eric.fradet

so true.....

they are good in what they are doing, they know their job and they provide the best they can, you can trust them...

M. Fradet is under the impression that the RI MARD is based on the bridle-unfolding principle that is the basis of his patent. __________________________________________________ I am not under an impression, Loic Jean Albert was my team mate and I let him used this technology which falls under my patent US 8,074,934 B2, you should read it before saying anything. In any cases it means, the skyhook does not have to live a long time

Yes Rigging Innovations uses my device with my agreement, and actually I have to say it is a better principle than the Skyhook, UPT made this last one more and more complicated and it is still does not work properly (for instance if the knot on the sealing thread is not tight enough, the skyhook will disconnect instead to hold..)

I cannot tell, we do not have much feedback from the field, at this time, specially it will be interesting to know if it is rigger's friendly ?

Sunrise Rigging could add a Collins lanyard device since the patent is getting over, but it will make the system more complex, and actually this Boost MARD is the best one on the market..

I think you are wrong, when you are in the parachute industry , you are supposed to know who has been invented such device, you ask for the permission to use it, it is not only a matter of money, it is also a matter to be honest with the inventor who is proud of his product and deserve his recognition from others, if it is a good invention. For instance, I do not ask as much money for my invention as Bill Booth sells his, and I pretend my device works better than the Skyhook, which his not reliable, I know that there are many riggers out on the field that absolutely refuse to pack Skyhook because it is so complicated. In this sport, nobody wants to pay for something they can try to get for free, If there is no patent how do you know who was the first one to successfully create something new to move forward ? it will not be fair for someone involving time and money to not be paid off for his effort to make the sport safer. Now you are right on one point : the most beautiful invention are anonymous .. who knows who is the inventor of the single layer canopy with glide ratio is point 9 and flies great in European mountains since 4 years ?

Peregrine ACE MARD is infringing my US patent, I sold my device to Sunrise Rigging, there is no reason someone steals other people idea and get away with that. They will have to pay or go to court. eric Fradet

I met Bruno Gouvy late eighties in France; He learnt everything in skydiving from Patrick Degayardon, if I remember well, he was snowboarding in a Mont Blanc area in a difficult place and he has slipped to the result of a mausaise receipt.. Patrick has taugh Skysurf, Bruno had sponsoring at this time (Marlboro I guess) which was a big help...and bruno understood skydivingwas a cool way to sell his picture..

since I remember, the lines were in kevlar and worn out quite fast, they became weak in about 500 jumps on it..

I had a X210 with kevlar lines, as far I remember the glide ratio was a little bit deep, but the flair was not quite good. at the time I bought it (1982) it was the smallest pack volume on the market, was the reason why I took it. Fabrics was F111; I do not think you will learn much with a manual , good luck...

the French Parachute Federation has been lately working to improve the Pants design you are refeering to. We made it better specially with a dedicated foam made to avoid slough, the French designer name is Edouard Luciano and can be reach at [email protected]

the UPT device which works by holding passenger'chest with snaps, is just a piece of shit...I agree with you, Strong is even BAD, I can respect your opinion because you do not have the chance to compare with a real tandem passenger harness allowing a passenger taller than a pilot to land in a real sitting position without pulling the feet up. The reason why a manufacturer like UPT is not able to come up with a good product, is because they do not care about customers making only one skydive in their life and not buying any harness. The question for the TI is not to pick up the best passenger harness, but avoid the worst one, at this game UPT is questionnable....

Q: Can the Trap System release the bridle if necessary after it’s ‘Trapped’? A: Yes. The Trap Line cinches but does not tie a knot. If the reserve pilot chute is creating more drag than the malfunctioned main, then the Trap System will allow the bridle to be released so that the reserve pilot chute can deploy the reserve. ___________________________________________________________ humm on others MARD like Skyhook, Boost, Air anchor, we can clearly see the bridle linked to an external device which holds everything together and stay free to release during the main pulling effort because it is located outside or on the bridle, but the Trap locks the bridle inside, I do not see how the Trap stops itself to tie the bridle during main pulling effort. it would be interesting to see how much it is tied once on the ground after a cutaway action......

Is any container manufacturer using it? -------------------------------------------------------------- the Wings and Plexus tandem is using it, the fact Air anchor from TNT is the same principle and also uses it without my agreement is actually part of a lawyer battle....

I am also curious to see it in real, since the prior time with the DRX, Mirage has been infringing my patent, I promised to bring them to court if they repeat the same..

So Aerodyne and NZaero are now making dupes of PD's design. Did the patent expire? _________________________________________________________ For me the PD patent has absolutly no value in case of trial court, the soft link device with a ring has been invented by Michel Urbain from Parachutes de France (PF) a year before PD came up with their own one, which on the principle is not different except there is no ring (somewhere we can consider PD has been copying such device), the US patent office gave the patent to PD because PF did not ask for it and US patent office is not in charge to check what is existing on the field and if it what was used at this time, the US patent office only check in theirs papers if something close was patented or not..., means anyone is free to use the PD device because there was something existing in the prior art and for this reason PD will never intented any trial court, what they will loose for sure...

My son is an attorney here in the USA, would you like his email address? JerryBaumchen ____________________________________________________ ha ha ha ! I hope I won't need him !....but I have to say : it is a hard life for an individual to get respect from manufacturers (specially milles away), it won't be the same if I was an US industrial with a long beird (no offense for him), cheers.. eric

hi Shlomo, to make it short, if you think about it : MARD does not response to a need in the regular practise ! how many lives could be saved worldwide with a MARD what could not be saved with a regular RSL, since according TSO, RSL is supposed to save your life up to 300 foot high...the answer is pretty close from zero if you consider what the skydiver in question has to cuttaway below 300 feet but still above 150 feet... Why make it more complicated on a sport rig , Am I wrong ?

How does the performance compare to more conventional paragliders? __________________________________________________ actually it is pretty good, glide ratio is about 9 like most of cross country wings we use, but compare the best paragliders whose glide ratio is about 12, you cannot compete; as I previously wrote the design is made to get a small packing volume in order for people who climb up by foot to be lighter. For skydiving use, there is maybe a chance since the rods which are made to "build" a nose , are in plastic cable harder than cuttaway cable in order to give the shape , but quite close..

It sure looks like there is an upper and lower skin, at least for a little way back from the leading edge ________________________________________________ No there is no, I can guarantee to you, since I am use to fly everyday in southearn of france close to this type of wing ! the design has been invented by luc armant from ozone, and the link you refeer it is just a bad copy, in fact it gives to you the picture of a double surface but there is only one but there are 1 foot rods to hold the nose of the single surface curved such if you have not seen in live, you think it is a double surface; one month ago, an experimented pilot took off from Chamonix Valley at 3000 feet high and reached 17000 feet altitude to land on the top of Mont Blanc. The goal of this design is to have a very thin packing volume in order to climb eazy..

Besides the fact I do not like the idea for any sport rig to use any MARD, (in my mind MARD is restricted to the soldiers jumping at 1000 foot high, who are the only skydivers paid to be kill, anyways) 5 reasons to not use any MARD (in fact they are more but it should be enough to convince people) 1) Increasing entanglement on any Type of main horse shoe malfunction On a MARD equipped rig, the chance having your camera helmet entangled by the reserve travelling on his way is duplicated when you cutaway, in those days everyone jump a camera. Also if only the non-RSL riser is entangled, the RSL riser will leave and open your reserve container, chance on entanglement is higher. the MARD may also increase the probability of a main and reserve entanglement after a cutaway, in any type of horseshoe malfunction like foot (feet) in the main lines, main pilot chute trapped in the arm or foot, or main container open while main pc still in his pocket, The situation of a horseshoe (premature container opening with PC still in pouch) is worth looking at to get the picture : Any type of partial or total malfunction will look like these two little pictures which show the differences in between having a skyhook or not. Pic 1 shows a PC (without a MARD) trying to blow by the cutaway main that is still attached to a jumper via a stuck pc. Pic 2 shows the MARD trying to blow by the cutaway main that is still attached to a jumper via a stuck pc. If the reserve pc with the MARD inflates, it is likely that the reserve will find clear air to inflate in, but not if the reserve pc goes through the lines of the main or something similar. If the reserve pc with the MARD does not catch air immediately, and is still attached to the MARD wraps the trailing main, then I think that a main-reserve entanglement is almost a certainty. The remaining length of the reserve bridle line may provide enough drag for the reserve canopy to come out of the reserve bag, but maybe not. You can also get more slack in the reserve deployment (from the MARD point of attachment to the reserve risers) that will allow the reserve (bag and or lines) to flap around and become entangled with the trailing main. At best you could hope for the drag on the reserve lines to pull the reserve canopy out of the bag, even if the bag is attached someplace along the trailing main. I think this is a failure mode of the MARD that has not been tested, not been explained and kind of glossed over. (I certainly do not recommend asking test jumpers to test this either.) 2)Main bag lock hitting the reserve ( I did experimented it myself) . All bag locked mains will not miss the reserve canopy, especially when it is a Sigma Tandem., their tandem reserve opens in deep brakes, and therefore doesn't get out of the way as well as a "normally" braked canopy. Also with a small reserve, there is some damage or entanglement potential issue, especially to have the main lines wrapped around the reserve ones. 3) twisted lines reserve due to the main spinning malfunction momentum : All very experienced skydivers who experimented a few of this type of scenario have already disconnected their Skyhook (including sponsored team by UPT like world champion Babylon Team and French National Vertical Formation Skydiving team do not use it because of that) Read this one : it is the worst case I know, but I have other very similar scenario too : A very experienced jumper using a skyhook had a malfunction on a Velocity that had him spinning into line twists while the canopy was spinning. The resulting cutaway with a skyhook had him entangled in the freebag and bridle, he sorted it out but was nearly choked out by the reserve risers caught under his chin. It produced some nasty rash. Severe spinning around your Y axis while spinning violently doesn't seem to be covered on the videos that I have seen 4) increase of reserve shock opening There are, scenarios where an open canopy can be cutaway and act as a super pilotchute while the jumper is still at terminal. 1. The cutaway handle is accidently pulled on exit or in freefall, the jumper deploys the main, the riser covers hold long enough for the canopy to come out of the bag and partially inflate before separating from the harness. 2. The jumper deploys the main, has a hesitation, goes for the cutaway handle as the pilotchute lifts off, cuts away just as the canopy comes out of the bag. This is a relatively common malfunction. 3. The jumper experiences a baglock. Just on cutaway the canopy comes out of the bag. In these scenarios the jumper has not been decelerated by the main but it will be at least partially inflated as it lifts off. If there is a skyhook it will act as a super pilotchute with the risk of a catastophically hard opening. Many people think that once the resreve is out of the bag the speed of the opening is determined only by the slider. The slider is critical for any opening but so is the pilotchute. UPT knows this so their drogues collapse on lift off so as to have just the right amount of snatch to lift the bag at optimum speed. If your kill line shrinks on your sport rig not only do you get slower bag lift off you get slower inflation. A big pilotchute gives a harder opening because the bag is more rapidly decelerated. At the moment the canopy comes out of the bag the speed difference between the jumper and the canopy will be higher and therefore the load on the lines will be higher. That means the initial snatch will be harder but force on the lines also contributes to the next stage of canopy inflation. Lets say standard bag lift off takes one third of a second. That suggests the bag is travelling at about 45 feet per second slower than the jumper. 135 ft/s vs 180 ft/s. A fully open canopy with a suspended jumper has a descent rate of about 15 feet per second. A cutaway canopy with only a reserve freebag hanging under it will have a descent rate somewhere between 135 ft/s and 15ft/s depending on the degree of inflation. It d doesn't need to be inflated much to increase the speed difference between the jumper and the bag by a factor of 2 or 3 and possibly as much as 6 compared to a standard pilotchute. Surely this creates the possibility of a severely hard opening. The prospect of superhard skyhook openings has not been fully investigated. 5) Short reserve bridle Some manufacturers have shorten the reserve bridle by 4 feet to make the system work better! This is just as insane than tacking the system with a 4 pounds of resistance cord to the reserve container ! They forgot that there was a good reason to decide in the past to come up with the 16 feet long reserve bridle, like they also forgot that there was a good reason to have a hesitator loop configuration to secure the bridle and holds the reserve bag, with a bite of the reserve bridle to stage/sequence the reserve opening, by locking the container closed under full reserve bridle extension. For sure we build up devices to make the skydiver a better idiot instead to educate him .. So, I don’t think that there is anything good with putting out a (necessarily) flawed system specially as long the truth is not out there about the weaknesses of the system so people are not informed, having no responsible decisions about whether to use it or not. Downplaying the dangers doesn’t do anyone any good. I think that problems will always exist in any MARD, there is no perfect system. Furthermore, it is a system which is designed to make up for user stupidity, and therefore could be eliminated if people weren’t being stupid. Still, people want it. Never mind that it could kill them, or that gear is very safe when used appropriately without it. They still want it. UPT’s story that there have been thousands of Skyhook deployments with no other problems misses the point: that people should fully understand their gear, how it works and how it may fail, so that they can take responsibility for their own safety. They should not be told a fairy tale of perfection, as if skydiving could be made completely safe by better gear. Too much safety devices kill the safety ! For sure we build up devices to make the skydiver a better idiot instead to educate him .. So, I don’t think that there is anything good with putting out a (necessarily) flawed system specially as long the truth is not out there about the weaknesses of the system so people are not informed, having no responsible decisions about whether to use it or not. Downplaying the dangers doesn’t do anyone any good. I think that problems will always exist in any MARD, there is no perfect system. Furthermore, it is a system which is designed to make up for user stupidity, and therefore could be eliminated if people weren’t being stupid. Still, people want it. Never mind that it could kill them, or that gear is very safe when used appropriately without it. They still want it. UPT’s story that there have been thousands of Skyhook deployments with no other problems misses the point: that people should fully understand their gear, how it works and how it may fail, so that they can take responsibility for their own safety. They should not be told a fairy tale of perfection, as if skydiving could be made completely safe by better gear. Too much safety devices kill the safety !

Any idea why the LES wsa introduced and then withdrawn? Of maybe it wasn't introduced? __________________________________________________ I can answer this one since I designed the LES : it was withdrawn because MARD system was found unsafe in sport rigs, what was the case in 96, and it is still true in 2012 (some manufacturers should also not offer it to sale), as I said it could be useful only in case you cuttaway in between 200 feet and 300 feet above the ground ! not a situation you will see in an entire life on a drop zone, besides of that there is a lot of situation where MARD can kill you ! sometime to make the sport safer, you have to make it less complicated

And how is it different in a military, wherte you Interlock system is being used? ____________________________________________________ well the only difference I see with MARD'use : military jumpers are paid to be killed while the civilian skydivers pay to survive, but at the end because rigging caution is superior in the army avoiding rigging errors , because military people do not use reactive main canopies making reserve sensitive with line twists after jettisonning, it makes it safer to be used in the Army, at the end in my mind MARD are not designed to safety but to not abort a mission because a cuttaway, that's it, think about that : how many people in the world are supposed to be killed in the sport because they cuttaway their main below 300 feet ? probably none or close to zero !, it would be the only time it could be useful to have a MARD .. MARD is just a commercial thing, they are sold because some good buisnessman made you believe what there is a need, sport manufacturers knows there is no need but at the end they have to respond to their customers

One other major rig mfr once said to me that he had never heard anyone tell him that they were not going to buy his rig because it did not have a MARD. __________________________________________________ I think it is even worse than what, as I always said, the MARD system on the civilian market will kill more than it will save people, and if I count right, it is already the case ( 2 deaths fatalities because a MARD, how many saves because a MARD ?)