dorbie

Have a rigger look at your kill line length. They shrink with time. Decocked can also mean many things, if it's just slipping an inch out of the window it's an inconvenience not a hazard. The only time I've had a kill line uncock is when I roll pack because the attachment point at the apex is less than ideal and tends to pull on the line. It's no big deal to recock your pilot chute after bagging. Don't simply cock after bagging without cocking before, there's a chance the kill line will grab some fabric and offer some resistance if you do.

DSE once maintained an incident list in a sticky thread in the Photography and Video forum. Its focus is on small form factor cameras. I think the reasoning is vidiots tend to slap one of these on their helmet without too much thought or training, often with no cutaway system and inadequate jump numbers. It seems a bit inactive now but how much repetition do you need to get the message? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3894693

Argus is not considered safe by many and the real reasons why are available online. Read the history. Aside from documented failures and dodgy excuses there is one massive underlying problem with original Argus AADs that highlights the problem with their approach to engineering, here it is: They took an off the shelf cutter intended for cargo parachute reefing lines and used it in a human life saving device. This sounds slightly troubling but it gets worse, the cutter they took was only supposed to be used in tandem with another cuter on the same reefing ring to reduce the chance of a catastrophic failure. So it wasn't even to be trusted for cargo deployment without a redundant backup. The cutter maker issued a prohibition when they found out how Argus was using it. After various failures and crises Argus put together a plan to address the issues and presented it to PIA, it did not alter their fate because it did not apparently contain the kind of rigorous engineering analysis and testing plan they thought could produce a suitable man rated system. In my opinion they were a bunch of enthusiastic folks who decided to make an AAD without fully grasping the gravity and level of engineering rigor involved in producing man rated life saving equipment as evidenced by the cargo cutter debacle. If you want to trust your life to this device despite its documented history of failures on the basis of whatever remedial work might have been performed go ahead. Whatever improvements they introduced before they went under I would not trust my life to the engineering practices of guys who put an unreliable cargo reefing line cutter in a life saving AAD. Personally I think it is fucking ridiculous that someone would recommend this. The only thing that can be said for it is it's better than nothing, unless the cutter traps your closing loop, then it's a lot worse than nothing.

You seem to be getting pissed for all the wrong reasons. They fulfilled your order and gave you a free pilot chutes. Not their fault your WS got stolen, everyone in line would have to wait a little bit longer to get your order out early. I like companies that treat everyone equally. Every freebie and rush order that high maintenance entitled people like you get, other jumpers have to pay for and wait for.

That looks similar to the video I saw although the exit was not intentionally inverted in the other one. Those closing speeds right after exit can be very high in WS, I think because of the ability of the WS to suddenly deliver a lot of lift.

Wow, if indeed he "fell", that makes 3 serious such accidents this year. I have been trying to raise awareness of this risk around our DZ for the past few weeks. I think we need to look hard and long at our exit skills when we plan our jumps. This has always been a concern but not such a deadly one as lately. Lots of events are potentially serious, this did not have a serious outcome beyond a bruised arm. When I say he fell I'm talking about before the collision when he dropped onto the other jumper. You can be sure there are a great many more incidents similar to this if you have two LOC fatalities.

As was discovered in RW and vRW a number of years ago, vertical separation cannot be relied upon to avoid collisions. I see no reason that WS is any different. Vertical component relative velocity is not vertical separation. I'm talking about group that exits together, in fact lack of vertical separation is desirable in this situation as it takes vertical separation to build the vertical component of relative velocity. If they exit together how come there's a "first jumper" and a "second jumper" who don't see each other? It was a group exit with typical small delays between those in the door and those diving, sorry for any confusion. There were more than two jumpers in the group. They all knew they were in a group and knew of each other, but they did not maintain visual contact with each other during exit, built significant vertical relative velocity after building vertical separation and ended up colliding hard. If anything (from memory) the later jumper's exit was poor and he "fell" onto the lower jumper. I will try to get the video to share.

As was discovered in RW and vRW a number of years ago, vertical separation cannot be relied upon to avoid collisions. I see no reason that WS is any different. Vertical component relative velocity is not vertical separation. I'm talking about group that exits together, in fact lack of vertical separation is desirable in this situation as it takes vertical separation to build the vertical component of relative velocity.

A buddy of mine got clobbered hard on a WS flock exit recently "saw stars". In a group not all are transitioning to full flight consistently. First exiting jumper transitions after a brief delay and reduces their vertical velocity, second jumper transitions to full flight lower than the first jumper so there's a collision with high difference in vertical component of velocity. In this case exit was a group exit. They did not see each other during exit. Something strategy that mitigates the proximity or relative vertical speeds, or helps with visibility & avoidance of fellow flockers is needed.

Interesting. I guess the BPA knows better than the manufacturer... Does the BPA also mandate that Vigil's and M2's be sent for maintenance every 4 years, even though the manufacturers don't require it? (That's mostly a rhetorical question). SILENCE, the BPA riggers subcommittee has spoken and they know a thing or two about safety critical electronic engi.... oh shit, nevermind. Hey they "felt" this, and that should be reason enough for anyone.

I have had a similar experience and after several suits I realized that the rig I was trying with the suit had short laterals. If you're overweight and/or you have short laterals this has a more dramatic effect on wingsuit fit. Switching to my rig with longer laterals made a significant difference to the fit.

Here it is without all the spammy ads and whuffo analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQalp_dhu6M

Ordered a WS from Squirrel March 17th, delivered today, May 17th. Woohoo!

Well? How was it?

Same here in California. I'm just going by what the most popular local rigger told me of his customers. There is a third cadre who'll jump until the AAD comes back from service and get the rig opened up to put it back in so not the full 180 days, and perhaps those dominate the numbers. That turns that 11% into a smaller number, probably closer to 2% but still a significant downside to mandated service. I've been offered a rental AAD in the past by a rigger, not sure if that's still a thing, it's been a while since i sent one in. Opinions on the advisability of that mandated service might depend on whether you include the AADless jumps of the 2% and 11% cohorts in your consideration