riggerpaul

Wow! You still do them? I haven't done one in probably 20 years. Great fun. Don't drop the potato!!!

Better to just bartack them together. Too hard to remove for the next I&R. Stick with the clamps. They are easier to remove for the next I&R, and you contribute to the tool kit of the next rigger. Now that's a win/win deal!

Or just leave a clamp holding them neatly together.

Damn! You beat me to it. But I'll add that I have confirmed with Action Air that they are still supplying parts. -paul

If the cutter fires from static electricity, does it still test as "fired" at the next Power On Self Test? Do we know? - Is the cutter test just checking continuity across some sort of an ignition filament?

+1 to Beatnik's post. And I'll add... While the chance is small, there have been demonstrated cases where people fell out or very nearly fell out of harnesses that seemed like it should have been impossible. The introduction of the little connector between the leg straps was prompted by this problem. If he fell out, I wonder if it would then be possible, under just the wrong circumstances, for the unloaded straps to extend themselves in the wind. Sure, there would have to be no stows bands on the strap tails, or the strap tails would have had to come out of the stow bands too. But, in the spirit of "stranger than fiction", I wonder if it is a possibility.

Not a comment specifically aimed at this helmet, but I am not fond of "outside curves" along the edge of helmets. Now, it is pretty difficult to get rid of them entirely. The ones towards the rear of this helmet sort of must be there. My protec has a similar outside curve on the "ear flaps" where the chin strap attaches. These all represent a snag hazard of some degree. Now, some will say that a line snagged on that outside curve won't stay there long. But it could exert significant force on your neck before it releases, and it would simply be better to avoid the snag in the first place. On my protec, I modified the chinstrap so that it runs along the outside of the helmet past the outside curve instead of just going inside in the first place. Then it is folded over the inside of the ear hole, and secured through both sides with a huge-headed rivet. This change will help a line slide past the outside curve instead of snagging on it. Of course, the rivet must be very well set in order to ensure that it is not a new snag hazard on its own. It would be tough to make this mod on a helmet that doesn't have a hole that conveniently lets you fold the webbing over to go inside. You'd need to add a slot or hole of some sort to allow it, and then you must wonder about the integrity of the shell. My protec made it easy for me since it already has the hole. I didn't actually move the point of attachment - I only changed the routing of the strap. I don't have my protec handy, but I'll get a photo of it when I can and try to post it here. (If I can remember, - me being the old fart that I am.) By the way, the protec is not my only helmet, but I wear it for CF so I can hear. The chin strap on my Bonehead was set up sort of this way from the start, so it never needed modification. In retrospect, I could avoid the huge-headed-rivet on the protec altogether by sewing the strap the way it is on my Bonehead.

The flip side of that coin is that you miss some private discussion with people who have no intention of giving you shit. ETA - you can always add the name to the "Block Private Messages" list in the "Forum Settings" section of your profile if/when it becomes a problem.

Especially considering the display would show it and no complete it's activation sequence on the next power cycle... Of course! What was I thinking?!? (I was a bit stunned by the concept. I should have thought some more before responding. Thanks for your post!)

I was figuring that it had a "normal" activation back at jump 183. It seems unlikely to me that it went 160 jumps with a partly severed loop. But, you are right, I should have asked the OP for clarification on that too.

So, you sent them a device with a cutter that had been fired, and they say the device did not record it. Is that correct? Did you personally see that the cutter had fired? Or are you only reporting what you have been told by some other person? Did anyone see it fire? Did anyone hear it fire? Are you the owner? Are you a rigger? (I am just interested to have some background information. As you say, the story is very strange so far.)

As chrisl said, that ground rush is something!! Is it all the parallax effect? Or does the type of lens on the camera contribute as well?

At some level, as has been said, you can go anywhere you want even now. But it is also true that a dropzone can make rules that will get in your way, license or not. There was recently a discussion about a dz that may be saying that if you didn't get your "A" license at that dz, you will not be allowed to jump there until you have a "B" license. That is the dz's choice, and USPA has told me that a dz is absolutely free to make any such rule they may desire.

Yes, that's why I said they will separate naturally. Jackets said about the same thing. He and I and the DZO have been working on this for some time, and he's been doing a great service for our dz community. I appreciate that you think it is a good start. I know jackets appreciates it too. Far too much of this work is literally thankless. But, as he and I have both said, it is a work in progress, and it will be adjusted as needs show us what needs improvement.

No, we don't separate by wing loading. They separate themselves to some extent. But there can still be a variety of wing loadings on either side of the separation. A lot of what we are doing is just presenting the common sense that should have been applied by everybody in the first place. We'll refine it as needs dictate. But the first step is to just get everybody more or less on the same page and going in the same direction, as it were. We've established some goals that everybody seems to agree on, and that's a good part of the battle.

Interestingly enough, the SIM doesn't just say "records", it says "world records". So I guess you could have those 100 night jumps on state and national records, and still not have them qualify you for your D license night jumps. Details, details, details.

So also depending on what other countries have mandated and what the aviation authority in that country has written in their manual... Unfortunately many of the part 149 (or similar) organisation freaked out and knee jerked by banning the argus at the drop of a hat without the adequate information to make a correct and informed decision... This knee jerk will come accross as a wekness and it will take time for everybody to come up with an excuse of how they managed to be conjured into the banning so swiftly... The whole thing is a clusterfuck and whether or not there is a fault in the units, the action and reaction was competely flawed and wrong... So either the same treatment needs to me given to EVERY manufacturer from now on (not fucking likely) OR aviacom and all argus users deserve and apology. Being a member of the PIA will be an advantage in such a situation, but that is anti competitive behaviour and illegal in my country. Such rules should be fairly distributed and enforeced irregardless of who you are. I hope Aviacom pursues a legal battle so we get some clarification on this issue. Check out this video many of you would have seeen it before. The result (in a real life situation) would equal a dead person. It is a cypres in a vector micron, what was done???? This is very much the same result as a cutter not severing the loop = equals a fatality. Fortunately this particular result was produced in a controlled envirionment. check it out... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohBxepGxIxc From that result under the same ratrionale as what has happened with Argus.... all microns with cypres should be grounded immediately..... before further investigation of the equipment.... FAIR IS FAIR! I have nothing against vector, in fact they have helped me in the past, they are good rigs and I have 2 of them, and 6 sigmas with cypres... I was just using this as an example of how this situation is not fair, and probably illegal! Maybe all you say is true. Maybe stronger action should have been taken in the case of problems in the past with other equipment. But it is not about FAIR. For all I know, the reasoning this time went like, "Remember that time the rig wouldn't open? We'd better not leave ourselves exposed like THAT again!!!". I own an Argus and I own a Javelin. I don't much like what's happening, and I wish all had done better. But it isn't about FAIR. If they did it wrong before, that doesn't mean they must do it wrong again. It sucks to be the ones in the situation into which we have been placed. But it might be right. Maybe not fair. But maybe right.

He can quit using him as an instructor if he is out of line. I Report the S&TA to the person how appointed him to the position against USPA recommendations? Yea I sure that will work. A. Safety & Training Advisors 1. The regional director appoints S&TAs and forwards the appointments to headquarters for processing. a. The appointments should be made in consultation with the drop zone owneroperator, while recognizing that the advisor is a representative of USPA, not the drop zone. b. The appointment of a DZ owner, operator or employee as the S&TA should occur only if another suitable candidate is not available. It seems that half the DZO’s or their representative are the S&TA and we both know what a conflict of interest that is. Sparky When I said go to the RD, I did not mean with the information about the S&TA being in the DZO's pocket, I meant go to the RD with the information about the errant rating holder. But, sure, your points are totally valid. USPA documents aside, it is my experience that the DZO does the nominating, and the RD does the accepting or rejecting. (Though maybe that difference is insignificant.) I'd hope that the RD would be sufficiently interested in safety that he'd look into it. But, I'll also admit that such is less likely if the RD is at the same dz. While it is hopefully usually an advantage to having him close, this is a clear disadvantage. With regard to the conflict of interest, maybe we are doomed in all this. It seems likely that any rating holder at any dz is likely to have a closer relationship with the DZO than some random sport jumper. It the rating holder wants to use his rating, that simply MUST be true. So if the USPA wants S&TAs to hold ratings, it seems the conflict of interest is unavoidable. The best we can hope for is that the appointee takes it seriously enough to provide at least some "back pressure" in the interest of safety. And since we've all admitted that the final say in all matters really rests with the DZO, judicious back pressure is all that can ever really happen.

The DZO can't do anything particular about a rating either. Contact your RD or S&TA. If they agree with you, then they can initiate action. If you think the S&TA is in the DZO's pocket, go direct to the RD.

do you think there has beenany change in the spring along the way? I ask as I pack a lot of Wings due to being a dealer and when they get fired off in the loft for repacks they got to about the end of the bridle every time give or take a foot. Mind you I have only used one in anger 3 times But this does not speak to the question of the closing loop tail after an AAD cut. Erdnarob said his tests were not encouraging. Depending on how much attention is paid to getting the freebag grommet right over the closing loop anchor point, there could be some serious serpentine shit going on just above the point of cut. That's surely not going to improve the launch after an AAD activation, but will have no effect at all when you pull the pin.

The jury is still out. The photos we have are inconclusive with respect to scarring or deformation of the ball. Nor does the Sky Supplies report say definitively that the cutter damage was from the ball. Mark That's why I said "maybe".

They couldn't really do that until they'd opened the cutter and found the ball. According to more than one source, that took an inordinate amount of time, and some pressure from the FAA. The PIA warning, and subsequent bans were here before Aviacom ever got the cutter to examine, right? Now, there is always "Once burned, twice wary". But, in this case, PIA's warning and manufacturers' subsequent bans might have been less warranted than had been originally thought. But it is pretty easy to see how it happened. It sure seemed like the San Marcos event was pretty damning.

OK, that is what is says NOW.... you happen to have a 2008 SIM lying around? THAT is what I am talking about it USED to say something else. (IIRC) I remember a stink being raised about it before and it was changed... I do not know what year. 2008 is as far back as my downloads go. It was the same then as it is now.

Turn it inside out every other day, just like underwear! Underwear? From this day on, all USPA Instructors will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside, so we can check.

Can you show us a photo of "Allen Silver's fancy ratchet/axel/plate tool that costs way too much money because they were sold to the air force."?