riggerpaul

I don't think the question about pro bono coaching was answered. Does anyone here know? - Is any certified coach okay? Even a free one? Or does MileHi require the use of their (paid? staff?) coaches? OP was clear that certified coaches are required, but he didn't give any details regarding the costs.

Sorry, I did not quote the correct part of your post. I am disagreeing with the concept that a rig can be considered faulty because a given AAD may not function properly on it. The tail does not wag the dog. The problem here is not long loop/loose loop/silicon or no silicon. The problem here is a cutter that sometimes fails to cut. Everything else is interesting discussion material, but beside the point. There is no talk of grounding AADs with proven cutters, only the ones that have been shown to occasionally fail to cut the loop cleanly. Without this clearly unforeseen flaw, there would be no discussion here. Ken This discussion was about how/why the cutter locations were chosen. It was not about the failed cutters, per se. It was about where a cutter should be to have minimal negative impact on the function of the rig, regardless of what might go wrong with the cutter. Anyway... The cutter was moved long before we had any thoughts of a cutter jamming on a loop. The manufacturer chose the original cutter location. The manufacturer decided to change the location after some people found that the rig could lock up. There was a video. IIRC it came from Canada. The video showed that a fully cut loop with a long tail could jam the rig. The cutter location change came shortly after that video. (IIRC). Since the manufacturer chose both the original location, and the new location, and there was no consideration of a failed cutter at that time, I must conclude that the manufacturer decided for himself that the rig needed to change, because it was not working the way he had intended. Of course, none of this says anything about the failed cutters. That is an extremely serious problem that MUST BE FIXED. But it is a different problem from what we have been talking about here.

I could not disagree with this idea more. An AAD is an accessory. It does not require a TSO, and it is not necessary. Ken What idea are you disagreeing with? From what you quoted, are you saying that the cutter was moved because the AAD was faulty? By moving the cutter, the manufacturer tacitly admitted that their rig did not work correctly when the cutter was where they first put it. The cutter location was not chosen by the AAD manufacturer. It came from the rig manufacturer. They are already reacting to the idea that they won't sell any rigs if they don't admit that AADs are here to stay. And what does any of this have to do with the idea of a TSO for AADs? Of course an AAD is an accessory, except, of course, for where it is required. But the manufacturer would soon be out of business if he said, "oh, by the way, you can't use an AAD with this rig." So admitting that they are here to stay is required.

As others have said, the manufacturer does not say that the canopy will collapse if loaded below their recommended wing loading. But, really, does the manufacturer tell you not to toggle whip it into line twists? They do not. Does that mean that you can toggle whip the thing and expect that nothing bad will happen? It does not. I think it unlikely that the manufacturer is going to actually say it will collapse. It just isn't something any canopy manufacturer would like to say about his product. Still, the manufacturer recommends a wing loading of at least 1.4 lbs/sq ft. There is probably a reason. Someone else posted his recollection of a Katana that was lightly loaded and collapsed in turbulence. Does that cover it? Or does it have to be a Crossfire2 to count? Canopies use their airspeed to power the canopy pressurization. Holding the size of a canopy constant, wing loading is directly related to the speed at which the canopy will fly. More weight equals more speed. Less weight equals less speed. Too little weight equals too little speed. What do YOU think will happen to a canopy that is not flying fast enough? Eventually it will stall. And with a stall comes the possibility of collapse. And, of course, since turbulence means that the relative wind can shear - coming from different directions in rapid succession, flying too slowly in turbulence will risk a stall when you would least like it to occur. Else why would the manufacturer recommend a wing loading minimum in the first place?

But a rig with such a failure is okay? The original reason for moving cutters above pilot chutes was not an AAD problem. It was a RIG problem, that cutting the loop "deeper in the rig" left a long tail that could lock the rig. The AAD did exactly what it was intended to do - it cut the loop. Anybody who is building rigs today must concede that AADs are here to stay. Since putting the cutter so near the pin can cause new problems, like a cutter jamming on a loop, it follows that a rig manufacturer had better build a rig that will open when you cut the loop far from the pin, leaving that troublesome "tail". There are a variety of rigs that tolerate the long tail without problem. Perhaps all rigs should be able to make that claim.

Yeah, that may be the issue for the Argus. A simple solution is to place a cap on the end of the cutter that has 'arms' with retaining hoops that effectively narrows the portal that the loop passes through. It would at least keep the angle to a certain angle, but not necessarily perpendicular. This would make packing a bit more tricky, but it would address the 'angle' issue, if that is really the issue involved. If the cutter placement was such that you did not need a pullcord to thread the closing loop through the cutter, then the packing issue is not that big of a deal. You could also place a spring under the cap so that the hoop opening could be enlarged for packing and then the spring narrows it down once the closing loop is threaded. Or you could redesign the cutter such that the portal for the closing loop is smaller. . I was not trying to address the Argus issue at all. My point was only that the cutter location that works best for one rig might not work best for a rig of a different design.

what are racer/reflex users supposed to do then? ...................................................................... Racer and Reflex users are expected to continue with the factory-recommended packing procedures, loop length, etc. We have not heard of any Racers or Reflexes - with AADs - failing to open when needed. Any time you change one variable, you mess with a dozen other variables, and it will take you years to figure out all the new malfunction modes. Don't mess with success. Sounds like you advocate having the cutter as close as possible to the pin. Is that what you're saying? I don't think he was suggesting that a particular location is best in all cases. All he said was that in the cases of the Racer and Reflex, the current location seems to be working. (But maybe these rigs don't have enough "exposure", and so the statistical validity of our experiences might also be questioned.) Not all "nearest the pin as possible" locations are the same. For instance, if the problems we have experienced are related to the angle of the closing loop through the cutter, then placing the cutter on a flap near the pin might be bad, but putting it on the backpad near the pin might be perfect. (Contrasting Mirage and Racer, for example.) Similarly, on the backpad near the closing loop anchor point might be great in a rig where the length of the "tail" is not a problem, while the same location in a rig that is sensitive to the length of the "tail" would not be good. Rigs are different and so are cutters. What works best for one rig and a particular cutter might not work best on another rig with a different cutter. Hard and fast rules are tough to come by in discussions like this.

The incidents that precipitated this action I would attribute to sloppy rigging. The loop was too long allowing the various flaps to create an “s” in the loop and lock the container. It is my opinion that the change was a rush to judgment and fix a rigging error with an equipment change. Sparky We agree about the sloppy rigging. I have repeatedly said that the cutter move was to compensate for poor rigging, and that I thought it was a bad idea. But the fact remains that we have had that poor rigging, and the long tail can impede operation of the rig. I don't know why we cannot expect to fix the rigging, but apparently, we cannot. So the rig was changed instead. All in all, we cannot simply say that all cutters should be in any particular location and be done with it.

wouldnt the easiest way to do this be to place the cutter at the bottom of the tray in all applications? I know it's easiser said than done, but that is a sure way to make it have no involvment in the reserve system. The other way, is to go back to a pin pulling device instead of loop cutting. (Not really directed at "-ftp-", but to all who think all cutters can be placed at the anchor end of the closing loop.) Lest we all forget, some manufactures put the cutter above the pilot chute because putting it elsewhere created the long tail that some rigs do not tolerate well. Now, maybe we should just say that such a rig is incompatible with current AADs, but I don't think that is going to fly so well. We do want the rig to open after the AAD fires and completely cuts the loop, don't we? While a failed cut that interferes with the operation of the rig is bad, a successful cut that interferes with the operation of the rig is far worse, isn't it?

Adding some detail - PD says 40 repacks, or 25 DEPLOYMENTS. Aerodyne calls for testing after 20 repacks or 10 uses. Exactly what they mean by 20 repacks is a bit unclear to me. The manual says, "After 20 repacks (based on 6 month repack cycle)." Does that mean 20 repacks or 10 years or either/both or whichever comes first? ..." ......................................................................... Whichever comes first. If so, it would have been clearer to say "20 repacks, 10 uses, 10 years, after immersion, after any unusual use". Does that cover it? Is there something wrong with that statement? I have written to them about, but nothing has changed, even though Dominic from Aerodyne replied and said the manual would be fixed. The current instructions are just not clear, and should be fixed to be clear.

I think the answer is obvious. European manufacturers wont try to ban people using some gear, since they dont have the authority to do it in the first place. Sure they may give recommendations about how to use their gear, and what accessories should be used with their gear, but they cannot ban someone from using a piece of gear what ever that means. In the US, the situation seems a bit different since the manufacturers are given the power to "ban" riggers from packing gear in a manner that deviates from procedures approved by the manufacturer. (14 CFR Part 65.129 for example) In europe manufacturers are not the ones that may decide these things. It is the aviation authority.(IMO this is how it should be) BTW. I think the Dutch "ban" by the authorities, might be against EU-competition law, since it is being sold legally in other EU-countries and therefore be against atricle 28 EC. On the other hand it might be justified by the atricle 30 EC ?? Interesting question. Complicating matter is the fact that the US FAA, our aviation authority, has conspicuously stayed out of the whole issue of AADs. If the FAA was saying something about it, the manufacturers might not need to.

Another word that might be used here is fixate. Piloting a canopy is still piloting. Pilots learn that any sort of fixation is a bad thing. If the people in the air cannot learn to see all the information available, they should not be flying in a crowd yet. A single landing direction may help create some order out of the chaos. But if the people aren't watching everything they need to watch, no amount of regimentation will completely eliminate collisions. If people don't actually admit that their own bad habits are a major contributing factor to this problem, nothing is going to get better. Too many people seem to be saying that this is someone else's problem, instead of realizing that they themselves are contributing to the problem. Sure, having good rules or common practices or standards helps some. But, when all is said and done, it is people failing to look and see that causes collisions.

First off, stop drinking the beer while packing, especially if you are breaking the bottles!! Yes, unpack and inspect it. Look at every surface, seam, line, stitching in the lines, whatever. It isn't exactly rocket science. It is fabric and lines. Look for damage. Don't forget to look inside the canopy. Junk can get inside. Getting someone to help you so you can hold the canopy up to the light will make it easier to find holes. Bright sunny daylight works very well for this. Were you pro-packing or flat packing? Different parts of the canopy touch the ground with different packing methods. Think about what might have been damaged, and be sure to be really thorough when you examine those areas. If you are still worried after your inspection, by all means, take it to your rigger.

Adding some detail - PD says 40 repacks, or 25 DEPLOYMENTS. Aerodyne calls for testing after 20 repacks or 10 uses. Exactly what they mean by 20 repacks is a bit unclear to me. The manual says, "After 20 repacks (based on 6 month repack cycle)." Does that mean 20 repacks or 10 years or either/both or whichever comes first? They also call for testing after immersion in water, or "After any use in abnormal conditions."

Actually, that is one of the more likely places for an aircraft mid-air collision. Here is one reference, (and every time over the years that I have read an article about mid-air collisions, it has stated this too.) http://blog.aopa.org/asfblog/?p=32%20-%2041k Even worse is that many of these involve a instructor in the airplane, in a training environment! Your idea of having only one airplane or canopy in a particular leg of the pattern at a time is valid, though. That's how it is supposed to work with aircraft, but it sometimes still does not. General aviation has not been able to solve this problem, and general aviation has been working on it for a long time, having created many articles, safety bulletins, etc. As to why this has only recently become more of a problem for skydiving? Perhaps faster canopies, but what else? Accuracy jumpers have been "stacking" their descents and landings on the same target for years. Can we all not do this, or is it just not possible with a number of fast canopies? But it isn't just fast canopies. I hear students are joining in too. As I said, step 1 - believe the risk is real. If we can't get past that, we won't get anywhere.

I cannot agree. The question is, "Are you willing to do what it takes to NOT be the next one?" A great deal depends on what sort of skydive you will or won't accept. Now, maybe you don't want to make solo low altitude hop-n-pops at a piston-Cessna dz and land away from dz center for the rest of your life, but that would surely get the job done, were you so inclined. The first step is to believe that the risk is real. The next step is to decide how far you will go to mitigate it.

Never even having seen an Astra, I don't have docs to check or anything. If they moved the sensor to the front, that means it will fire lower if you are back-to-earth?

The student CYPRES does. Oops, you are correct. My apology. Always good to have someone rechecking my work. Thanks! But still, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't think it is what he was asking about, really. I was thinking more along the lines of "The faster you are going, the higher the AAD should fire". The STUDENT CYPRES behavior is just the opposite of that. If you are going faster, it fires lower. It only fires higher if you are going slower. But, still, my mistake, and I thank you for pointing it out. The Argus supposedly has sensors to determine orientation, but I have never seen much information about it. I know neither what sort of sensors it uses, nor how it uses the extra information. I have heard of that hardware too. What the Argus supposedly has, but apparently does not use, is of little consequence. When I hear from Aviacom that they actually use that to determine orientation, it will be different. If they actually had and used that hardware, I'd expect it to be a sales point -"Fires at X altitude REGARDLESS OF YOUR BODY ORIENTATION". (But, all things considered, how likely do you think it is that we will hear that?)

That's an interesting statement. and I mean that in as neutral a way as possible I am still not clear about your question. To say the following, I looked at visual aid posted on dropzone.com some time ago. Novice/Student unit/modes typically have lower speeds required for activation. Expert/Tandem units/modes use a uniform 78 mph. The CYPRES2 Speed version uses 96 mph, and won't fire below 330 feet. The Argus Speed mode still uses 78mph, but disarms when it thinks it saw a parachute open. None fire at different altitudes depending on how fast you are falling. The exact altitude at which any AAD will fire will depend on body position. None of the AADs can figure out if you are belly down, or belly up, so your attitude will change the firing altitude because of the different pressures the sensor will see depending on your body position. Does this cover it?

To be extra clear, you mean the Advance OUT and Seven? Or does the Advance IN also? I know the Advance OUT and Seven have staging loops. Does Advance IN?

So, what were you taught? Were you given a written version for reference? Or is it your recollection of the material? It is sometimes true that what one gets from being taught is not always what the teacher thought he was teaching. I am not saying that is the case here, but that's why I am interested in verifiable reference materials. None of the courses I attended (2 x Luigi Cani and 2 x Flight-1) provided written course notes, but the common theme was to plan a pattern by having EXACT goals for checkpoints in the pattern, ie. start of downwind, downwind-to-base and base-to final. The plan is to hit precise points over the ground at precise altitudes. By doing this time and again the pilot gets an idea of how the canopy flies and how to move these checkpoints on the ground to adjust for wind. A good reference is Germain's "The D Point", here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=725, where he states: ~again, I'm guessing that is in preparation for eventual high performance landings...that or the instructors are gearing the material toward the technical only aspects of landing a canopy forgoing the 'stick & rudder' experience that time and repetition grant one. IF you @ 200 jumps feel you need a digital altimeter to land your canopy, far be it for me to disagree with you...to others, keep in mind competition accuracy jumpers don't rely on instruments to dead center a disk, and I can't remember the last time I even looked at an altimeter once I was open. +1 When you are just trying to fit into the pattern with a bunch of other people, precise turn point altitudes and positions will often be at the expense of harmony with the actual stuff going on around you. So, like airtwardo, I must presume that the precise pattern work of which you speak is on the path to swooping. Swooping, as we all know, is supposed to have a separation (time and/or place) from the "regular" pattern. Please don't try to mix the two. (Oh, but unlike airtwardo, I do glance from time to time at my analog altimeter, just to verify that I am doing what I thought I would. If the altimeter says I am not, that's okay. Fitting into the world around me is more important than what the altimeter says. Mostly the altimeter input is like a calibration check on my eyes, and a quick glance is all I need.)

So, what were you taught? Were you given a written version for reference? Or is it your recollection of the material? It is sometimes true that what one gets from being taught is not always what the teacher thought he was teaching. I am not saying that is the case here, but that's why I am interested in verifiable reference materials.

There is nothing that requires that the test be done with a TSO’d harness and container when test just the canopy. You can make the “pack” any way you wish. All it has to do is contain the canopy, bridle and pilot chute in the manner it was designed to and allow it deploy as designed. A very knowledgeable rigger friend of mine, who has received TSO certification in the past, suggested that you could use something like this. See attachment. The trick is understanding how to “read” the regs. Sparky http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/Pack.jpg Yes, I know Jerry too. And yes, I now understand that the speeds we are talking about here don't say that a pack is a real container. Right now I would like to know what it means for our actual containers to be certified. I don't have the docs, except what parts I can find in other books. Right now it seems that a lot of people are being misled to believe that there are any actual performance specs for the complete reserve systems as they are actually carried on our backs. I'll count myself in the group of those so misled. But I am learning.

Rob, it is 3 seconds or 300 feet not both. Sparky 4.3.6 Functional Test (Normal Pack All Types): For all 4.3.6 tests the maximum allowable opening time for parachute canopies with a maximum operating weight of 250 lb (113.4 kg) or less, is 3 s from the moment of pack opening. For parachutes with a maximum operating weight of greater than 250 lb (113.4 kg) the maximum allowable opening time shall be increased by 0.01 s for every pound of maximum operating weight in excess of 250 lb (113.4 kg). Alternatively altitude loss instead of time may be measured and the maximum allowable altitude loss may be calculated as follows. For all 4.3.6 tests the maximum allowable altitude loss for parachutes with a maximum operating weight of 250 lb (113.4 kg) or less is 300 ft (91.5 m) from the altitude at pack opening. For parachutes with a maximum operating weight of greater than 250 lb (113.4 kg) the maximum allowable altitude loss shall be increased by 1 ft for every pound of maximum operating weight in excess of 250 lb (113.4 kg). No matter which, on another thread someone said that it was only the canopy that had to meet these limits, and said that it was from when the canopy was out of the bag. According to the quoted sections, that's not correct. It is from pack opening. That means that it includes actions of the container. When I find that thread again, I'll mention this there.

If during the emergency exit all would do clear and pulls, at least there would be a smaller range of possibilities of where the other people could be, making it easier to do traffic avoidance. I know, it may be high up, and your spot may suck, and there could be another aircraft turning onto the jumprun shortly if it is a big, busy dz. But, even in the case of the big busy dz, I would hope that the emergency on one aircraft would mean that others make way for what might need to happen. If we all get out and do solos till a more normal pull altitude, it is going to be really really difficult to keep track of where everybody is. CRW dogs do close hop-n-pops all the time. If they can manage it, we should be able to as well. (At least that's the way I've always thought it could/would/should work. If it is patently stupid, I am all ears for the better way to handle it.)