eric.fradet

Here is a spec. sheet on the Paris canopy. ________________________________________________ Paris canopy from paraflite is an improvment of the Cap canopy, an hybride main issued from Xavier Demoury, a french designer who built Nervures paragliding canopies and all the Swoop who are the first speed riding canopies and Yes they match glide ration 6 for 1, the Cap 19 and Cap 21 canopies have been used regularly at terminal velocity in France for skydiving and even wingsuit jumps, openings are not perfect I have to say but the glide ratio is really amazing

In 1981, June, Coolidge Az. regulars Tom Bollinger. J.D. Painter and I jumped Angel Falls and claimed numbers 1,2,and 3. _______________________________________________ I though it was Jerry Bird who jumped first from Angel falls back in 1980 ? I remember he mentionned to me in september 1980 in Z Hills ..

the hips of the harness seem SUPER high... is that correct ? _________________________________________________ the hips of the harness are high (main lift web too long, the big ring of the 3 rings system should not be as high)but it is not the point, look at pictures 3 showing a passenger standing up on the ground with the length of the full arrow showing the top connections will not afford the load at opening shock which is not correct because the lateral webbings in dotted arrow too tight is too short. look at picture 4 showing the same configuration under canopy, the passenger is hanging by the lateral webbing in dotted arrow instead the top connections.

the pictures show an Atom Tandem equipment with the correct adjustment. The passenger is loaded by the top fastenings, the lateral webbings are use as a link. In this regular webbing ajustment configuration, the length in arrow dotted line is shorter than the length in full arrow

I am not an engineer, but I am not seeing how having the hips too tight could load this harness to cause the failure. _________________________________________________ By tighten yoo much the lateral straps , you transmit the load through the hip ring to the diagonals, since you reduce the length (distance) the passenger needs to stretch his body inside the harness during opening shock.

how tight were the other straps ? _______________________________________________ I would say : probably not tight enough!..in fact it is always difficult to know, since in this kind of situation, the guilty person always try to hide the truth, as the manufacturers usually do (could not help this one)..

You are saying this is caused by the laterals and not the diagonals being too tight? ________________________________________________ This is an Atom passenger harness.. well the diagonals are linked to a hip ring from where the laterals start, the passenger was too tight on both laterals, and on one side more than the other one, on the opening shock, instead to have the load on the top rings, it has been loaded on the lateral straps and transmitted to the diagonals, specially on one of them

I think you forgot the attachment ;) ____________________________________ I think you are right !

see what happens when the tandem passenger harness is adjusted too tight on the lateral webbings ....

sure this is a Rickerby, made in 82 at Z Hills on a Racer pop top..

Its a death trap unless that closing pin is attached to something that would help you pull. _______________________________________________ you are right, at this point it is not yet attached the correct way, it is an Aviorex 903 from the fifties but get inspirated from the Ors parachute from 1912 (see attached file) ! nothing new in this skydiving world.........

This main closing sequence should remind you something. there is not many people in the world who can identify this rig . can you ?

here is an example of potential issue I see with any MARD, I found this one from an old post from someone else, sorry I cannot find the poster name, I hope he will forgive me : The situation of a horseshoe (premature container opening with PC still in pouch) is worth looking at. I think the SkyHook may increase the probability of a main and reserve entanglement in this type of horseshoe mal. The SkyHook essentially shortens the reserve bridle line and uses the drag from the cutaway main to act as the drag of the reserve PC to deploy the reserve, unless the reserve pc catches air first and the SH disconnects from the reserve bridle line. I made two little pics to show the differences. Pic 1 shows a PC (without a SkyHook) trying to blow by the cutaway main that is still attached to a jumper via a stuck pc. Pic 2 shows the SkyHook trying to blow by the cutaway main that is still attached to a jumper via a stuck pc. If the reserve pc with the SH 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 SH does not catch air immediately, and is still attached to the SH 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 SH 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 SkyHook 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.) with a regular RSL, maybe the reserve has a chance to clear up

I put a flat hook knife with a pull cord behind the wall of the reserve floor in order to cut the loop at its very maximum length. ________________________________________________ using a hook knife is not the best way to fire test the reserve container, because the move helps the container to open. in the last experimentation I did this year, the cutter is located ABOVE the reserve PC, the loop is lubricated, the loop length is exactly the one recommanded by the manufacturer, the reserve PC strenght is about 35 pounds force and the rig packed the day before according packing manual by one of the best rigger in France. after firing, the reserve container is not securely locked up so you do not really have to beat on it to finally give way, means as long the skydiver pulls the reserve ripcord, it will probably open with a delay due to the time the reserve bridle will call the reserve PC to get out from the burble, but in case of a total malfunction and AAD firing it will probably be a fatality. Now if you experiment the same on different rigs with a longer reserve loop as recommand by the manufacturer, it is also, not as difficult to lock the reserve container up on rigs like Vector, Javelin , Wings but in this last situation we speak about rigging error not a wrong manufacture design..

Student Injury, ankle entanglement, - Oklahoma Skydiving Center - 27 Sept 2008 Quote | Reply The student climbed out and was hanging on the strut as he was supposed to. When he was told to release he attempted to push himself with his hands and, instead of arching he pushed his arms and legs forward. This all resulted in him doing a back flip from the plane and then falling butt first while the main deployed. As the main came out his ankle was caught in one of the lines. The main actually fully open but was in spiraling. The student cut way and had a successful reserve deployement. He landed safely but his ankle was not broken but was very swollen. He was very lucky this was his only injury. _________________________________________________ I am wondering what would happen if this student had some kind of MARD ...not sure he would survive with such device

It was however grounded due to the AAD cutter placement, and all Icon had to be retro fitted with the modification stipulated by FFP (Fédération Française de Parachutisme) ... they went so far as to require all visiting jumpers who had the Icon to have the modification, not sure if that still is in place. Actually I bench tested several Icon by test firing containers on the ground. many of them stayed locked even with a lubricated and correct reserve loop length. It is due to the too wide reserve pilot chute cap pushing not only in the middle of the reserve cover pin flap but too hiw and too low => pitching the rongue of the reserve container flap inside the pocket where it is located. The reserve PC cap too wide is the main issue !, when associated to the cutter location too low (on the kicker flap) it can lock up, even with the correct reserve loop length. Which also means that moving the cutter above the reserve PC does not definetly fix this issue, even with the PIN PULLED. For instance on Atom rig (Icon little brother) when associated with a Quick 3 (wide oval reserve PC), during re-pack cycle : when riggers pull the reserve ripcord we found one rig every 500 hundreds which stay locked up for 4-5 seconds because the reason I just wrote. Problems could be solved with a lot of re-design or a new reserve pilot chute with small diameter.

Eric Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you are saying that you are not in favor of a "MARD" system in sports skydiving? So be it the SkyHook or the DRX from Mirage. If so I am calling you out on this, as it was not a few months ago when you e-mailed me asking for Aerodyne to consider your design instead of the UPT SkyHook or DRX systems currently available (not sure if the DRX is yet in production) You also went on in the literature as to why your system was better than the current systems available etc etc Do I sense a level of professional jealousy? To answer your question :no jealousy, I have 2 hats : one as a designer is dedicated to develop the best device as possible, the other one : my job is to protect users in France, as long I can develop the best Non useful MARD device I will certainly doing it, on the other hand, to do my job right : I will be the first one to ground any MARD including and starting with my own device as long I have a doubt. actually all manufacturers want to offer a MARD, not because they like the device (it just makes it more complicated to build the rig), but because all the regular skydivers have been asking for it without knowing why and how it works, but because someone has been convincing them they cannot live without it...

How many test have been done in this situation : Reserve container opens during the main opening shock ? I can tell : none, test jumpers are the regular skydivers as usual ! and it is not a rare situation ! this scenario can and will be repeated.. in this case : the reserve pilot chute do not disconnect right away from the Skyhook because the break cord holds too much, the system would require much more airspeed for the reserve pilot chute to release the red riggers thread tack(where the RSL loops around the Skyhook) from the red lanyard.Then in fact in this situation,once the reserve bag falls down from the reserve pack tray before the Reserve PC disconnect the Skyhook =>it is over, you just can expect the reserve lines be captured by the reserve bridle. because the reserve bag floats behind the jumper, it will load on the Skyhook which stay captured on the kicker flap, still connected to the red lanyard, not leaving any chance for the break cord to release, since the tension comes from the wrong direction = reserve bag which loads more than the reserve PC because it is heavier than the reserve pilotchute. I am sorry the Skyhook does not work in this situation, it is as simple as that. I am keeping on to say this device is the most NON useful found in the skydiving sport, which is OK as long it is not unsafe..

Than where is the magic number 254 coming from? And max. grow weight 254 lbs? actually it is 264 lb not 254, test weight must not be less to certify an equipment limited to 220 pounds(maximum operating weight limit X 1,2) sounds logical (if it was respected which is an other story)

TSO tests require the reserve to be packed with three full twists in the lines (3 x 360 degrees), right below the slider. The reserve must be functional and untwisted withing a few seconds. So, what is the problem here? 1) If all the reserve canopies manufaturers were respecting the TSO, I will probably know it since it is my job. 2) the TSO also says equipment is certificated for any operating weight limit equal to 220 pounds, it does not mean that skydivers respect this rule.

Yeah...ya got the whole rest of your life to get it open and flying, what's the problem?! Then how do you steer clear of someone else under canopy ?, with a reserve lines twisted for instance

After the Vigil ,the Skyhook is your new target ? Not against the Skyhook in particular, but against any MARD in fact, I do not see any need for it, no life has been saved by this device, so far = there is no documented accident (not speaking about rumours) showing someone who killed himself after cutting away so low with just a RSL (no skyhook), but we can expect some fatalities due to rigging errors, unintentional hook of the reserve bridle onto gear or camera equipment during cutaway, reserve deployment with partial or main total horse shoe malfunctions,etc... and the only fact that it is just insane to attach the reserve bridle to the reserve container). There is no need for any MARD in the skydiving sport, but there is for sure a brilliant marketting move who makes the skydivers believe they need it !

Added by slotperfect - this is a spinoff of this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3341014;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed; Worked out nicely. Is it that you call worked out nicely ! All I can see it is a reserve with a twisted lineset coming from the turning main canopy opening inertia , looks quite unsafe to me ! unfortunatly this is one many inconvenients existing with any MARD., the first move from most of the skydivers I know having experimented this type of issue, is to.....disconnect the Skyhook, first time I see a happy one !

Eric, do you have any other information about how that first baton pass happened? I am not sure it was this article Jacques Chalom was speaking about, also I am not very documented about this first baton pas, when I spoke with Jacques Chalom , he told me he did not realize it was something so important at the time he did it...

I would recommend you to buy a Vigil II which is more tested than the Argus and way more advanced than the Cypres and more user's friendly. I personnally had a Vigil I and got 2 firings when needed and can tell you that it worked as designed. How much can we trust someone who already had twice, his back up device saving his life ? and looks proud of it ! how much reliable do you think you are ? For me it looks you are not in a position to give any advices to anyone, except maybe to the guy in charge of the fatality life