problems.