riggerpaul

Your rule change will only affect the people who were following the rules in the first place. It will not make the riggers who didn't care to follow the old rule any better at following the new rule. Riggers who are conscientious are already changing the batteries at the proper time. Riggers who don't care enough will not be changed by changing the rule. Also, just wondering - were the units that came back with long overdue batteries actually being jumped? If they were sitting on the closet floor waiting for a new owner to buy them and put them into service, the battery "problem" could be a non-issue. Sure, batteries should be removed during long periods of storage, but that's not the point of your rule change, is it?

Earlier in the thread there were value judgments being tossed about regarding the NZ system and standards, etc. At that time, you protested loudly that your system was as valid as any, and that things can be done differently in different places. But now, it is you tossing about the value judgments, ignoring that it is perfectly valid for the systems to be different. Things are they way they are for reasons. The reasons in the USA are different from the reasons in NZ, and led to different systems. Your system is no more or less sane than ours. Both have their strong points and weak points. Without prejudice, let's all just agree that different places have different systems, and leave it at that. Neither system is best. Neither is really better than the other. They are just different. I won't claim that we do it right and you do it wrong. It would be nice if you would do the same.

The online documentation has been updated and verified. Aviacom now REQUIRES battery replacement at EVERY REPACK, including a repack after an activation, or every 500 jumps, whichever comes first.

Could you honestly say that if the aircraft manufacturers played a role in licensing the pilots, that there would not have been many more lawsuits for the manufacturers? I would be inclined to beleive that there would have been shitloads more. Removing liability is not eliminating it altogether, it is reducing it. My argument is that the liability would be significantly reduced, not eliminated. Heck, there are alot of planes out there and we all know ther is no such thing as a perfecty good airplane. lol What I am saying is that the aircraft manufacturers get sued when there was absolutely no connection. Consider what happened to Piper. The pilot of a Piper aircraft was having a disagreement with the airport manager of (IIRC) a private airport. The manager marked the runway closed, and parked his truck on the runway to prevent the pilot from taking off. The pilot chose to attempt to take off despite the condition of the runway. He hit the truck. I cannot recall if he was killed. Anyway, Piper got sued and LOST, IIRC because the ancient Piper Cub had no shoulder belts. I am saying that the manufactures simply cannot protect themselves here. Around here, like it or not, liability suits are often about the depth of the pocket, and are not related to any actual responsibility. I don't think that the nature or source of the training has anything to do with it at all. Neither you nor I can say how it would have been had the manufacturers been more or less involved with the training. That's just an exercise in "what if"? Your guess is as good as mine. But mine is as good as yours. So let's just drop that line of thought. What I can say is that the suits often look for the deep pocket regardless of any actual responsibility.

So if the manufacturers have a certain standard they specify is reached before one can use their gear, and they play no part in rating that person, and that person does something that is specifically against their specifications, then it would be difficult to pin it on the manufacturer... right? Regarding events in the USA - Pilot certification is government controlled. Aircraft manufacturers have been sued many many times when pilots have made mistakes. So, being separate from the pilot certification did not help aircraft manufacturers. Why should it be different for a tandem manufacturer? I don't mean to say our situation is "right", only that it is the situation we have. I would much rather have the sort of control on liability suits that you have in NZ, but that's just not what we have. This isn't about "right" and "wrong". It is only about what really happens here.

I'd really like Aviacom to make these new things clear. The email I got said they "recommend" battery change at each repack. As you point out, the User Manual Sec 2.2 says "are to be replaced". The same manual, in the Sec 2.6 "Specifications", says annual battery replacement. The Installation Manual, Sec 5.1 says annual replacement. I sent them an email asking about these things, and haven't gotten a response. I sent the email again a few moments ago.

free climbing

That comparison is not "fair". The Reflex mounts the closing loop on the pilot chute cap, so the top of the pilot chute doesn't push against anything. When flaps cover the pilot chute cap, and the cutter is somewhere below the pilot chute, Kelly says that the longer the loop, the more binding, because the loop is still through the grommets that must be pushed aside. That's really a completely different thing from what happens in the Reflex. I understand that the long loop will tend to bind the flaps because it is still though the grommets, and that it would be best to have no closing loop through the grommets when the pilot chute is trying to push the flaps aside. That certainly favors a cutter that is closer to the pin. But I also believe that side flaps suffer from this binding much more than top and bottom flaps. Side flaps are much larger than top and bottom flaps, so they are more difficult to push out of the way in the first place. When you combine that with the binding force that results from having a too long closing loop still through the grommets, you get a rig that can be locked up if the closing loop is too long. He and I are in agreement up to this point, I think. The big difference is that I don't think that we will be able to get a rig like a Javelin or Wings (or any of the rigs that only have a top and bottom flap above the pilot chute) to lock closed. If the rig will not lock closed, I would rather have the cutter in a place where it cannot stop the pin from working as designed, even if the cutter jams on the closing loop. I am trying to think of a way to test this theory without firing a lot of expensive cutters in the process. One possible way to test would be to anchor the closing loop with a pin instead of a disk. Then you could pull the pin to simulate the action of a cutter that is position near the closing loop anchor. If a too long closing loop won't lock up the rig, the cutter can be anywhere you want. top, bottom, or somewhere in the middle. If any of these rigs only locks up when sloppy rigging employs a too long closing loop, then we should fix the rigging, not the rig.

Cutting the loop close to the pin keeps the opening mechanics of the container closest to the original primary deployment configuration. The farther the cutter gets from the pin, the more loop has to get pulled through flaps and the pilot chute (the Racer would be an exception), most likely inhibiting the launch of the pilot chute to some degree. Most rigs are designed so that when the pin is pulled, the flaps and pilot chute top get pushed off the end of the closing loop to provide for the lowest restriction container opening and pilot chute launch. As the cutter gets farther from the pin, the machanics of the deployment change completely, as has been mentioned in pervious posts, and the launch gets restricted. You don't think that reducing the number of flaps above the pilot chute would negate some of this concern? Do you think that the flaps below the pilot chute really come into play? As I mentioned in my post #56 of this thread, the freebag does not need to expand the way the pilot chute spring does. So the flaps below the pilot chute will not bind on the loop because they are not being pushed out of the way yet. They won't need to move significantly until the pilot chute is well away from the rig (at bridle stretch). As has been noted by others, the closing loops on the semi-pop-top rigs are usually significantly shorter, and the overall number of flaps is lower too. In a rig with a shorter closing loop, the cutter cannot be as far away as on a rig with a longer closing loop. You'll need to convince me that two flaps above the pilot chute can bind enough to delay the pilot chute launch. While I agree that putting the cutter nearer the pin will more closely mimic the effect of pulling the pin, it comes with a price. Since these explosive cutters are good for only a single activation, they cannot be tested. There is no guarantee that the one you have is not a dud. If it jams on the loop, and it is above the pilot chute, pulling the pin does nothing. So, I would much rather have it below everything, providing the rig is compatible with such a location.

I understand your argument. Just because no one has posted a video on youtube about these systems, doesn't make the design impervious. For the most part, the length of closing loop between the cutter and the pin still needs to pass through the same number of flaps. With the cutter located below the freebag, there is arguably more loop that must pass through all the flaps on the way out. I would argue that it is easy to visually determine if the closing loop is too long an ANY rig. Just because the pilot chute is enveloped in the container, doesnt make it a mystery. This is hands-down the most common error that I see in the field. I also tend to believe it's exacerbated by the longer 180 repack cycle. I'm not "dis"ing any style of rig. I just think it's foolish to base your container purchasing decision around an AAD cutter location. I believe the video floating around on youtube was a reserve total on an enclosed pc system. I'm not saying the design isnt safe, it's just as safe as all the other major designs out there. I'm certain that you could take a rig of that design and pack it 100 times and do 100 aad cutter test fires on the bench and it would work 100% of the time. It's that 1 time, unlikely scenario, that might get you, and I can't confirm it's impossible to happen on any specific design. Can you? First, regarding the underlined statement, you began this sub-thread by saying that you wanted the cutter above the pilot chute. So your decision is based on the AAD cutter location. Anyway - Passing through the same number of flaps is not the question. The problem is the spring pushing against flaps. When there are 4 flaps above the spring, all 4 will pull the loop in different directions, and then the tail can hang up underneath, With only 2 flaps above the spring, it is not going to be the same. The two flaps that are below the spring do not need to move for the pilot chute to get free. They are not contributing to the problem. The bagged canopy does not need to expand the way the pilot chute spring does, so the flaps below the pilot chute do not start pulling on the loop the way the flaps above the pilot chute do. And even if it were simply a question of how many flaps the closing loop goes through, the enclosed pilot chute rigs often have 1 or 2 flaps below the pilot chute as well, for a total of 6 or more flaps. (There are exceptions to this, that is, rigs without kicker flaps.) Even if straight flap count is the question, would you rather have 6 or 4? Regarding seeing a too long closing loop on a enclosed pilot chute, I need to push on the pilot chute to see if the spring is fully compressed in any but the most extreme case. I have seen rigs where I can compress the spring an additional 3/4 inch or more while the rig didn't look particularly bad. The fully enclosed pilot chute can be hiding the too long closing loop quite effectively. That simply won't happen on a pop-top or semi-pop-top rig. In any case, you still need a skilled rigger packing the rig to be sure that the rig is going to work properly. Sloppy rigging is the root cause, and I have always said that moving the cutter to account for sloppy rigging is asking for trouble downstream.

As has been pointed out, a waiver can have a certain deterrent effect, legally binding or not, with some activities. Skydiving is so far out there for so many people that the deterrent effect is minimal. The only way, then, to protect ourselves is to adhere strictly to what has a chance of being held binding in a court.

(So, Andy, I would PM you with this one but you block them. What did you think of my post?)

It is about the same as $.02.

Maybe it will make more sense with an explanation. What we have is simply that if a person wants to waive his rights, it must be that very person waiving his (or her) own rights. That isn't unreasonable, is it? Since a person below the age of majority cannot sign a binding contract, he cannot waive his own rights, because the waiver is a contract. So, why should it be this way? Because it protects many different people from many different things. Consider, if parents are allowed to sign a waiver for a child, what happens if one parent signs, while the other refuses? Or, if some other adult shows up at the dropzone and signs the waiver for a minor, how would you know that that particular adult has the legal authority to sign that waiver in the first place? The waiver could not be binding if the person signing doesn't have the right to sign for the person whose rights are being waived. Much easier and less conflict ridden to simply say that one can only waive one's own rights. And then, as a side effect, we cannot let a person who cannot sign the waiver for himself jump.

But the semi-pop-top rigs (Wings, Javelin, Dolphin*, Basik Seven**, etc) have only 2 flaps above the pilot chute, and nobody has ever shown they will bind on a too long closing loop. (* Dolphin has 1 or 2 flaps above the pilot chute, depending on how you close it.) (** Basik Seven has no side flaps either.) Besides, on those rigs, it is immediately obvious when the closing loop is too long, as the pilot chute cap does not sit correctly. Contrast this with rigs that have a completely enclosed pilot chute, where it is possible that a too long closing loop has little visual evidence, and has been shown to bind on at least one of them. All I am saying is not to dis the semi-pop-top rigs that have the cutter below the freebag. They haven't been shown to need the cutter higher on the closing loop.

Thanks Rob!! That's a great solution! I wish I'd thought of it.

In my old, black cover, Poynter manual, there are several methods shown. Interestingly, the method I mentioned, where the seal is not between the pin and the closing loop, is shown, except that he didn't put a seal on it. He mentions that it might be used to seal a main parachute. Anyway, the sketches in that manual have pin and cone systems. Not much like the closing loops we use now. In my more modern, fancy multicolor covered copy of Volume II, the picture (on page 297) of sealing what looks like an old vector is pretty lousy. In fact, looking at that picture is seems entirely possible that it could be interpreted as suggesting that the seal thread is put through the closing loop. That lousy picture may be where the whole idea came from in the first place. Looking at the 2005 Parachute Rigger Handbook (FAA-H-8083-17), the written description (pages 5-30 - 5-32) seems to be the way I have seen rigs sealed, but the photos, specifically Figures 5-67 and 5-68, are confusing to me, and do not seem to me to match the written information. Those photos show bits of the red seal thread in places I just haven't figured out how they get there. So, I cannot agree that there is any clear guidance on how to seal a rig.

And how would I do that? BTW - The local S&TA and DZO have been informed,

Asks if it is okay - of course it is not. But, so what? You don't really think anyone is going to ask? Don't twist the question. After the fact I discover a rig penciled with my id. Is really anything to do? Riggers - what do YOU do?

Okay, now, should I have any particular reaction to it? I can't stop him, he already did it. Defense might be difficult, but, as I said, I can't actually stop anyone from doing it. If there is no remedy to be applied, any concern on my part is just wasting my angst, and I should just let it go. I can refuse to pack his rig again, but that's little penalty around here. You can't toss a rock without hitting a rigger in NorCal. Well, more or less. So, what's the point of getting all bent out of shape?

I've been wondering about an old friend from high school who might be a jumper. Anyone know a John May somewhere in the vicinity of New York City or its suburbs (New Rochelle?) John would be about 58 or thereabouts, and may have been jumping for 25-30 or maybe more years. If you know someone who might be him, is he on dz.com? Thanks! -paul

I was ONLY responding to the two cutter on one loop thought. Tucking the second cutter away, as long as it really cannot interfere with anything, seems fine to me. It might be that the best place to tuck it would be in the pouch with the processing unit. I cannot think of anything it could do bad in there. If somebody else can, chime in please. I just figure that sitting there passively, the cutter can do no harm. If the AAD fires, maybe it could damage something, but then, the AAD has already fired. Now, I've never actually seen and handled a 2-pin AAD. I don't pack many Racers, and the ones I have didn't have AADs. I don't know what the cutter cable actually looks like. Can the second cutter be stowed in the processing unit pocket without adversely affecting the other cutter? (If the "Y" in the cable is too near the cutters, maybe it cannot be placed that far away.)

Sad to say, but I suspect that most of us would quietly admit that this is a major reason we became riggers... So that we could best ensure that our own rig is airworthy from top to bottom... It had little to do with packing for anyone else. JW I apologize for being so philosophical. I should be drinking when I write this shit. When I am drinking, I usually give up before posting.

Thanks! Top answer But timing of firing might not be the only issue. Two cutters on one closing loop means something is somewhere it was never intended to be. Using 2 cutters on a rig where 1 was intended means you are a test pilot. Do you really want to be there? Get the AAD modified to be 1 cutter.

Honest people honest ? Maybe. I recently did a rig where the owner 6 months ago pencil packed with my identification. Should I care? I didn't do the work. My logbook and the loft logbook easily confirm that. The signature isn't mine, again, easy to check. So, do I care? Why?