riggerpaul

Quote

No, really the problem is people like you. The people who are concerned with only the cost to the industry. The people who think that the Waiver should protect any moron from a truly inexcusable and negligent action. The people who think that only the perfect performers in this sport deserve the right to live and skydive (and I challenge you all to say that you never screwed up badly enough in your skydiving career that it could have killed you, but you lived...we should all be so perfect). Your line of thinking is part of the problem, but I can't fix that...

I expect that you think that I am one of "those people who think that the waiver...".

That is not the case.

The problem I am having right now is that we have tried this case in the court of public opinion, and it is not clear to me that we have all the facts.

I am happy to let the courts wade through this regarding the actions of the rigger.

Some posts have used some very harsh language to describe people who are not so sure as you are about what happened.

Things like the student "deserved to die" or "got what he deserved" and stuff like that is not a accurate characterization of the things people have expressed. Comments like that serve only to incite strong emotional responses that stop people from thinking about and learning about what actually may have happened.

Rigging errors happen. Some errors turn out not to be so serious, and others turn out, very sadly, to be deadly.

It is not right or fair or just to simply pass judgment without a full and complete understanding of what went into the error.

Since the principals of this matter are not speaking here, we only have one side of the story. Speaking here is not a required of the accused, and in point of fact, could very well damage the abilities of the accused to defend themselves in court.

It is all too easy to say "This should never have happened". But it DID happen, and WHY and HOW it happened are important to the process of assigning blame.

I am not at all trying to hold that rigger blameless.

But I admit to myself that since I do not know the whole story, I am not the one to pass judgment at this time.

Carrying the thought further, none of us are.

Attacking 'twardo as "concerned with only the cost to the industry" is terribly unfair. Because the true cost to comply with your position might simply end the sport altogether. In the tandem video everybody sees, Bill Booth tells us that there will never be a perfect parachute, airplane, instructor,, or student. There will never be a perfect rigger either.

If you want only riggers who will say they can never make a mistake, you may soon find yourself with no rigger at all, and, if not that, then certainly with a shortage that is not good for anyone. If we require gear that is perfect, you might find few manufacturers who are willing to make gear. The additional money it costs for an AAD that tells us when the loop is not through the cutter is only the tip of the iceberg of what it could really cost. It could mean that people won't even try to make AADs because the business is like walking through a minefield.

Costs come in more flavors than just cash.

Me? I'm thinking I might give up rigging. I know, you'll be glad because you think I am a moron for even thinking that there is a possibility that this error was some sort of honest mistake. I am sure you'll be fine with it if I leave. But there are a lot of people who think I am, in fact, a very good rigger, and the person that they want to be watching their back. Do you think I've just been fooling them all along? Do you think I am just "going through the motions"? I assure you, that is not the case. But I still cannot and will not guarantee that I would never make a mistake. If that is the price of entry, then I cannot pay it.

Quote

Quote

You don't know that he "did not thread the loop through the cutter".
What you know is that, when all was said and done, the loop was not through the cutter.
The two are not the same.
Until you walk in the shoes of a rigger, you may never appreciate the difference.

I think you're saying - and correct me if I'm wrong - that one cannot rule out the possibility that the rigger properly rigged the closing loop in the AAD, and that subsequently, someone else messed with (or replaced) the closing loop, failing, in the course of doing so, to properly thread the loop through the cutter.

I'd think that in most US courts, assuming the rigger was still in the case at trial, if an expert witness so testified on behalf of the rigger (or if a rigger so testified in his expert capacity on his own behalf), there's a good chance the court would probably allow the jury to decide (in the context of all of the trial evidence and competing arguments) whether to accept or reject this scenario.

No, that's not really what I am trying to say.

The presumption seems to be that this rigger, or any rigger, simply failed to put the loop through the cutter.

Even without "someone" messing it up, it is not entirely impossible that something happened after correctly routing the loop through the cutter, and at that subsequent time, the rigger missed that the loop had come out of the cutter.

Neither you nor I know what happened that might have caused his previous work to be undone or unacceptable.

The presumption is that he simply never did it.

We do not know that for a fact.

Let me give you an example from personal experience.

In a container with the cutter on the backpad, I, personally, have threaded the loop through the cutter, correctly. Subsequent to that, jostling of the rig hitched the loop around the cutter. Later, during closing the rig, I said, "something is not right here, this is too tight".

I went back and found the hitch, corrected things, and closed the rig.

Let me be clear. I could have closed the rig with the hitch in place, and it would have resulted in excessive pull forces, forces that some little person with weak arms might not have been able to pull.

I don't know what happened to this student rig between the time that the rigger might have correctly put the loop through the cutter, and the time that the rig was closed with the loop out of the cutter.

Neither do you.

We do not know the exact nature of the mistake that was made. We never will.

Honestly, the more we talk about it, the less likely I am to ever rig for someone else again. And I am among the most careful riggers you will ever see. Ask anyone who has seen me work. Of those, there are quite a few. I always invite people to watch and learn whenever it is possible. There are lots and lots of people who have told me that they are amazed at the amount of real work that they get for the money that they pay. I am one of the "good guys".

Now, if I am willing to consider quitting rigging over this, there are bound to be more like me.

And if I leave, and they leave, then you are all left with whoever is left to do your rigging. Some will be good, and some will be less good. But you may, in fact, be selecting for the "less good", as these questions maybe don't have the same impact on them as they have on me.

Again I will say, I am very careful, but I WILL NOT guarantee that I did not make a mistake that will, in fact, kill you.

If you have never walked in the shoes of the rigger, you simply do not know.

You rely on a reserve most likely because somebody already fucked up, despite all care that may have been brought to bear.

The riggers are human too.

Okay, some will say, "But this was STUDENT gear!".

Do you think I distinguish based on the user how much care to bring to the work?

If you do, then I say, "fuck you!".

People's lives depend on my work, and I am well aware of it.

Mistakes still happen.

There, but for the grace of god, go I.

Quote

My opinion, in this particular case, is that this is such an inexcusable error and it happened on student gear, that it absolutely horrified me. Students are the most likely to go unstable...lose altitude awareness, and pull too late (by all appearances this student probably finally opened his MAIN, about the time that he saw a flash of trees. No one can say he WAITED for the Cypres to fire...this is an assumption and the fact that his main was out but did not have time to inflate indicates that this was NOT the case). No one should DEPEND on a Cypres, however a student who pays to rent the gear and be instructed, placed a lot of trust in a DZO who is not only the owner, but the man who maintained the gear. Not threading the loop through the cutter rendered the life saving device useless. A molar strap left on a reserve would have rendered the reserve useless and is just as inexcusable.

The difference between the two is that the student died...the error was not found during a repack cycle. If it had been found during a repack cycle we would have never heard about it because THIS gear was maintained exclusively by the owner of the DZ.

Any rigging error that would cause a catastrophic failure of the reserve or any device that could be considered a persons last chance is inexcusable, actionable (or should be) and cannot be considered to be a 'mistake'...it is negligence.

As far as the waiver goes...Most people who make a single skydive and most students do not realize that the Skydiving Industry is not regulated. They are told about the USPA and they may have a slight awareness of the FAA, but they do not realize that there are no inspections...no checks and balances and that basically NO ONE is looking out for the public's best interest. The FAA and the USPA have their hands tied and do not have the money or the authority to monitor Drop Zones and uphold any kind of standards. Not until a student becomes experienced, do they come to the understanding that they are on their own and had better get informed and not count on ANYONE to take care of them and to realize the difference between a well maintained airplane, a good pilot and a DZ that maintains their gear...and one who cuts corners.

That is the difference. This was a student who did not even own the gear he was jumping, he was renting it. It is the responsibility of the owner to uphold his promise, and the implied promise at every DZ I have ever jumped at was that the student gear was properly maintained. Not only was a horrendous mistake made here...the DZO also had a history of KNOWINGLY skimping on the maintenance of his tandem gear. A pattern that proves that he needs his ticket pulled.

You don't know that he "did not thread the loop through the cutter".

What you know is that, when all was said and done, the loop was not through the cutter.

The two are not the same.

Until you walk in the shoes of a rigger, you may never appreciate the difference.

In what way are the FAA's hands tied? They can pull his rating. They pull pilot ratings for less.

What you have told us is that in your eyes, riggers must never make mistakes. I wonder how your rigger will feel about that.

Riggers make mistakes. That's a fact.

This particular mistake was tragic. Of that there is no question. But riggers make mistakes.

Do you really want only riggers who will unequivocally guarantee that their reserves will save your life? I think you will be hard pressed to get that guarantee.

And don't ever bring your rig to me. Though I will always do the best I can, I cannot offer that guarantee.

Quote

The rigger bears the burden of negligence IMO. I don't care what your job is. If you perform it negligently and someone dies because of your failure, well you bear the burden of responsibility for their death.

Just wondering - not to anyone in particular, but to any who wish to hold the rigger grievously liable -

Is there any rigging error that would not be negligent? That would be considered a simple mistake?

Is this error drawing so much ire because it is so egregious? Is this an error that is so blatant that is cannot be called a simple mistake?

Is this in the same class as leaving a molar strap or a clamp inside? Or are those errors even worse? Or less bad, for that matter?

I am getting the impression that some would like to say that there are NO errors in rigging.

That's not ever going to be true.

So I wonder what sort of error would not draw this sort of response.

Doctors have far more training than most riggers, and they still make mistakes. And some of them are treated simply as mistakes, without assignment of overwhelming liability.

Please don't think that I want to hold the rigger blameless.

I just don't know how much blame should be heaped on him.

As has been said, he must already live with this. Maybe that's enough?

Stepping out of the plane has risks associated. Most waivers call for acceptance that another person's mistake can kill you in this, and that you accept that as part of doing this.

Where and how do we draw the line between mistakes that warrant this sort of response, and those that do not?

Which rigging errors might be covered by the waiver?

Is there any line? If so, where?

This is not a rhetorical question. I'm not trying to convince people that this isn't a horrible mistake.

I am honestly trying to understand where we might draw a line, or if there is a line to be drawn at all.

I am very careful. I've shown lots of people lots of rigging, and they have always been impressed with the care I bring to the table. But I am sure that I have made mistakes, though I have been lucky enough so far to not have any associated with an injury or death.

If there is NO room for an error, than I am not certain I want to rig for anyone else anymore. How could anyone?

Quote

Bill, thanks for explanation.
There is important difference between SL and this "method".
SL is not connected to canopy but only to pin and free bag. Which means that any snag of the static line to any part of the plane or any part of instructor in the worst case may result in a bit premature opening of the main - and indeed nothing happens.

However in IAD... PC and bridle are connected to main canopy - if PC or bridle snag to any part of the plane means that the part of the canopy remains connected to plane or to instructor and this is a different situation than SL snag. This may result in premature opening on the door and snag of the PC, bridle or other part of the canopy to the plane. Therefore I think this method induces more risks than SL.

What you have described is "direct bag". It is just one of the S/L gear systems.

There are other S/L systems that are much more like IAD, with a regular pilot chute and the bag still attached to the main canopy.

Different systems have different strengths and weaknesses.

Direct bag is commonly thought to have a greater occurrence of line twists, for instance.

Any training system requires skilled instructors who can control the systems in the face of student's unexpected actions. None are without their own special limitations and considerations.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Instructor holding the PC in the doorway as students exit? Seems kinda risky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHbTJWQoDeY

Yup, that's IAD. It's a way of training new jumpers, like staticline but without the need for static line gear.

I wouldn't like to imagine what would happend if...

- the student slips by accident on while climbing out
- the bridle snags on some part of the plane
- the bridle/pc snags on the instructors arm or part of his equipment
- the student goes a bit too fast to the door and pulls the pin
- the instructor remains a bit longer behind the student and pulls the pin

imho, way too much risk

Thank you for sharing.

Quote

Paul, I have an innocent question here, because I don't have a clue about this:

Is there a big difference between repacking a reserve with or without an AAD? Is it in any way possible that a rigger who's distracted could just plain forget that there's an AAD that has to be set-up since some rigs have AADs and some don't?

In this case, I'm still boggled by the idea that this rigger, who owns the DZ, mispacked one of his company's own student rigs. Do you have any ideas on how that could happen?

I don't know if you are innocent or not.

The devil is always in the details, so I won't even try to answer you.

If you want to learn about this, go find a nearby rigger who can show you what's what.

Trying to write about it is a slippery enough slope that I don't want to try.

Sorry.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

....The solution here could be a simple as requiring a closeout photo.

Now THERE'S a good idea!

Who was that masked man?

Photos can be faked. (Not likely here, but they could, especially if enough is at stake.)

Photos can be taken and changes occur afterwards.

Since the problem we want to deal with here is some sort of carelessness, why expect that there will be any better care for the photo responsibility than the rigging responsibility

Well, there are probably some unscrupulous riggers out there who would get the pic as correct and then screw things up afterwards or make sure the pic doesn't show the screw-up. There's not a thing you could do about somebody like that other than have a 24/7 observer in place.

The idea's merit is that you do the work knowing you'll be taking a pic and I'm sure you'd want to get the pic right so you'd be more careful on doing the work. If the pic shows some problem, you'd fix it and take another. The pic idea is really more for the rigger's sake than the owner.

Yes, we all make mistakes. Having a second eye see it oftentimes brings it to light. Simple as that.

Agree.

The question is...would it have caught an oversight similar to what occurred in this incident, I believe it would have.

~On the video taping of pack-jobs.

A rigger I used in the 80's use to video every I&R, when I experienced a line over on my reserve we went to the video and it clearly showed lines being way out of place.

Made that person a better rigger and me a safer jumper-( I went to another rigger)
-probably impractical to tape every I&R, and talk about setting yourself up for a liability suit...but a close out pic would be cheap insurance for everyone.

And yet, that full video DID NOT prevent him from making the mistake.

It has been suggested that the photo will help motivate the rigger to do better.

Your example clearly illustrates that it will not.

Quote

Quote

Photos can be faked. (Not likely here, but they could, especially if enough is at stake.)

Photos can be taken and changes occur afterwards.

Since the problem we want to deal with here is some sort of carelessness, why expect that there will be any better care for the photo responsibility than the rigging responsibility

Well, there are probably some unscrupulous riggers out there who would get the pic as correct and then screw things up afterwards or make sure the pic doesn't show the screw-up. There's not a thing you could do about somebody like that other than have a 24/7 observer in place.

The idea's merit is that you do the work knowing you'll be taking a pic and I'm sure you'd want to get the pic right so you'd be more careful on doing the work. If the pic shows some problem, you'd fix it and take another. The pic idea is really more for the rigger's sake than the owner.

Yes, we all make mistakes. Having a second eye see it oftentimes brings it to light. Simple as that.

A mistake after the photo is not about being unscrupulous. It can be a simple mistake. It depends on where the cutter is, and what happens after you have put the loop through the cutter.

And you seem to agree that the only true insurance would be another set of eyes. A photo is not, in fact, eyes.

If we really want to solve the problem, solve it with something that works. This is just another "makes me feel better" so called "fix".

We are all supposed to be careful already. Mostly that is enough. But mistakes still happen.

I already do the work knowing that a life depends on it. You think a photo will motivate me better than that? Bunk!

If you think it will better motivate your rigger, I suggest you look for another rigger.

(Now, Mike G. is likely your rigger. You think he needs a photo to motivate him?)

Mistakes will still happen with the photos in place.

The only real difference is that it will be even more inconvenient to be a rigger.

There are already riggers who lie about their work. They'll lie about the photo too.

The good ones don't need a photo, and the bad ones will fake it. Same old same old.

Quote

Quote

Quote

....The solution here could be a simple as requiring a closeout photo.

Now THERE'S a good idea!

Who was that masked man?

Photos can be faked. (Not likely here, but they could, especially if enough is at stake.)

Photos can be taken and changes occur afterwards.

Since the problem we want to deal with here is some sort of carelessness, why expect that there will be any better care for the photo responsibility than the rigging responsibility?

The photo suggestion sounds good at first, but doesn't hold water in the final analysis, because, in many ways, it is not the photo that provides the surety.

If you want some real insurance, you need at least one more set of eyes.

In the spacecraft example, there are surely more than one set of eyes watching even as the photos are taken.

It is the eyes, not the photos, that provide the security.

The photo serves only to bolster the story told by the people who were watching.

Quote

In the spacecraft world, if we're closing out a compartment or piece of equipment for flight that will not be seen again either until it's back on the ground or ever, we take close-out photographs. These document the configuration of the equipment at the time the compartment was buttoned up for flight. The solution here could be a simple as requiring a closeout photo.

That's fine in an environment where there are multiple people participating in the documentation effort.

But the parachute rigger, all alone, late at night, might take the photo, and then do something that disturbs things.

All I am saying is that the validity of the photo can be questioned, and rightly so.

If you really want to make it difficult for a mistake to get into the air, prohibit solo rigging.

Require a photo too, if you like.

But a second set of eyes is really what you had in the spacecraft world, photo notwithstanding.

No, I am not suggesting only buddy-system rigging. But if you want to solve this problem, I believe that buddy-system rigging is what it would take.

Quote

>The sensor would only be there to calibrate the pressure sensor or some
>such thing. (ie, if the voltage output of the pressure sensor varied when
>the temperature of the chip changed).

That's what it is there for. Silicon pressure sensors are temperature dependent and must be compensated by measuring the temperature. Many pressure sensors integrate a temp sensor as well.

Will it matter that, being buried inside the reserve container, it won't always measure the ambient temp?

Quote

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/barfor.html

All you need is ground altitude, firing altitude and temperature (for this simplified formula using constant temperature).

BUT since temperature is never constant (usually decreases with altitude but sometimes can do funny stuff), air composition (and its average molar mass) is never constant and because local weather phenomena can change pressure as well I'd say someone's got quite a lot of math in front of them to figure this one out. Have a good one!

For what it's worth, IMO all AADs approximate pressure change to a single curve (linear or probably something very close to linear). Furthermore, the only way AADs can check themselves is (again IMO) one-point only (pressure at ground level), so this self-check is (at best; yup, IMO again) just a check to see if sensor is sending back data and (maybe) if received data seems logical or not.

I see some people really like to see numbers on their screens and compare them to some other numbers they hear from folks at DZ (or read of the barometers), but in the end that "check" is not worth much (except maybe as an excuse to not loose in court).

Do you agree that using a linear lapse rate would result in increasing firing altitudes as ground elevation goes up? I was not trying to do the math myself, but consulted tables and an online barometer calculator thingy I found.

Do you know that AADs have temp sensors and use them? If so, wouldn't being buried inside the reserve container mean that they get significant lag in temp change readings? Unlike pressure, temp would need either real air movement through the rig, or a quick transmission rate from outside the rig to inside, no? Either seems unlikely to me. In a nutshell, I don't believe they use temperature - it is simply too unpredictable. For instance, in a cold climate, the rig is stored inside, and the AAD is turned on inside. Then you go outside. How long do you think it would be before the AAD sees an accurate temp?

Anyway, thanks for the insights.

Quote

>So, Dave, simply, is the barometric lapse rate linear or not? I do
>not believe it is.

No, but it's pretty close at the altitudes we jump at. (See chart below and note that it's an almost flat line from 0 to 30K feet.) Thus the sensor being off by 1000 feet absolute doesn't have much impact on overall accuracy.

Thanks for the chart. "How close is pretty close?" is the next question.

I consulted some pressure information on the internet. I don't personally know which sites are better or not, but here's the gist of what I found.

Different AADs use different firing altitudes. So, for simplicity, I only examined what happens when you talk about 1" of hg difference at different altitudes. I used sea level and 5000' field elevations, again, for the sake of simplicity. (From my piloting days, I remember a rule-of-thumb of 1" per 1000 feet. Since 1000' is pretty close to the AAD firing altitudes, I decided to use that number.)

At sea level, a pressure difference of 1 inch of mercury is approximately 938 feet.

At 5000', a pressure difference of 1 inch of mercury is approximately 1091 feet.

So, if an AAD uses a linear lapse rate for determining the firing altitude, and a constant difference of 1 inch of mercury, it would fire 153 feet higher at 5000 feet than it would at sea level.

I'll admit - that's less than I thought it might be. But I don't think it is negligible.

There are two different concerns here.

One regards how much off a sensor could be and still give reasonable data upon which to base a firing decision. It seems that the 1000 foot difference you mention would not make a significant difference in the firing altitude.

So on this point, I guess we'd agree that the difference is insignificant.

But the other concern is that we should have the right understanding of where the device will fire over the whole range of altitudes at which we might be using the device.

If a linear lapse rate is used, then I can expect that I'll see as much as a 150 foot difference in the firing altitude between sea level California, and 5000 foot Denver.

And if the sensor has the 1000 foot error you mention, the firing altitude difference in Denver could be as much as about 187 feet higher than at sea level.

Those numbers are significantly different from what most of us think our AADs will do. If that's the way things really work, then I'd much prefer that the AAD manufacturers would have told us long long ago.

But if they use a "proper", non-linear, lapse rate, the differences would seem to be insignificant. The 1000 foot error you mention would result in about a 37 foot difference in firing altitude.

There's no question that such a difference is effectively insignificant.

Quote

That is the notion that was put forth by the pro-Vigil crowd, and it was proposed a point in their favor over the Cypres, which they claim only test the sensor once every 4 years.

Please don't presume that this discussion revolves around anyone's pro-Vigil or pro-CYPRES position.

I believe that the knowledge of the pressure sensor data is valuable, regardless of my actual dislike for the Vigil.

I'd rather have a CYPRES than a Vigil, but I'd prefer that all AADs are more transparent and verifiable than they seem to be today.

(I'd rather have an Argus than a Vigil too, but that is a different discussion.)

Quote

I understand what both of you are saying, or I think I do. Both Vigil and CYPRES calibrate 0ft as barometric pressure of X. This happens after some self tests at power on. The Vigil displays value X, where as CYPRES does not. If CYPRES did, I wouldn't expect that value to be different than what Vigil displayed. For all AADs to function properly they would have to properly calculate the pressure at firing altitude. While there may or may not be differences in the math used. This whole discussion seems to boil down to Vigil shows you, CYPRES doesn't.

Is that right?

Mostly yes - that the Vigil (and Argus) will show you, and the CYPRES will not.

But another question is whether or not knowing has any benefit. Dave and Abedy don't feel it is relevant, but for different reasons.

If I understand correctly, Abedy says that you need two points to check the accuracy of the sensor, while Dave says that the value that comes off the pressure sensor doesn't really matter much in the first place, because what is interesting is the change, not the exact value.

I agree with Abedy that a real calibration requires more than just the field elevation value. But I feel that even knowing that the field elevation barometer is better than not.

For Dave's thoughts, I think that if he is right, then we don't really have the full story regarding actual firing altitudes in the first place, because my understanding is that the pressure difference between the field elevation and the firing altitudes is not a constant value. That is, the pressure difference from sea level to the firing altitude is not the same, for instance, as the pressure difference from 5000 feet to the firing altitude.

Quote

Quote

OK, is it me? Or, was my question not answered?

It was answered, the problem is that some of the info is this thread is misleading, so you were expecting something else.

The idea is that the unit 're-zeros' itself at start up to 'set' the ground elevation. Just like you do with your wrist mount alti, and just like a Cypres, Argus, ProTrack or any other audible does.

What the Vigil offers is a readout of what pressure it reads, but that's not always going to be related to what the weather service says. If the Vigil thinks the pressure on the ground is 29.75, and the weather service says it's 30.10, it's irrelevant because the Vigil will fire at what it thinks is ground level plus 750 (or 790, or whatever).

This thread has lead you to believe that you can use that to check the accuracy of the sensor, but that's not entirely true. If you kept a log of what the Vigil displays and what the weather service reports, you would have an on-going idea of the offest between Vigil-pressure and 'real' pressure, and in that sense you could track the offset and check that it's consistant. On a one-time basis, however, looking at Vigil-pressure and 'real' pressure will tell you nothing about the accuracy of the Vigil.

It's a feature that's being pushed as one thing, when it's really no better or worse than the Cypres (in that respect). Both units conduct a self check on start-up, and neither will 'power up' if anything fails the check. If the unit reads everything as OK, it will 'power up' and indicate for normal operation. Beyond that, the Vigil offers you the ability to check the 'Vigil pressure' but if that was reached by a faulty sensor that could pass the self check (like the Cypres), you will jump with a faulty sensor. The reporting of the arbitrary pressure the Vigil measures is of questionable use in the real world.

There are other, much more significant issues between the two that should guide a decision to purchase in either direction.

If the sensor does not read QFE (field elevation barometer) with the required accuracy, the device cannot fire at the correct AGL altitude.

The pressure lapse rate is not linear. A proper algorithm will understand that a very low pressure reading at startup means a high field elevation, and will take that into account when determining the firing altitude parameters.

If the ground-level reading is sufficiently wrong, the AAD will fire at the wrong time.

Do the current AADs use a proper curve for the lapse rate? Damned if I know. But if they really intend to fire at the altitudes AGL that they say, they must. Else they should publish that at different field elevations the devices will have different firing altitudes.

If you don't get a proper value at ground level, you are not going to get a proper firing altitude.

Maybe people at high elevations have NEVER gotten a proper firing altitude. I didn't write the software, so I don't know.

But without a reasonable pressure reading at ground level, all other bets are off.

If all dropzones were are seal level, it would be a different story. But they are not. And if the AAD is really going to fire at a particular AGL altitude, it MUST have an accurate idea of what the MSL altitude of the field is.

So, Dave, simply, is the barometric lapse rate linear or not? I do not believe it is. And if it is not, then an accurate field level barometric pressure is REQUIRED for the device to work as advertised.

Quote

>No, the main person who was negligent was the student that didn't pull.

Agreed. Unfortunately, there was more negligence than that in this case.

An equivalent case might be an unscrupulous auto mechanic who did not replace an airbag to save money. If the driver gets in an accident and is killed, he is the person responsible for the accident - but the mechanic may well bear some of the legal liability,

I dislike this analogy.

This scenario involves wanton disregard for safety and intentional inaction on the part of the mechanic for the purpose of monetary gain.

I am hard pressed to imagine that any rigger would intentionally misroute the loop. In addition, there is no monetary gain for the rigger.

Quote

Hi paul,

It is the Parachute Certification Standards Committee.

http://www.pia.com/committees.htm

JerryBaumchen

Thanks!

No I just have to figure out if your telling me I would be a good bureaucrat is a compliment or an insult.

Quote

Hi paul,

Here is, to me, the inconsistency:

A canopy which has been intentionally jumped as a main canopy (beyond one familiarization jump prior to reserve packing) should not be packed or used as a reserve

And then:

After you intentionally jump the canopy as a main, do not return it to service as a reserve.

The 2nd quote seems to say that if you jump it as a main, it is no longer a reserve. It may be nitpicking ( but that is what we do on the internet ), but it would be better if that 2nd quote said:

If you intentionally jump the canopy as a main more than one time, do not return it to service as a reserve.

Just my thoughts,

JerryBaumchen

PS) As the years have passed & I've read your posts, I am thinking you would be a good candidate for the TSO committee. And I really mean this.

Hi Jerry,

I see your point. I don't dispute that there is an inconsistency.

I don't believe I have ever seen a manual, or a regulatory document either for that matter, that did not have some ambiguous content that should have been more effectively edited to eliminate such ambiguity.

And, to be clear, I see this as a problem in the editing, not in the essential content of the manual.

In this particular case, it seems to me to be pretty easy to figure out what the manufacturer was trying to say, even though it is said poorly in at least one of the places.

No, we should not be asked to make such interpretations. But it is, for all practical purposes, unavoidable.

-paul

PS To what TSO committee do you refer? Is that something at PIA? I looked at their website, and I didn't find a "TSO Committee". No matter, looking at the composition of the various gear-related committees, I don't think I can hold a candle to those august contributors. But I thank you for your compliment, no matter how undeserved it may be.

-paul

Quote

Hi paul,

Quote

With regard to the manufacturer's position, it is stated in their manual.
A canopy which has been intentionally jumped as a main canopy (beyond one familiarization jump prior to reserve packing) should not be packed or used as a reserve- You may, however, use a canopy which has been previously packed as a reserve as a main canopy. After you intentionally jump the canopy as a main, do not return it to service as a reserve.
So the only question that remains is if the canopy was used as a main ONLY ONCE.

More than one jump as a main disqualifies it for use as a reserve.

That is an all-encompassing statement. While I do not spend my free time reading every manual there is, I do think that some mfr's allow one jump to be made as a 'familiarization jump.'

It would be interesting if someone were to spend a lot of time and do a posting on each canopy mfr and their position on this subject.

Anyone? Might make a great project for a rigger-trainee; I hope, I hope.

JerryBaumchen

Hi Jerry,

I quoted exactly from the Precision manual for the Raven canopy. They allow ONE jump as a main. That's not my statement, it comes from the Precision manual for the Raven canopy.

Their canopy is TSOd, and built to be used as either a main or a reserve.

But if you use it as a main for more than 1 jump, Precision says it is not to be used as a reserve.

If this is not a Raven canopy, then I got the wrong manual to quote.

But the quotes and position were not from me. They were from Precision.

I guess we can question that the manufacturer has the right to make such statements, but that's a different discussion.

The statement was not mine. It came from Precision.

-paul

Quote

Quote

Quote

hi,
whats the make of the reserve? and are you sure there is only one jump on it? I would think that most riggers would not put a canopy that was used as a main at any stage,and place it back as a reserve.

IIRC (and don't hold me to this, as it's second hand info) SOME reserves came with a pilot chute attachment point so you could jump it as a main once or twice and still be packed as a reserve.

I could be way off here, but that's what the riggers I worked with for my ticket told me... and well... take it for what it's worth.

you are referring to the Raven reserves made by Precision. In which case the OP should be asking Precision on their stance on his reserve.

(Not directed to likestojump)

Just a couple of things about Raven and Super Raven parachutes.

It isn't that the reserve was equipped with an attachment point. It is that the same canopy can be used as a main or as a reserve. That is, the family of parachutes known as Raven and Super Raven were built to be used as either. They were fine main parachutes in their day, and they were TSOd for use as reserves.

With regard to the manufacturer's position, it is stated in their manual.

A canopy which has been intentionally jumped as a main canopy (beyond one familiarization jump prior to reserve packing) should not be packed or used as a reserve- You may, however, use a canopy which has been previously packed as a reserve as a main canopy. After you intentionally jump the canopy as a main, do not return it to service as a reserve.

So the only question that remains is if the canopy was used as a main ONLY ONCE.

More than one jump as a main disqualifies it for use as a reserve.

Of course, this parachute might be getting old, and depending on the DOM, any rigger might refuse to put it in a rig as a reserve, even if it had never been used as a main. I bought a new Raven IV in 1998, DOM 9/1997. I am not sure if you can still buy a new one.

Quote

Quote

Quote

I didn't see anyone calling anyone's integrity into question,

Strange, seems to me that asking if someone's actions are morally right is pretty much the definition of questioning someone's integrity.

No one has used the phrase "morally right" here in this thread, except you.

If you really want to pursue this "integrity" question, then please provide exactly what was said, and in what message number, that got you started on it. That way I can examine it properly, and won't have to guess what the heck you're talking about.

The person's suggestion that one's karma is improved by giving the certificate away has the flip side that not giving it away is bad for one's karma.

I found this on a website about buddhism -

Karma is the law of moral causation. The theory of Karma is a fundamental doctrine in Buddhism. This belief was prevalent in India before the advent of the Buddha. Nevertheless, it was the Buddha who explained and formulated this doctrine in the complete form in which we have it today.

So bringing karma into the discussion is, in fact, bringing in the question of personal morality.

I don't personally find such casual statements regarding morality quite so offensive as jakee apparently does, but I can see jakee's point.

Quote

Quote

Just because there is only one that lets us do that now doesn't mean it will always be that way.

The Argus will also display the barometric pressure.

Quote

A quick check says there are digital barometers available in a wide range of prices, from about $30 up.

I don't in any way think of this as a replacement for periodic maintenance and evaluation by folks with more specialized tools than I have. So I don't presume I'd need a lab-quality instrument. Personally, there is a barometer in my home weather station already. So I'd just use it.

With no idea of the accuracy or precision of the barometer in your home weather station, comparing it to an AAD is of limited value, IMO. In fact, I'd have more faith in the readings from the AAD, which presumably meets some specified level of precision and accuracy and has been calibrated, than in the readings from the consumer device in a home weather station.

First, thanks, I hadn't realized that the Argus would display the pressure. But you are correct. Thanks.

Regarding the utility of a barometer, well, my home weather station barometer agrees with the ATIS I receive from the nearby airport.

We are not talking about factory-level maintenance here. We are talking about a quick sanity check of the device.

I use a fish scale to check pull forces. It is not as accurate as I'd like, but it works well enough to be better than nothing.

Anyway, when next I can, I'll bring my Argus home and report on the correlation between the two barometers.

Quote

what happens if a situation as may have happened with the tandem fatality a while ago, where on a low pull, the cypres cut the loop, and the main opening shock may have ejected the reserve freebag and back loaded the skyhook? i.e. if the pull on the reserve bridle is from the freebag side and not the pilot chute side, will the pin disengage or will the pin perhaps get bent?

A convoluted sequence I guess, but Murphy's law has a habit of lurking. Without a collins lanyard, the above would mean that the reserve freebag would not be released from the RSL, which is still attached to the (not yet cut away) risers. Perhaps that's a better outcome than a 2 out anyway?

Once the loop is cut, the pilot chute is free, and it will take very little force to release the MARD. As long as the folded red webbing is extended from its original, folded-over shape, the pin should release. It does not matter which side of the bridle the pull comes from - as long as the pull is coming from the bridle, the MARD pin will release.

The only time the pin "locks" is when the pull comes from the MARD lanyard, which will extract the tab from the channel on the flap.

But as long as the tab is in the pocket (and the new ring just adds to that security), pulling on the bridle end of the red webbing, either from the pilot chute or from the bag, will unfold the red webbing and release the pin.

So, in your scenario, the MARD will release. You'll still have two-out to deal with, but the RAX won't complicate things by locking to two pieces together.