riggerpaul

for USPA members - there are lots of suppliers of all things skydiving advertising every month in Parachutist.

Quote

First thing that comes to mind is an off landing, requiring a hitch hike from a stranger. I could just assume that it will never happen or that as soon as I arrive I will dump it out. But if I ever do have to do it I will pack the pilot chute into the main tray. Simple and safe.

Take off your jumpsuit and stuff the canopy into it. Zip it up.

This also helps if you need to cross barbed-wire fences.

It does help if you have something like street clothes on under the jumpsuit.

Quote

Quote

As an aside, you're at nearly 70 jumps now - time to start learning as much about your gear as possible. Rather than just having your rigger look over these holes, why not arrange a time for you and your wife to get a lesson in the details of the gear your jumping with him? Take over some beers at the end of a night and spend a few hours with him going over detailed stuff? Design parameters for canopies, line lengths, reason for brake settings, stitch patterns, checks you can do...
It'll all be really useful info.

Well observed. Do you have a book recommendation for explaining parachute gear?

Don't look for a book. Look for people to teach you.

over 40
grew up with mostly analog
own both and like both about equally

My digital is a DigiTude. The "thousands" digit is much larger than the other numbers.

I do have to remind myself that seeing my target digit on the big number is about 1000 feet higher, that is, if looking for 4000, the first moment I see the big "4" is 4999, just below 5. This has gotten easier with use. So, seeing the number I want sort of primes me to notice more. With the analog I don't think I do anything like that.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Students have weak skills, Chuck. I went w/what I thought was solid data. An Alti can look unblemished N shiny, & still fail. You want to write off my training DZ because one of their Altis failed???

I was there Chuck, not you. Had I heard the thousand foot beep in my ear when my Alti said 2K'? I'd have known something was wrong.

The brand new unblemished N shiny audible can fail as well.

And when it fails, the student has NO indication of it.

A visual altimeter, whether analog or digital, will appear to be wrong. The needle falls off, or the needle stops, or the digits start going up, or stop going down, or the display goes blank or all the segments come on, or something.

SOMETHING will give a clue that the device is not working.

What clue is there when the audible fails?

All this talk of students having weak skills really bothers me. It is NOT a solution to add a device, which can fail in many ways on its own, to compensate for students who are not yet ready to do what needs to be done to become a safe skydiver.

I liken this to the problem faced by all the makers of aviation-certified GPS devices.

A huge hurdle that the makers of certified GPS units faced was to be sure that the device told you when it had failed. Because without that clear indication, you won't be able to take the appropriate steps at the appropriate time.

If we are going to use an audible for pattern guidance, the user needs to know when it has failed.

For an experienced parachutist, he may be able to discern this without any help from the audible. He'll just see that something is not right, and he will use his other skills to execute a safe approach and landing.

But the student has no ability to identify that the device has failed, and is literally left hanging.

So, while I was trying to keep an open mind, I have to close it now.

If the audible has no mechanism to unambiguously indicate failure, then it should not be used by a student.

That's a good point paul. The devices we use as well as actually having 2 atlimeters inside them (meaning the device operates with a back up actually inside it) also hold charge when they get to 1000 feet. ie when it beeps at 1000 feet it has taken charge from the battery to be used for the alarms on the way down. If it doesn't beep then it wont function.

When we use the audible it is simply briefed to the student as a guide not a rule. They have it so they can learn what the heights look like without having to look at there altimeter. It's hard for someone to begin there pattern at between 1000 to 900 ft if they don't know what that looks like. If they don't here the beep at 900 feet then they know its not going to work but they already have a plan. They have taught it this way here for years without the audible. The problem has been that students tend to rely on the altimeter to give them the heights no matter how much you tell them to do it visually. Atleast in the begining, I think they actually pick it up pretty quick with the proper de-briefing. The audible is an attempt to get them to focus visually while still receiving the information about there height. To me it's just about education and how you brief the student, for us it is proving to be a plus but not a crutch

If the student was unduly focusing on the altimeter, how is it that he won't shift that same focus to waiting for the beep?

If he has a device that will help him, the student who is prone to undue focus will find a way to focus on whatever helpful device is provided.

Now, interestingly enough, we have me suggesting that maybe a device that only mostly works would be better than a device that always works.

Then, you could tell the student, "that audible USUALLY works, but maybe it won't. Either way, you are going to land, so be prepared to go it alone if you get nothing from the audible."

Maybe you need a ground person with a button labeled "Fail the student audible". Then you could be sure you wouldn't let the student get too comfy with the device.

(Only HALF joking.)

-paul

Quote

Hi Paul,
Sorry, but not so fast, friend. Altis can fail in non-obvious ways, like mine did. My Alti that jump started sticking on the way down. It was OK on the ride to alt., BTW. Had it frozen in one position? I'd have known immediately that it had crapped out. It didn't. If I had had a second device available to me. I could have compared the two. An Audible is a backup, not a primary device. If I don't hear the beep @1K'? I know it isn't working. I'll disregard it, & go w/my primary Alti. I'm sorry, but your reasoning would disqualify the Galaxy I was wearing that day on the same grounds.

The odds of a well-cared for Galaxy failing are slim. The odds of said Galaxy, plus an Optima failing, are remote... Which odds would you rather bet your life & limb on as a student?

An audible on a student will not be a backup - it will be a primary system.

The published intent of the audible is to stop students from fixating on the visual altimeter.

As others have mentioned, we used to do S/L without altimeters until into the longer delay portion of the course.

The reasons were to develop the student's sense of the jump, and to preclude fixation.

Today's students are no better, and arguably worse.

Adding more gizmos is not the solution.

Training in a more sensible way is the solution.

Quote

Students have weak skills, Chuck. I went w/what I thought was solid data. An Alti can look unblemished N shiny, & still fail. You want to write off my training DZ because one of their Altis failed???

I was there Chuck, not you. Had I heard the thousand foot beep in my ear when my Alti said 2K'? I'd have known something was wrong.

The brand new unblemished N shiny audible can fail as well.

And when it fails, the student has NO indication of it.

A visual altimeter, whether analog or digital, will appear to be wrong. The needle falls off, or the needle stops, or the digits start going up, or stop going down, or the display goes blank or all the segments come on, or something.

SOMETHING will give a clue that the device is not working.

What clue is there when the audible fails?

All this talk of students having weak skills really bothers me. It is NOT a solution to add a device, which can fail in many ways on its own, to compensate for students who are not yet ready to do what needs to be done to become a safe skydiver.

I liken this to the problem faced by all the makers of aviation-certified GPS devices.

A huge hurdle that the makers of certified GPS units faced was to be sure that the device told you when it had failed. Because without that clear indication, you won't be able to take the appropriate steps at the appropriate time.

If we are going to use an audible for pattern guidance, the user needs to know when it has failed.

For an experienced parachutist, he may be able to discern this without any help from the audible. He'll just see that something is not right, and he will use his other skills to execute a safe approach and landing.

But the student has no ability to identify that the device has failed, and is literally left hanging.

So, while I was trying to keep an open mind, I have to close it now.

If the audible has no mechanism to unambiguously indicate failure, then it should not be used by a student.

Quote

pops, stop trying to be the lone voice of experience. I gave the OP good advice. Sorry I wasn't tender and sensitive about it.

Christ. Jump more, post less, ffs.

Good advice? Maybe. maybe not.

Some people's fear is absolutely debilitating.

If OP's fear makes it impossible to think straight, maybe skydiving is better left for when something else has made the fear less devastating.

(Pops is NOT the lone voice of experience,)

Quote

Unfortuantely UPT closes early on Fridays, so I couldn't get them directly.

Riggers:

Quick question - during a table-test of a Vector with Skyhook, the collins lanyard completely pulled the cuttaway on the left riser before the seal thread on the skyhook broke. The right riser did not release. Is this common?

Seems like it could make a low accidental reserve release a bit more interesting than normal.

_Am

What sort of test?

The Collins cannot release the right riser. The Collins stuff only affects the left riser.

If you were just pulling on RSL (pulling on the disconnected shackle?) then there is no expectation that the right side will release.

It is the release of the right side by pulling the cutaway handle that usually accounts for the force pulling on the RSL, so the expectation is that the right riser has already released.

So, how were you doing your test? And what had you expected to happen?

Quote

not trying to nit-pick here, but you sure seem to show some sort of affection for aviacom.

please, dont take this as a personal attack in any way, but defending a company that acts as poorly as aviacom does seems to imply you're involved..

in your honori i agree in being against "brand X" just because they are brandX, but hey, having shown such a disregard for possible safety-"features" like aviacom has in the past.. NO-FUCKING-WAY i'd ever stand behind their products, nor defend them in any way..

I believe that even the clearly guilty should get a fair trial.

Does that say I like them? I do not believe it does.

I don't stand behind Aviacom's products - haven't in quite some time.

But I also don't believe in lynchings.

I do not defend their actions, but I still wish they got equal treatment. I do not believe they did. And I believe that the uneven treatment has made things worse for skydivers, not better.

I am not talking about conspiracies. I don't believe there was any conspiracy. I am talking about how a ball got rolling down a hill, picking up speed all the way, and crashed into the house at the bottom. Once PIA published their letter to the manufacturers, it is no surprise to me that so many would have banned the product. How could they not? Many felt that failing to ban left them with a significant liability exposure.

There is no doubt that Aviacom made a great deal of the problems for themselves. They have responded horribly at every possible point. I've been saying that all along. I have all along told Aviacom in many emails what I felt they should have done.

But the downward spiral was assisted by a significant bunch of people pushing that big rock down the hill. Once the banning started, Aviacom's business took a giant hit, and it is no surprise that any research into possible product improvement would grind to a halt. I don't know who that might have helped, but I am pretty sure that it hurt skydivers who might have benefited from a new cutter. Actually, I am surprised that the business has not folded. And that would have left a lot of people with absolutely no hope.

Did the banning save any lives? We will never know. We can never know. Maybe it did and maybe it didn't. But it surely guaranteed that any progress regarding getting a better cutter would be severely slowed or eliminated altogether.

I can't say that Aviacom would have done any better even without some of the stuff that happened. But I can't say they wouldn't have either.

Either way, I am pretty certain that things were made worse for Aviacom once that ball got started down the hull.

For the record, I probably feel as strongly about the Vigil as you do about the Argus. But I don't want them to go out of business. I want them to fix what I consider to be problems. Banning them would not get us any closer to that goal, and so I don't believe they should be banned. So far, they have said, "That's not a problem. That's a feature." I see very little difference between that and what Aviacom has said and done.

I don't favor one over the other. It isn't that I like one or the other. I dislike them both about equally.

I am sure that the two have been treated very differently, and I think that is wrong.

Quote

Quote

Nope, you got me there.

I'm not trying to "get" anyone Paul. I'm just trying to be as objective as possible.
I don't work for any AAD manufacturer, and I'm not sponsored from any of them.

I'm just a rigger who is doing his best to stay updated with the latest information.

Blue skies

Okay. "get" was a poor choice of words on my part.

I thank you for your posting a more accurate account than I did.

I'd decided some time ago that I didn't want an early cutter, and that made it easy to forget that they were, in fact, still allowed in some instances.

They are no longer, and that is a very good thing. Too little too late most likely.

I still see the whole situation as extremely unfortunate.

I don't believe it was their intent to dupe people, but they allowed themselves to be distracted, very likely by financial considerations, and that led to actions that many many people, myself included, find unacceptable.

Nobody wins in this.

Quote

A "recalled cutter"? Yes, absolutely, in some sense. But no, not in another.

Yes indeed in the sense that it was of the early type of cutter that is in the recall.

... whether or not that particular cutter in that particular rig would be recalled at that particular time.

In version 1 of the recall bulletin (SB AMMO050910/1) it might have been recalled, as only a particular 2007 batch was involved. (The Gold Coast report doesn't say exactly when the cutter was built.)

In version 2 (... /2) in Sept '10 the cutter was in the recall and had to be replaced by the end of the year at the latest. (If in use of course.)

In version 3 in Dec '10 the recall timing was extended to the first repack after 31 March 2011. That's the wait described in the original Gold Coast report.

In version 4 in April '11, the rules changed to
a) replacement at next repack if cutter above PC
b) no need for replacement if below the PC.

In that case, the particular cutter in that particular rig was no longer recalled. (And the cutter was banned in the Dolphin by Altico for only a few days in spring until they rescinded their bulletin.)

And in that version 4, Aviacom writes that due to "extensive tests", those early (pre-Aug 07) cutters "have shown no lack of performance."

Thus Aviacom is still implying that absolutely nothing is wrong with their cutters.

Yes, that's what Deyan said, and I responded that he was right.

And now, Deyan has posted yet another Aviacom SB, dated 6 August 2011, requiring all cutters manufactured before Sept 2007 to be replaced before the next jump.

So there is no longer any notion that the earlier cutters are okay. It is about time. But it is very likely too little too late.

And it still remains to be seen is if any cutters will actually be available, or if anybody wants them.

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Moderators, could you please put Andy's comment or something similar to the header
>information about this this forum?

It is there. See "what will happen when you read this forum" - it's the very first thread on the forum.

Maybe it would be too much, but I wonder if it maybe should automatically be posted at the top of each incident THREAD, and not just at the top of the FORUM.

I rather doubt that the families of jumpers who visit this site and read the incident threads do a whole lot of background gathering before they delve into the thread about their loved one.

So, would it be impossible to prepend that post to the beginning of every new thread when it is created?

(I suppose this post should maybe be in the "Suggestions" forum, but I think I'd like to see it read more widely. Thanks!)

-paul

Thanks Paul -

I suggested that and I agree! I don't think that the families of an incident victim will be reading all of the intro threads, but they do read the first thread and all following. No reason to not do this.

I apologize - I missed that you wanted it added to each thread.

The only difference between our suggestions is that I think it should be the very first post, posted automatically, in each thread, even before the first "human" post. That way, it would be even tougher to miss.

But, as I said, I apologize for misinterpreting your post.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It was a recalled cutter, and that's said in the letter.

No, It was not. According to this service bulletin, the cutter was good to go.

The rig was Dolphin and the cutter is bellow the freebag.

Or, maybe I'm wrong and missed some additional SB among the whole mess

Nope, you got me there.

sooo.. you still like aviacom, or can some-, ANYhow stand behind their company and defend them!?

Please show where I said I like them (since this fiasco began, that is).

And while you say you couldn't care less, it is clear to all that you care a great deal.

well, you did state something that could be interpreted as such up-thread.
i'm not trying to attack you here, just stating..

oh, yes, i DO care. if my AAD should fail to save me, i would care a GREAT DEAL if that AAD was killing me, in case i wouldnt/COULDNT save my own sorry ass.
and yup, my container has it's cutter located on top of the reserve, so yes, i'm kinda concerned. not really me in this case, but for fellow jumpers.

and in THAT regard, really, aviacom can suck my big donkey balls.

thank god it's prohibited to jump where i live..

"Somewhere up thread" is not a quote.

Not wanting to lynch them is not at all the same as liking them.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It was a recalled cutter, and that's said in the letter.

No, It was not. According to this service bulletin, the cutter was good to go.

The rig was Dolphin and the cutter is bellow the freebag.

Or, maybe I'm wrong and missed some additional SB among the whole mess

Nope, you got me there.

sooo.. you still like aviacom, or can some-, ANYhow stand behind their company and defend them!?

Please show where I said I like them (since this fiasco began, that is).

And while you say you couldn't care less, it is clear to all that you care a great deal.

Quote

Quote

It was a recalled cutter, and that's said in the letter.

No, It was not. According to this service bulletin, the cutter was good to go.

The rig was Dolphin and the cutter is bellow the freebag.

Or, maybe I'm wrong and missed some additional SB among the whole mess

Nope, you got me there.

Quote

>Moderators, could you please put Andy's comment or something similar to the header
>information about this this forum?

It is there. See "what will happen when you read this forum" - it's the very first thread on the forum.

Maybe it would be too much, but I wonder if it maybe should automatically be posted at the top of each incident THREAD, and not just at the top of the FORUM.

I rather doubt that the families of jumpers who visit this site and read the incident threads do a whole lot of background gathering before they delve into the thread about their loved one.

So, would it be impossible to prepend that post to the beginning of every new thread when it is created?

(I suppose this post should maybe be in the "Suggestions" forum, but I think I'd like to see it read more widely. Thanks!)

-paul

Quote

>And what if he'd told you that it was an older Talon that had been recalled for a
>harness problem? . . . But the letter in question DID say that the cutter was the
>recalled model. That's an important point.

Agreed. It IS an important point. But is it far from a spot-on answer.

Now, had they replied "the rig was recalled for a harness problem. Four harnesses failed due to X; this was evident upon inspection by noting Y. The underlying cause was use of thread Z with the incorrect thread tension. If you observed failure in the A, then this is likely related" that would have been a lot more spot-on.

Fair enough - as has always been the case, Aviacom has failed to hit the mark when responding to input.

But, standing back from the emotional content of it, what MEL said is essentially true. It was a recalled cutter, and that's said in the letter.

Me? I've stopped being surprised at the whimpy responses from Aviacom.

But for so many here, it seems that each one is like opening old wounds and starting the whole brouhaha over again.

As I said in the other post, where I ask what makes this so special, I just don't get the level of passion that keeps coming up.

-paul

Quote

personally, i think one is enough.

how about the guy from poland, not sure in his case..

One what?

Every parachute, h/c or AAD that you may own has killed "one".

If "one is enough", how do you still use any of your gear?

In a more general question, open to the whole audience, what is the story behind all the hatred for Aviacom?

I am unhappy with Aviacom. I am VERY unhappy with Aviacom. Just ask Karel to tell you about the emails he has gotten from me. Aviacom has been doing a terrible job of responding to this whole thing about their cutters.

But some people here seem to hate them with a passion that I just don't understand.

Are they the anti-christ? The devil incarnate?

Why does it go so much further than simply being unhappy (sure, in the extreme) with them, and deciding not to do business with them?

Every major manufacturer of our gear has people who are horribly unhappy with them, and I have pretty much never witnessed this sort of widespread hatred.

Okay, there's the Rhys thing about Airtec, but that is not the sort of groundswell that we've seen here about Aviacom.

The Aviacom phenomenon we are seeing here is way more than that. And I don't think it is only people who are directly affected either.

What is it that is making people so passionate about this?

Quote

Quote

Quote

>The reply is pretty rock solid and spot on.

What?

If you were investigating a fatality involving (say) a Talon harness failure, and you wrote to Sandy with your concerns, and he sent you a letter with no information other than "well it's an older Talon" and then listed three fatalities that occurred with a Javelin - would you consider that a rock-solid, spot-on reply?

And what if he'd told you that it was an older Talon that had been recalled for a harness problem?

Look, I am as unhappy as anyone with the way Aviacom has botched things.

But the letter in question DID say that the cutter was the recalled model. That's an important point.

Again, Aviacom has botched things at every opportunity. And the whole status of the recalled cutter is a bit hazy. Sometimes Aviacom says they must be replaced, and sometimes they say they don't need to be replaced.

But when I hear of new incident where the old cutter is involved, well, that's not too surprising to me.

Now, I'm having a tough time keeping all the facts straight.

Other than San Marcos, do we have any incidents involving the newer cutters?

Thanks!

-paul

say, if you've had the chance, would you like to be the person finding out!?

Every one of us is in the position to be the one to sadly find out about some piece of gear we use.

Do you really want to use that sort of argument?

If we stopped using any particular piece of our equipment because it had had a problem in some earlier version, we wouldn't be skydiving anymore.

So, back to my question -

Besides San Marcos, are there any incidents involving the newer cutters?

Quote

>The reply is pretty rock solid and spot on.

What?

If you were investigating a fatality involving (say) a Talon harness failure, and you wrote to Sandy with your concerns, and he sent you a letter with no information other than "well it's an older Talon" and then listed three fatalities that occurred with a Javelin - would you consider that a rock-solid, spot-on reply?

And what if he'd told you that it was an older Talon that had been recalled for a harness problem?

Look, I am as unhappy as anyone with the way Aviacom has botched things.

But the letter in question DID say that the cutter was the recalled model. That's an important point.

Again, Aviacom has botched things at every opportunity. And the whole status of the recalled cutter is a bit hazy. Sometimes Aviacom says they must be replaced, and sometimes they say they don't need to be replaced.

But when I hear of new incident where the old cutter is involved, well, that's not too surprising to me.

Now, I'm having a tough time keeping all the facts straight.

Other than San Marcos, do we have any incidents involving the newer cutters?

Thanks!

-paul

Quote

Quote

To avoid arguments on dz.com, any jumper who has a so-called bag lock or pilot chute in tow, should wait at least 10 seconds to confirm it before taking action.

Oh wait, I hope all youngsters take note of the


Taste of bag lock....I wonder if he wanted salt with that. I have to say, "Spit out out! It ain't yours!"

It is good to be back on our more typical footing, because on this, we are in complete agreement.

Quote

Quote

So, if the pilot chute ties in a knot, and the bag does not open, that's a baglock too?

IMO, yes.

I like this. Two different angles of approach to the same problem.

I'm of the mind that if the canopy doesn't come out of the bag, for any reason, it's a bag lock and I'll treat it as such.

To me, bag lock is the symptom with multiple causes. I'm reluctant to try to put a name to each and every root cause. Can you imagine trying to teach a youngster all those names? The good news is that, more often than not, we can pre-treat the cause to prevent the symptom.

Similarly, there a causes that have multiple symptoms. Tension knots come to mind.

Treating it is not the same as naming it.

Sure, treat it the same. That doesn't mean the bag was locked.

If the bridle breaks, and I have no pilot chute, sure, use the same response as for a bag lock.

But the mal was not a bag lock, and figuring out how to not let it happen again has nothing to do with finding the cause of a bag lock.

I could call every jump a double total, right up until I solve the "problem" by deploying something.

That sounds dramatic, but it isn't really correct.

Is this really too fine a distinction to expect jumpers to make?

I get it - OP thought he was having a bag lock.

But, when all was said and done, it wasn't a bag lock, even though the response would have been the same.

Quote

Quote

It is a baglock when the canopy stays in the bag when you chop.

That's just silly semantics. It's a bag lock til you either clear it (or it clears itself) or you chop, whichever comes first. For example, lots of people have had lineovers, that they're able to clear without chopping. That doesn't negate that the canopy was indeed a lineover - until it wasn't any more.

So, if the pilot chute ties in a knot, and the bag does not open, that's a baglock too?

To me, it has to do with the most likely root cause. If I can reasonably presume that the root cause was something other than a locked bag, I'm not going to call it a bag lock.

Me? I think this was probably an un-cocked pilot chute, not a baglock.

A lineover that clears was still a lineover, because the line WAS over.

But if the pilot chute didn't pull hard enough, that doesn't mean the bag was locked, does it?

The proof-positive of a baglock is that the bag stayed locked.

If the bag didn't stay locked, there's really no proof either way.

If the bag didn't stay locked, I'll look for some other cause.

We've seen this information before.

For some it has value, others discount it.

Somebody said, "Here we go again".

We won't go there again if nobody besides the OP goes there.

The best way to ignore the guy on the soapbox is to ignore him.

Nobody's changing minds at this point, so why get all riled up?