riggerpaul

I don't know man ~ I see your logic, but regardless, using a cutter that long after a recall was issued is sketchy business. Personally, I wouldn't have packed that. Cutters are hard to come by, you are right. At some point, we must put some trust in the manufacturer to give us proper information to work with. In retrospect, we are seeing that maybe that obligation has not been met with respect to the Argus cutter recall. But at the time that a rigger last worked on that rig, maybe it was not yet so clear as it is now. I am just saying that damning the rigger without a complete picture of everything involved is perhaps overly harsh. But, I certainly agree that knowing what we know now, many or most of us would never have packed that rig.

Does that say that we should stop making rigs that rely on container tension to provide staging? Because the amount of tension will vary with the volume of the parachute packed inside. I does not seem to me that this will be about closing loop length, because at the time when the container tension is providing the staging, the closing loop is already out of the picture. So it really depends on how much parachute you have in there in the first place. Or should we say that rigs that rely on container tension should have a clear list of canopies that will fill the rig correctly so as to provide the correct tension, and limit the owner to those reserves only? IOW - are we just not getting enough information from the rig manufacturers to do a proper job?

While the cutter was included in the recall, the recall was not 4 years ago. Since cutters have been very hard to come by, the SB has been altered to allow continued use of the older cutters. Now, I don't know what Italian law says about this, but in the USA, this cutter may have still been legal. (Please note - I am not saying that it is okay the way cutter replacement has played out. I am not saying that the old cutters are acceptable. I am only commenting on the statements that the cutter was required to be replaced 4 years ago, and the rigging practices of the rigger(s) involved.)

Fault is of no consequence. If they jump after sunset without the required lights, they have broken the law. Now, maybe that's going to happen at the local dz from time to time. But it is inexcusable for it to happen in an official competition of the USPA. In fact, I would have to say that jumps made illegally must not be counted as far as the competition is concerned. The FARs are not little toy rules to be be bent when possible, while we all snicker and think "How cool are we?". They are the real laws of our land (here in the USA). The pilot of that aircraft can actually lose his pilot certificate over such a jump. It is completely inexcusable that USPA would be a party in any way to such a thing.

If the jump is past legal sunset, and they do not have the required lighting, the jumps are illegal. The Meet Director is asking teams to make illegal jumps? That is troubling.

"No harm"? Only if we make those jumps legally. If those cool sunset loads go past legal sunset, and do not have the FAA required 3-mile-visible lighting, they are ILLEGAL. Experience is fine and a very good thing, but get it LEGALLY. The BSRs require us to make all our skydives in compliance with all applicable laws, and the applicable law requires that light.

HORSESHIT! The "kid" you mentioned put out a not inconsiderable amount of dough and effort getting his rating. If he, like he claims, has had numorous promises out of SE to solve the problem and it remains unsolved as the season approaches, then he is right to be worried. Airing it here seems to have done the trick. Did you see that the addressing problem was on the recipient's end? He moved and didn't tell Strong. (See post #7, where Marty Jones says, "It seems the young man in question moved and did not update his address." Seems to me the OP dropped the ball, not Strong. Regardless who "dropped the ball," Riggerpaul's comments were out of line suggesting that any up and coming jumper/instructor who dares speak out against the venerable oldsters should not even have taken the sport up. I don't know Marty Jones and I barely know Ted Strong, but that makes no difference. It seems Marty is taking a similar approach to things as his predecessor did; that's great. We all know it hasn't been a great year at the SE office but that doesn't change the fact that when people put money out for a course they are owed something. This guy was right to speak out. Wait a moment, please. I never said he should not have taken up the sport. That was mpohl, in post #9. In post #6, I said that Marty would take good care of him. He has. In post #11, based on post #7, I asked YOU if you had read post #7. I expect this post to be post #17, where I apologize if I said anything out of line in either of my previous posts. But, at this point, I will ask YOU if anything I said was out of line, now that you can clearly see who wrote what? Because if it was, I'd like to do what it takes to clear things up. Thanks! -paul PS somewhere along the line, and after cbcharlie posted his post #12, I sent a PM to Marty asking for clarification, as post #12 meant somebody was not getting the story straight. I hope that that my PM helped lead to Marty's post #14, where he apologized for his error. No matter how you read them, I am not the one who went off on cbcharlie. If you are angry with me for something else, fine, let's deal with it. But I didn't write what you said I did. Thanks! -paul

That why I said we should create an E license. 500 and 2 night jumps is not a Master anymore. Put multidisciplinary stuff in E and call that Master. D is needed for national competition, but night jumps are not not really related to that. It is time to modernize our licensing structure to reflect what has happened to the sport.

Maybe the Optimum's opening speed isn't a factor, rather the fact that people tend to pack a bigger optimum into a container because they're supposed to pack one size smaller. Maybe they don't quite pack one size smaller and are very tight when sized this way. Obviously a very tightly packed reserve container not performing to TSO spec is an issue that can happen with any reserve/container combination. It's not an Optimum reserve issue. So without doing extensive drop testing, how does a skydiver know that their reserve/container combination is now too tight and no longer meets TSO's 300ft/3sec reserve deployment specs? If the rigger managed to pack it, then it must be ok, right? Maybe container manufacturers should have some hard and fast rules on what is too tight in their containers. Even if they do have these rules, how does a manufacturer know for sure what is too tight without testing it? Well, one way would be to be sure that you choose things that are listed as "perfect fit" or something like that by the manufacturer. As with anything that is constructed of fabric, things can run a bit larger or smaller than the target size. If you pick the smallest container, and it runs smaller, and you pick the biggest canopy, and it runs big, maybe there's a possible problem. Looking at the Mirage sizing information, there are even combinations that say "Requires a really good rigger", or something like that. Maybe those are better left avoided. (I don't mean to pick on Mirage. It is just the one I recall having such a note.) Just because the dealer says this will probably fit does not necessarily mean your rigger won't be pissed to do it. So, maybe if your rigger is cursing you when you need a repack, well, maybe that's not the best sign. Sorry, re-reading this, I can see that it might not be much real help. Try to be conservative. There's plenty enough risky stuff in this sport that gear selection doesn't need to be where you get your thrills. OOPS! Sorry Bill, you are right. Move this as you see fit, and if I continue, I will continue there. Sorry.

As I read the SIM, a jumper must be "B Qualified" to make a night jump. But there is no restriction for someone who is not "B Qualified" to stay off the sunset (or late sunset) load. Should we have a BSR that says no sunset load until you are B qualified and have a night jump? (Is that actually already a requirement as the SIM is written now, and if so, should we start enforcing it more strictly.) Or should we allow any licensed jumper to do night jumps with proper training and the approval of the appropriate authorities (I, I/E, S&TA, DZO), regardless of his B qualification status? (Of course, all this says nothing at all about why a D license needs night jumps.) Why do we do any of the requirements? It is for Safety, through training and experience. Matt Was that an answer? Should we limit the sunset load to "B qualified" or better. Or is it actually a requirement now that is widely being ignored? If sooner is better (see red highlighted text above), should we make it a B requirement instead of a D? You say it is about safety. Great. How does that relate to the D night jump requirement? Not sure what your beef with me is, but sure I answered so I am a good target. If Sunset is defined as actual Sunset, then I think your question is answered with: Yes, only B qualified or higher and wearing the proper lights and other items done. This would jive with the FAR's (Lights) and BSR's (B Qualified or higher). And no I do not think ANY DZ does that. They go till it is REALLY dark, and some well beyond. The jumps can be noted any where, they are currently noted in the D license application. Maybe we should put them in the B license requirements, good idea. Matt No beef. You've been representing a position on the D night jumps. I asked you some questions. The response post didn't have any answers, so I asked the most important ones again. I appreciate your taking the time to tell us your position. As I see it, the D license night jump requirement is either for safety or for bragging rights. If it is for safety, then it should be required long before the D license, because lots of people never get a D license in the first place. If it is for bragging rights, then it really isn't for safety, and we should drop it if that is the will of the membership. By the way - The FAA requires the 3-mile-visibility position light anytime between official sunset and official sunrise. If dropzones are going "till it is REALLY dark" without that light, they are violating the FARs, and therefore the BSRs as well. We really should, as an organization (USPA), take a far stronger stand on this than we do, because real laws are being broken.

As I read the SIM, a jumper must be "B Qualified" to make a night jump. But there is no restriction for someone who is not "B Qualified" to stay off the sunset (or late sunset) load. Should we have a BSR that says no sunset load until you are B qualified and have a night jump? (Is that actually already a requirement as the SIM is written now, and if so, should we start enforcing it more strictly.) Or should we allow any licensed jumper to do night jumps with proper training and the approval of the appropriate authorities (I, I/E, S&TA, DZO), regardless of his B qualification status? (Of course, all this says nothing at all about why a D license needs night jumps.) Why do we do any of the requirements? It is for Safety, through training and experience. Matt Was that an answer? Should we limit the sunset load to "B qualified" or better. Or is it actually a requirement now that is widely being ignored? If sooner is better (see red highlighted text above), should we make it a B requirement instead of a D? You say it is about safety. Great. How does that relate to the D night jump requirement?

As I read the SIM, a jumper must be "B Qualified" to make a night jump. But there is no restriction for someone who is not "B Qualified" to stay off the sunset (or late sunset) load. Should we have a BSR that says no sunset load until you are B qualified and have a night jump? (Is that actually already a requirement as the SIM is written now, and if so, should we start enforcing it more strictly.) Or should we allow any licensed jumper to do night jumps with proper training and the approval of the appropriate authorities (I, I/E, S&TA, DZO), regardless of his B qualification status? (Of course, all this says nothing at all about why a D license needs night jumps.)

HORSESHIT! The "kid" you mentioned put out a not inconsiderable amount of dough and effort getting his rating. If he, like he claims, has had numorous promises out of SE to solve the problem and it remains unsolved as the season approaches, then he is right to be worried. Airing it here seems to have done the trick. Did you see that the addressing problem was on the recipient's end? He moved and didn't tell Strong. (See post #7, where Marty Jones says, "It seems the young man in question moved and did not update his address." Seems to me the OP dropped the ball, not Strong.

Another logical fallacy... Just because he didn't say that doesn't mean that he never considered other safety factors. I see you do CRW and fly a wingsuit. I'm guessing that when you're preparing for a jump, you give adequate consideration to the relative skill levels on the other people on the jump and whether it's appropriate for them, the equipment available, current weather conditions and whether it makes sense to proceed with the jump in light of those factors. I'm also assuming that you don't always enumerate every such thought to the folks that at manifest when you manifest for the load. I also assume that when you don't explain such thought processes to them, they just assume that you're a grown-up and can think for yourself, rather than quiz you on it or accusing you of not thinking about them. If everyone enumerated every thought they ever had when considering equipment purchases, jumps they're wanting to do or just about anything else in this forum, it would get very long and very boring. Can we stop reading stuff into people's posts for the sake of attacking people and save the jumping on them for situations when someone actually says "I wouldn't do XXX jumps if I didn't have an AAD because it makes me feel safer." Sure, but I can only go by what was written. Since this discussion is all about how these decisions are made, I'd hope and expect an elaborate discussion regarding the process, not an abbreviated description of it. Personally, I don't do anything big in Wingsuits or CF, AAD or not, because what the other people can do scares me. My risk mitigation absolutely includes not doing anything with people I don't trust based on my personal experiences with them. The presence or absence of the AAD has little to do with that. It is still very clear to me that we have a lot of AAD fires that are simply jumpers failing to do what they need to do, as opposed to jumpers being knocked out. So when I hear any jumper say, "I was okay before, but this new thing is more dangerous, so I'll get an AAD", I'll be concerned that he is one of them. This whole discussion on this thread started with fasted3 mentioning something from another thread. I'm not even sure where it came from. But whoever said it is absolutely free to elaborate on his decision making process.

Having spent a good portion of my other life involved in failure analysis, I doubt that any two out of 100 jams will have the same force to pull the stuck loop out. Now when I say 'the same force' I mean within 3-5 lbs of force differential. I would think that any given stuck loop would be unique unto itself. Just my thoughts . . . JerryBaumchen PS) IMO this is the real problem. Jerry, I am happy to defer to your experience and wisdom on this. I will no longer wonder if the pilot chute could pull the freebag free of a jammed cutter. Thanks for speaking up.

Please stop right there. Your supposition is flawed. Last year, USPA and PIA told us that we have some cases where it seems that the AAD fired high enough, and yet still the reserve did not open in time. Go read their publications. That is what they said. We had AADs for a long time before we had the problem that the AADs do not seem to be firing high enough. Something else changed, not the AAD. What seems to have changed is that there are rigs now that do not seem to be functioning according to the specs that were used to decide how to program the AADs. The problem isn't in the AADs. It is in the rigs. When we have rigs that won't deploy in time to meet the performance standards that are required, that's what we should work on. Now, don't mistake me here. I am not saying that the harness/containers themselves are flawed. The entire system is not working the way it should. Not just the Harness/Container. The combination of Harness/Container, reserve parachute, and rigging have combined to create systems that are not working to spec. If these systems are not functioning to spec, figure out what is wrong with them and fix that. Then you won't have to mess with the AADs. Each part of the whole system must work to spec for the desired result to occur. Find out what is out of spec and why, and fix that. Don't just point the finger at the AAD.

To quote you: So instead of avoiding the danger, you decided to get an AAD and do them anyway. I think you're twisting what he's saying. He never said that because he has an AAD he's going to do more dangerous things. He's saying that he realizes that he's doing something with more risk involved so he would like to have a backup should something go wrong. There's a big difference there. Saying you're going to do something more dangerous BECAUSE you have an AAD is stupid. Saying you REALIZE that what you're doing has a more inherent danger involved and you would like something as a backup in case something goes wrong isn't stupid. There are several disciplines in skydiving that are more dangerous than others. Does that mean that we shouldn't do them because they are more dangerous? Absolutely not. It simply means that we should have the proper training and take any extra precautions to HOPEFULLY avoid something that could go wrong. Getting an AAD could be one of those extra precautions. If i get involved in a discipline in skydiving where, say, the risk of getting knocked out in freefall is greater than that of another discipline, and having an AAD could help prevent my death should that happen, then you bet your ass I'm getting an AAD. Now assuming i didn't jump with an AAD already, I'm simply taking a precaution because i realize there is a greater risk involved. However, i am not choosing to try this new discipline BECAUSE i have an AAD. I think that's exactly what this person is saying as well. The problem with what the person said is not that he decided to get an AAD. The problem is that he didn't decide to mitigate the additional danger as a prerequisite to his entry into the world that is more dangerous. He didn't say, "I want to do bigway wingsuits, and that means I need to be extra careful to choose the right people to jump with, and to be certain that the dives are planned better than ever, etc, etc.". He said, "the danger is greater, so I'll get an AAD. Acceptance of risks that are able to be controlled first is where the problem with the thought process is. Not in the eventual decision to get the AAD. Mitigation of risks often involves establishing personal limitations. That is the step that is missing. Saying things like "I will always jump with a person in a small-way before I will go on a big way with him" means you decide to do your best to control the risk with a clear understanding of what the risk is, an how you can address it before you involve a back up system. While you may think that distinction is obvious, I suggest that it is not at all obvious. We have too many people getting saved by AADs and thinking nothing of it to believe that they are all taking the proper care to mitigate risks before they start. No, they are saying that the AAD mitigates the risks, and that's not a good thing to say.

I wouldn't put money on that. The only way I could see a defective cutter not interfering with the reserve coming out is if it was placed under the free bag, on the bottom of the packtray. Even if it pinches the loop, the PC, flaps and freebag are free to deploy. On the other hand, while reserve pilot chute springs might not be strong enough to pull a stuck loop out of a cutter, I wonder if a pilot chute could. (But then, you'd be pretty low, and the hesitation alone might get you.) Has anyone even measured to force to pull the stuck loop out of a jammed cutter?

That's fine for you. But we have a lot of people who seem to rely on their AADs too much, while at the same time, denying that they do. If the folks in that situation jump without one, then we are open to the worst possible scenario - people who really do need an AAD jumping without it. It would be different if we could trust that those folks who really need them would not jump without it. And, of course, we must balance this against the chance that such a person would be sufficiently inattentive as to not notice that their AAD had fired, but the container stayed closed (you know, like the Texas scenario). The whole thing worries me.

I emailed PD about demos (I want to demo the Sabre2 in a few months) and their quick response was that they're not going to increase their domo prices right now. They said they will hold off as long as they can. Sounds pretty stand up to me. there, fixed it for you! There, fixed it for YOU!

Is there a way to delete the AAD selection in one's profile? Actually, what I'd really like to do is set it to "Argus (retired)". So, 2 suggestions - 1) Add "None" to the drop down menu, so you can get rid of what's there. 2) Add "Other" to the drop down menu, which would allow the user to type what he likes. Thanks! -paul Never mind. Thanks DiverMike. Thanks LikesToJump. Seems I need new glasses. In the drop down, even though I was actually looking for it, I didn't see the blank. Just totally fixated on the drop-down, and never saw the "Other" either. Bad day for me, I guess. (But hey, even an old dog can learn a new trick or two, sometimes, when everything goes well, and the stars are aligned... . I only recently learned how to "strike out" text.)

What a useless discussion. Is the sole purpose to divert attention from our real problems? It might have been more interesting if we had a problem with people getting knocked out right and left. But we do not. It has happened from time to time, and there's no argument that an AAD might help. But if you look at why AADs are firing, it isn't that people are getting knocked out. It is because people fail to perform the basic functions required to survive a skydive. Harping on the "I could get knocked out" possibility is just diverting attention from the real problem. Because the vast majority of the people being saved are not knocked out. They are awake and simply failing to do what needs to be done. We had a "good year" back in 2009 when the fatalities were lower than usual, and all sorts of people were patting themselves on the back saying what a good job we must be doing at training etc etc. But if you added to the actual fatality number the number of AAD saves where the jumper was able, but simply failed to take care of himself, what would the fatality number look like then? Because that number would give us a far better idea of how well we are really doing,

Of course, if/when he gets it back, it may be difficult to establish when all that damage happened, if you get my drift. It is easy to see how this would turn our poorly, and difficult to see how it would turn out well.

I just want to fix what is broken first. If this is a case of a reserve that should have opened because it was deployed at sufficient altitude with sufficient time, I want us to address that problem. If this was a rig that could tow the reserve pilot chute to the ground even though it was opened with sufficient time and altitude available, then raising the AAD altitude might not help. That is a lot of "ifs", I know. And I don't really know that these "ifs" are pertinent to this incident. But in the case that they are, that's where I want the first focus. Because we all expect and deserve that the reserves on our backs should perform according to the requirements set forth for them. If they are not, we need to fix that first. If, after establishing that we have gear that meets the specs, we are still left with cases where an extra second would have made a difference, then by all means, let's look at that too.

BTW - If Marty says he'll fix it by Friday, I expect you'll have it fixed by Friday. I've known Marty for a long long time, and he's not going to bs you. So, make sure he has what he needs, and he'll surely take good care of you. Of course, if the problem is that the CD dropped the ball, there could still be limits on what MJ can do.