riggerpaul

I have seen some very very old footage of a "flying circus" sort of performance where the rig has several parachutes. Only the last one was a full size parachute, the others were much smaller. The performer deployed the first small parachute. He cut it away, and it static-lined the next parachute out. At least, that's how I recall it looking. It went on like that, chopping each small parachute, until he got to the full size parachute that he landed. I think that this is the sort of thing to which the description you posted refers. Back in 1890, my guess is that it would have been done from a balloon.

I don't think that is accurate - or your presumption of which incident rather, MEL was referring to is (in)correct. MEL can certainly speak for himself and feel free to correct me if instead here now, it is me that is mistaken - but my reading of his post was that he was referring to the Garretsville, OH 9/19/2009 Tandem pair incident, where it was found, in part - that the Tandem-System RSL had been mis-routed (under, instead of over a closing flap) upon reserve-flaps re-closing, when the rigger opened the reserve container to replace CyPReS batteries (only), and re-assembled/re-closed "as-is", without (apparently) doing a full A-I-R. That is the Garretsville Tandem double-fatality incident he is referring to. I'm just sayin'... FWIW. The whole tangent of I&R's on sport rigs possibly being done with the main remaining in the container, probably could have even been avoided altogether, if this false presumption were just not pursued! We're talking about the same incident. In post #35 of this thread, MEL mentioned 3 docs, one of which was the PIA 180-day FAQ, another was the Garretsville report. In post #37, I asked him how the 180-day FAQ came into play. In post #41, MEL told us how the allowing a re-close in the 180-day FAQ let the whole thing happen. In post #42, I said that this wasn't a problem with allowing a re-close. It was a problem with failing to re-close properly when the main was still attached. The Racer manual suggests that the error can be avoided if the RSL is not present when the rig is closed. That morphed into the whole question of doing work on the reserve while the main is still attached, or in the container, or otherwise close enough to be a factor. That's how discussions sometimes go. It began with the Airtec notice about putting the closing loop through the cutter. It went on to touch on a number of aspects of rigging that can have an influence on the process. Jerry Baumchen mentioned legal implication of the way AADs get "approved", and MEL replied with his post #35 that I mentioned above. Tangents happen. We all contribute.

You are right. My statements were imprecise. I said "I&R" and should not have. That wasn't really the point of the discussion at that point, and so I paid less attention to that detail than I should have. MEL was talking about how the information in the 180-day I&R clarification led to a death, because the main was in place when the rig was re-closed. His implication is that re-closing a rig, as is apparently allowed by the document he mentioned, was what caused the death. I should only have said that I know a reputable rigger who can close a rig with the main in place, though it is not the way I can do it. The point I was trying to make at that time was only that no matter what you are doing, doing it without the proper knowledge and attention to the job at hand was the cause of the problem, not that the main was in place, or that the rig was being re-closed. I appreciate your patience and willingness to listen as I attempted to clarify.

...................................................................... I agree with you ... but disagree with your lokal master rigger. Sinse most manufakturer's manuals inlude diagrams (or photos) of reserves being losed WITH EMPTY MAIN KONTAINERS, it would be a violation of the manufakturer's instruktions to klose a reserve with the main kontainer full. Rob Warner FAA Master Rigger KSPA Rigger Examiner P.S. guess whikh key died on my lap-top? I don't think things are quite so cut and dried as you are currently claiming. The RI Talon manual shows clamps on the reserve. Does that mean I MUST use clamps? AC-105 says that when there is a conflict between canopy manufacturer's instructions and container manufacturer's instructions, the container manufacturer's instructions take precedence. Does that mean I MUST use clamps when packing a Flight Concepts reserve (prohibits clamps) into a RI Talon?

He may be doing a fine R, but he sure as hell isn't doing a proper I. Sounds like a good rigger to avoid. What can he not inspect? - Fabric inside the main pack tray - Stitching inside the main pack tray - Main closing flap grommets - Main closing flap stiffeners - Main closing loop retainer - Main closing loop - Cutaway cable - Compliance with some service bulletins (such as the Javelin closing loop retainer modification bulletins) As I said to Billvon, he could very well open the main container, checks all these things, and close it so he doesn't have to worry about messing up the packed main. You are presuming that he doesn't check these things, when all I said was that he packs the reserve with the main in the container. I never really gave it much thought, as personally, I take the main out. Often as not, I end up packing the main for free since the customer didn't ask for that. Don't condemn the man based on my quick statement that he can pack the reserve with the main in the container.

Is the grounding based on the idea that the AAD can inhibit the reserve from opening in the case of pulling the reserve ripcord? Or is it because the AAD might fail to save a life when the jumper does not pull? If it is the former, than shouldn't it be okay to jump a rig, like a Javelin or a Wings, where the AAD cannot inhibit the action of the system when you pull the ripcord? On Javelin and Wings (at least, possibly more, I am only familiar with rigs popular in the USA), the cutter is at the opposite end of the closing loop from the pin, so it cannot inhibit function when the pin is pulled. Is it time for AADs to start getting TSOs and/or other certifications?

And I'll add to what mjosparky said again - When the person gets to owning his own gear, he should know enough to know when something need attention. Way too many that I see don't. They get a license, they get a rig, and they stop packing. Many seem to hardly ever look at the rig they are using again. That's not good. Now with the 180 day I&R, there's more reason then ever before to know enough to at least know when the rig needs attention. (Now, this side-thread has little to do with the original Airtec notice. And I recognize that nothing the owner can do helps to catch a loop that isn't through the cutter, but owners should still know more than most seem to know about their gear.)

I'll mention that to him. The work area is small, and I don't get to watch him do an I&R. If we are working at the same time, I'm am in the main packing area, and he is up in his loft. So I don't know that he doesn't open, look, close and continue with the reserve I&R. All I said is that he is okay to have the main in the container when he packs the reserve. That really doesn't say he isn't inspecting the whole rig. But, as I said, I'll mention it to him. Thanks!

He may be doing a fine R, but he sure as hell isn't doing a proper I. Sounds like a good rigger to avoid. What can he not inspect?

Thanks! Capturing the RSL on a Racer could happen whenever someone works on a Racer with the main still in place. It isn't the re-closing that is at fault, it is the not understanding the rig that is at fault. Me, my skills are such that I prefer that the main is not in the container when I do a repack. But the master at the dz where I work is fine to do an I&R with the main in place, and lots of the customers prefer it that way. Do the regs or recommendations say anything about this one way or the other? Anyway, sure, not allowing a re-close might address the problem to some extent, but the real bigger problem is that the rigger does not have the knowledge to correctly do the work he has done. Prohibiting a re-close masks that problem - it doesn't solve it. The rigger who has that problem will surely find other ways to have his problem manifest itself. When I read that last paragraph of 9.3.1.1 (yes, I have an older Poynter manual), what I got from it is not that a re-close should be prohibited. What I got is that when you are working on a parachute, you should not leave the parachute unattended, as it could be disturbed in a manner that is not obvious. That's good advice, but not necessarily applicable in all situations. If I am packing a parachute at home, for instance, I am alone, the pets are outside, and there is no way for the parachute to be disturbed even if I take a break. Continuous oversight is not necessary if it is impossible that a disturbance could occur, is it? That section also talks about the order of operations. A lot of it seems to presuppose that rigging is done in a loft where there are other people working, and possibly customers walking around to disturb the process. Again, that's often the case. But it is not always the case. If I inspect a parachute, and then I put it into a container and on the shelf to be packed sometime later, have I broken any rule? Do you think that I should not be allowed to do it that way?

I see a good deal of stuff that could easily become an incident, were it not for the fact that I spotted it on the packing floor before it went into the air for another chance to become an incident. Wear and tear on rigs is a serious thing, and too many jumpers are clueless about such things. Worn steering lines break, and people have to decide how to handle the situation. The best thing would have been if they understood their gear well enough to realize that service was needed. Twisted brake lines can cause tension knots. Again, an understanding of gear would help the person avoid a reserve ride. These are just two examples from the endless list. Nobody said that every jumper needs to be a master rigger. But every jumper should understand his gear well enough that he can determine when he has a problem that needs attention. In the case of the first jump student, that's not possible. So we try hard to make sure that the student gear won't suffer from the sorts of problems that would require that in-depth gear knowledge. But once a jumper owns his own gear, he should absolutely be able to tell me if it needs work or not. Too often, that is not the case.

Right there we see the problem - that you would even ask "what is the gold standard"? There is no gold standard for anything in skydiving. Sparky didn't say there was. He only said that the techniques you support are not the gold standard. And they are not. His statement does not imply that he knows any gold standard. For every thing that is possibly close to a "gold standard" in this sport, it is simple to find counter examples where following that standard might have killed you, while doing something else saved you. Nothing in the sport is perfect. Maybe some people are telling you that what they teach or make or sell is the gold standard, but it is not true. This sport, and all things associated with it, are still way more "art" than "science". So saying that you would be embarrassed to be the instructor that taught that person her EPs just shows us all that you don't have the depth of experience to understand that there is no gold standard, that different people teach different things, and that each has its good and bad points.

How does the 180-day rule come into play?

(Not responding to NovaTTT, just following his post.) I am not completely certain that it is a good thing to say that AADs begin the deployment of a parachute. I realize that this is being pedantic. I want to say that I don't mean to argue with MEL or NovaTTT or anybody. But I know I want to discuss it more. If we say that an AAD begins the deployment of a parachute, what does it mean when the parachute fails to deploy after the AAD "fires"? We all know that there are situations where a loop-cutter-type AAD doesn't actually make anything open. We've likely all seen the video of the Mirage with the too-long closing loop. That rig locked up after the cutter fired. Had the deployment begun? The flaps were all in place - the pilot chute was still inside the rig. Had the deployment begun? Even in the case of a pin-puller AAD, we've seen that pins break, and the rigs don't open. If we say that AADs open parachutes, or even if we say that they begin deployments, aren't we inviting people to have an unrealistic impression of what the AAD will do for them? As far as we are concerned, isn't this unrealistic impression what has led to the current lawsuit against Airtec? Bearing all this in mind, wouldn't we be much better off if we were all very careful about what we say an AAD does? A pin puller tries to pull a pin. A loop cutter tries to cut a loop. Even if the incorrect impression never leads to a lawsuit, shouldn't we be as accurate as we can so that all the people we talk to about these things has a realistic understanding of what we get when we use these safety devices? If we don't set expectations correctly, aren't we just inviting people to give us grief when what we said would happen, doesn't?

In the case of a DOM after but near the cutoff, be sure to check the date tag on the cutter itself. I have found a unit with DOM of 10/2007 that still had an Aug 2007 cutter.

Meaning not at all to argue, but only to continue to discuss - Who decided if it is a "save" or not? If these 2000 CYPRES saves were "saves" according to the jumper who got "saved", maybe it does mean that 2000 more people would have died over the period in question. If someone reported it as a "save", maybe it really was. Do you think that every single activation is reported to Airtec and they call them all "saves" even if they were not? I suspect that not all activations are reported, which might make the 2000 number actually be lower than it really is. The nature of the jumping population now is pretty different from the nature of the jumping population 25 years ago, so I wonder how meaningful it is to compare the "no pull" rates from then to the "save" rates from now. I know lots of people now who simply won't jump without an AAD. Back then, everybody had to have the confidence that they could save their own life. Now it is not so clear as that. So, as format says, maybe a lot of these "saves" wouldn't have been jumping at all were it not for the AAD. But, they are jumping, and if they are reporting these events as "saves" maybe they really are.

There is a requirement to pack a parachute for your A license but there is not a requirement in the SIM or the proficiency card to jump it. Interesting question! I've always held to the idea that the pack job must be jumped, but, as you say, that requirement is not clear. So I wrote to Jim Crouch, USPA Director of Safety & Training. Here's his reply. Sorry that his pretty sig with graphics didn't show up the way it did in the actual email. We'll have to wait a bit to see that the S&T Committee says.

Looks like that's his USPA # actually. You are surely right. Looking at Nov Parachutist, the last A number when they printed was 58606. But his profile says he has a license. Of course, it also says he has 18 jumps. So, Ryye, what's the story?

It's not that I completely AVOID the packing area, I just believe that many individuals have different perspectives. Some guys might want to focus on their pack job and not be bothered by new guys or anyone at all while others might be totally friendly and be more than happy to show you a few pointers. I guess it's safe to say that I like to watch from a distance to get an "idea" of what's going on and just wait for my actual packing class to become fully knowledgeable of what's at stake. The thought of packing my first parachute is nerve racking for me! How is it that you have an "A" license and don't know how to pack?

See post #18 on the thread. The rig with an Argus in Novice mode was riding down with the plane. Of course, that doesn't alter the fact that a cutter jammed on a partially cut loop - very worrisome.

Stowed Brakes will not pull the riser down. It can't pull the riser down because the stowed toggle is below the guide ring. You are completely correct that only the line came down .... BUT... you did make a mistake by failing to notice You already know this now because you've experienced a problem and learned from it. Keep it up. If the toggles are hard to release, they are WAY too soft and that rig needs to be grounded until they are replaced with stiffer toggles. Toggles should release fairly easy. If they are not, that is really bad and needs to be fixed. A problem like that can and has hurt and killed people. If one stays stowed, it's then up to you how to control the canopy. Low to the ground, you're forced to deal with what you have. Stop trying to fix the unstowed line, hold the unstowed line down to match it and prepare to crash land/PLF. You can steer it, but you better point it somewhere good! Hi Tim, Rereading, I see that you are probably right. But, I'll only give you "probably" because it has also happened that a too soft toggle has been pulled right through the guide ring. In that case, pulling the stuck toggle will pull down the riser. I just recently saw a photo of this sort of problem, but I can't remember where. It might have been in Parachutist, but I don't keep back issues anymore, so I cannot look. So, I'll admit my mistake, and thank you for posting an important reply. My bad. I'll stand by the rest of my post though.

If the toggles were still stowed, then you brought the toggles, AND THE REAR RISERS TOO, down to chest level? I am 100% certain that you were never taught that this would happen. Any canopy that you'll use during your student training will operate exactly like you were taught. Others have mentioned that a proper controllability check would have revealed the problem. Actually, even before you do a controllability check, you are supposed to unstow the brakes. (Maybe some will say that unstowing the brakes is part of the controllability check. That's okay. Either way, the brakes must be unstowed before making the turns.) That involves a sharp tug on both toggles simultaneously. The toggles must come out of whatever keepers are involved, and they must pull the hard tab (at the top of the toggle) out of the brake loop/eye on the steering line. Had you done that, one of a few things would have happened. 1) both toggles would have come unstowed - the desired and usual result. 2) one toggle would unstow, and the other would not - you'd start turning, and you wouldn't really be able to start your controllability check until you'd freed that other toggle. At this point, if you decided the canopy could not be controlled, you'd be at a fine altitude for a cutaway. 3) both toggles would stay stowed - really very unlikely, but possible. At this point, you would do a controllability check, and the flare portion would show you that the toggles were not working as expected. As mentioned in 2) above, now would be the time to decide if you are keeping the canopy or not. As others have said, you should not be getting advice from dz.com at this stage of your training. You are a student, and you have instructors who are supposed to be teaching you what you need to know. At this point, I hope you decide to seek out your instructor and ask to have a thorough refresher on what should happen at the beginning of your canopy flight. I think you'll find that you've forgotten some of what you were taught in your First Jump Course. That's okay. You got a lot of information in the FJC, and it is not at all unusual for some of it to be lost in the excitement of your first few jumps. But, at this point, I hope it is clear to you that you have lost something, and it is time to go find it, and whatever else might have been lost as well.

If you are using the center line stows, as recommended for all, this technique is not recommended, and should not be needed. When using the center line stows, proper slack and line routing should address any packing-related line twist issues. Of course, body position during deployment will still remain. For 18 years I did not have a Wings main bag, so not an option. For the last 2, I have had one canopy in a Wings D-bag, but converted to using the outer to be consistent with habits and the other D's I use. For day-to-day jumping, I believe in consistency and tried/true methods rather than using a different methods for each canopy I jump. (I experiment with enough other shtuff... JW I wasn't directing my message to you at all. (I even made sure to "attach" it to my own post, so it would not appear to be directed wrongly.) You have good reason to use the outer line stows. And Sunrise certainly provides the option. That's not at all what I am talking about. (To be clear, the rest is not at all directed at fcajump.) I have seen too many one-rig Wings jumpers who don't even know that the center line stows are there. So much for reading the manual that comes with your gear. (If you bought used, and didn't get a manual, download one!) It the absence of good reasons to the contrary, the manufacturer recommends the use of the center line stows, not the outer line stows. Know your gear. Know what the manufacturer says about packing and maintaining that gear. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is not an excuse. (Again, not talking to fcajumps!)

Are so many people really using the outside line stows on a Wings main bag? From the SB - If you are using the center line stows, as recommended for all, this technique is not recommended, and should not be needed. When using the center line stows, proper slack and line routing should address any packing-related line twist issues. Of course, body position during deployment will still remain.

Download the Midflap SB from www.skydivewings.com Page 5 has the pictures you want.