pchapman

I hope I'm summarizing dpre correctly, but this sort of repeats his point:

Even if we aren't sure whether everything the manufacturer says is mandatory, it is going to be up to the rigger to decide whether to follow the manufacturer's advice or not. Each rigger will have different concerns over liability and whether what's in the manual makes sense.

[My comment: I've seen plenty of useless or wrong or impossible to implement stuff in manuals relating to TSO'd equipment. That's for another day's post!]

Here's that service life thing from the FAA, in 2012.

The confusing thing is that the FAA reply doesn't quite answer what the USPA was asking.

The letter has the USPA asking about cases where the service life isn't in the TSO. (In paragraph 1.)

The letter (in paragraph 2) then declares a service life non mandatory if sold before a service life was established.

Some will take that as meaning that "if it says 20 years in the manual that came with that particular item" then it is mandatory. Voila.

But one could also ask, "HOW is a service life established?".

a) Put it in the manual? (for anything built from that time on)

b) Or does it have to be in the original TSO certification as the USPA asked about?

c) Or is that explained by the final paragraph (#3) saying "the manufacturer issues a Service Bulletin with safety concerns and recommends the FAA issue an Airworthiness Directive to establish a regulatory service life".?

d) Or can it be some combination of (a),(b), and (c)?

Nor does the letter get into what happens if a company "recommends" a service life. Is that like a non-mandatory-but-we-think-it-is-a-good-idea-or-maybe-we-are-just-covering-our-asses  "SHOULD" or a mandatory "SHALL"?

The document really is horrible for any sort of clarity on the whole issue.

Does paragraph 2 attempt to answer the question posed in paragraph 1 for (a) some cases, or (b) ALL cases? Does paragraph 3 explain (a) the only way how paragraph 2's statement about service life is to be implemented, or (b) just one of various possible ways?

Even with the letter we can just go back to everyone arguing their own very different conclusions....

FAA 2012Aug letter to Ottinger re service life TSOs.pdf

On 3/26/2020 at 5:14 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

 It is now that they will not service anything that is 15 yrs old.

They changed their position from a 'service life' to a 'will not service.'

That's funny about National how wussy/money hungry they are about their own products. Considering that their manuals (last I checked last month) say up to 20 years is OK. From their main backpack rig manual, last revised 2014: 

Quote

Until the PIA specifies otherwise, it is the recomendation of National Parachute that the maximum service life is 20 years from date of manufacture (this includes the harness, container and pilot chute).

So it isn't even a "recommendation", it is a "recomendation".  :-)

Let us know when you've cleared up this mystery!

48 minutes ago, dpreguy said:

I also looked up Stylemaster and Starmaker in Deborah Blackman;s manuals.  Same as the pc chapman post.  Note that neither is a pop top.

I was confused about that too. But there is a kind of Starmaker pop top. (Thanks dpre as without you noting the anomaly, I wouldn't have looked further.)

The manual we've seen above is for a Starmaker that is NOT a pop top.
But then I checked out these photos from Andrew Hilton, well known Brit vintage canopy guy:

Which has a data panel and a manual cover say stuff like "Starmaker Parachutes - The Pop Top Reserve - Strong Enterprises'.

So the Starmaker name was used on more than one type of container.

... Or if you're not quite as disciplined, at least go watch some Friday Freakouts?

The BPA (now BS) has some good manuals on some disciplines.

Others can perhaps add some other good online sources.

The Stylemaster and Starmaker manuals are one and the same. I was just now told this by long time poster Beatnik, who owns a Starmaker among his large collection of vintage gear.  (The manual that has been around a long time in pdf form is only labelled Stylemaster; I hadn't thought of opening that.)

Stylemaster.pdf

Quote

The rib design in those Phantom paragliders are really interesting.

It makes sense as part of the evolution of ribs. Starting out as solid ribs, with a few round holes knotknifed into them. The holes then become more rectangular, or a set of thin vertical slots to allow the rib to transfer loads along the weave of the fabric. With diagonal loads being taken by tapes sewn on from the line attachment points.  As computer aided design expands, more and more excess material in the rib is removed.  One can't go too far with a plain rib as soon one would have a thin strip of material on a bias, on the 45 to the main threads, that will stretch when loaded or ravel even with hotknifing. So one would need strips of material built to work along the diagonals. (Not sure how the Nova Phantom paragliders' diagonal ribs work.) ("crossbracing" in skydiving = "diagonal ribs" in paragliding)

If the production methods could be made to work without adding ridiculous cost, for great structural efficiency, each rib or diagonal reinforcing rib could end up as a bunch of bifurcating, cascaded threads or mini-lines. 

A 2D version is sketched below just to convey the idea, but obviously these could split spanwise as well to act as crossbracing, whether they could attach to the upper surface at any point or have to join into some sort of reinforced seam. Then it becomes more like organic structures from nature, thin structural members going everywhere instead of a few heavy structural beams of simplistic design.

In skydiving, having ribs that aren't just a bunch of holes might be useful for controlling inflation though.

Some more thoughts on some diagonal variations plus spanwise load bearing tapes, from a while back I think, can be seen at http://www.laboratoridenvol.com/paragliderdesign/V-H-ribs.html

What Skylark is doing looks nice. The crossbrace design reminds me of the Atair Onyx of around 2002 - one over-hyped canopy even if some aspects were inventive. Two sections on the bottom surface become 4 sections on the top surface.

I would hope someone has done a more recent scan, but attached is the best I have from what has floated around. It is a crappy but readable OCR scan from a rigging manuals library in I guess the early 1990s.

It still shows and states stack-packing only for the reserve, although pro-packing is allowed for the main. Yet Precision must have been one of the first to do reserve pro-packing showing how to do it on a VHS video sometime at or before 1990. So this is definitely not one of those cases where 'you must follow the manual'...

Precision Raven.pdf

Interesting to see in that document some of the background to the situation. So a bunch of people in the industry were talking over the years-- Sandy Reid (RI) with Eric Fradet & Bill Gargano (Airborne Systems) & Henri P. (Sunrise) for example. Interesting that Sunrise Rigging licenced Eric's MARD. [Edit: took out half a sentence as I mixed two companies up.]

CAVEAT: My take on this is just as someone skimming over everything, with a bit of time to spare, not any sort of lawyer understanding the patent system or going over every claim word by word.

Eric's patent claim isn't at all what one would think from a quick look. We might think: "Hey, Eric's MARD uses a pin with a grommet or similar, in all sorts of possible variants as seen in his patent drawings." In casual discussion over the years, that's what you always hear, about "Eric Fradet's pin system MARD".

Then we look at RI's system, with a metal device that hinges to let the RSL line release when pulled in a certain direction, not using bridle slack or grommets. Seems totally different, not obvious or like pin systems.

But the actual claims in the detailed wording of the patent seem to be much broader, as presented in the lawyer's letter.

The patent doesn't talk initially about pins, but just a connection between RSL system and reserve bridle! So it seems to claim ANY attachment mechanism between RSL and bridle.

(Where the claim also includes other necessary background stuff -- of course it has to function as a MARD, staying attached or disconnecting depending on the situation.And the system has have the usual skydiving parts, like a main and reserve parachute and a way to stow the RSL.)

It's almost like all those drawings of various pin & loop & grommet designs are just there as camouflage, and to show off some possibilities. Those are covered in 20 other claims, but are minor if the claim #1 covers any RSL to bridle connection.

But if every connection is claimed, so how does Eric's patent not infringe on the Skyhook?

Well, I have only skimmed the Skyhook patent, but its claims are all about the hook & slot thing.

So is it a situation where Booth got the patent on hook & slot MARDs, while Eric basically then got a patent that covered everything else no matter how clever? (Except say the Mirage TRAP, because as packed, there is NO  connection between RSL and bridle. Weird but clever.)

(Eric's patent does mention the Skyhook in the Background section, saying it isn't ideal because in the case of a total malfunction situation, the Skyhook doesn't disconnect as quickly as it should, potentially delaying the reserve opening.)

If you have time Mr. Fradet, I sure would be interested to know the explanation. Patents can be very complex and opaque to the layman.

Eric's patent: long patent URL for Eric Fradet's MARD
 

That classic Dual Square report dates from 1997. I can add a Jim Cowan (CPS) presentation from the PIA in 2013.

Maybe someone else can keep moving the data closer to the present...

(As I wrote in 2014 somewhere on dz.com: "The document's value seems to be that it goes into more detail about actually flying two-outs that one usually sees. He also adds the case which is neither biplane or side by side but is "in between", and also adds partial deployment of the 2nd parachute. The document doesn't cover landings. ")

9 Dual Deployments - Jim Cowan.pdf

There were plenty of discussions back in the day about the accident, back on newsgroups. One of the very very few collisions between jumpers and planes (other than the one they jumped from!). You can find discussions archived in google groups.

The NTSB put the blame on ATC but had to also put it on the pilot of the jump aircraft. Unfortunately in reality it is basically impossible for a jump aircraft to spot other aircraft below, and pretty hard for skydivers in modern skydiving to do so. It didn't help that the parachute symbol -- a warning and not a prohibition of flying through the area - was more or less blue printed on blue on the sectional map. 

Things get messy with all the different factors involved in how airplanes and skydivers are kept separated, and how both sides still somewhat rely on the occasionally fallible big sky theory.

The short NTSB report

Quote

Probable Cause The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:FAILURE OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL (ATC) FACILITY TO IDENTIFY AND PROVIDE THE REQUIRED TRAFFIC INFORMATION TO THE JUMP AIRCRAFT BEFORE RELEASE OF THE JUMPER(S). A FACTOR RELATED TO THE ACCIDENT WAS: INADEQUATE VISUAL LOOKOUT BY THE PILOT OF THE JUMP AIRCRAFT

Ok, I'm not super clear on business terminology of mergers and sales, but:

If Sandy owned the company outright, does he now own a share of Sunpath/RI?   If not, if he SOLD his company and got some retirement bucks out of it, it was a sale.  If those who have ownership of Sunpath, now own RI, well, that also shows a sale.

Even the RI  FAQ on the deal includes "1. Why is Rigging Innovations being sold to Sun Path Products?"

It may be a sale yet still be an effective merger if both teams continue to largely run their own domains, but with gradual co-mingling of staff and processes over time -- best person or process for the job stuff, even if there's a bit of "here's the new way we do things according to Sunpath".   Its not like all sorts of spare Sunpath staff will likely be flying to immediately to Arizona and kicking RI people out on the street. Yet what happens down the road when RI gets absorbed into the S. Carolina Sunpath, who knows.

Companies often talk of mergers even if one was sold to another, to indicate both teams are valued and are expected -- for now -- to continue to contribute in their own ways. A merger in operations but not actually so in ownership.  To what degree it really ends up a merger in the long run varies a lot. 

I'm willing to stand corrected, but it looks like a sale, could indeed also be called a merger for the short term, but it seems like Sunpath will be firmly in charge in the long term.

4 hours ago, riggerrob said:

 they set a a 5 year life on canopies.

For the record, a little typo, must be   15

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/267514-reserve-canopy-lifespan

#### Original poster crossposted -- probably best to continue in duplicate thread in Gear & Rigging  ####

9 hours ago, mark said:

Aerodyne Smart reserve:  porosity check after 10 jumps or 20 packs, but no boxes.

 

And in newer manuals, Aerodyne upped the number of packs to 40 before a porosity check, at least matching PD on that side. Just noticed that change myself.

Easy for people to forget Aerodyne requirements as they are buried in the manual.

They also have always required a porosity check if the canopy was immersed in water.

(One can of course also get into the argument whether 'the currently published manual sets the rules' or the 'manual that came with the canopy sets the rules' or one may choose from both.)

[Reference: a Smart manual from 2011 current in 2013 said 20, the manual current in Feb 2020 but from 2015 says 40.]

It looked in one photo I've seen, like he had two rocket deployed parachutes on his rocket vehicle (as for recovery of ultralight or other very light aircraft) and one deployed on takeoff. Some quote in the news  mentioned the rocket rubbing somehow on the launch ramp. While some interference is possible, I'm wondering if it was just poorly designed in some way, that the G forces on launch caused the deployment rocket to be initiated. 

The steam rocket he used only produces thrust for a few seconds.  A big bottle of superheated water plus a nozzle basically.  Which means high G's right at takeoff, rapidly lowering thrust (although somewhat compensated by the mass of the vehicle going down), and then just coasting up to one or two thousand feet.    Seems a bit of a sketchy system to get decent altitude -- although if applied correctly it can work for smaller flights. (E.g.  Evel Knievel Snake River jump - also with parachute issues -- or the more successful later re-creation by Eddie Braun.) 

If Mike did have two chutes, why was the second not deployed? Who knows what condition he was in after the high G takeoff (with a jolt when the canopy started to inflate then ripped off), or whether all parts of the second recovery system were still intact.

His 2014 flight vehicle did fly although some say he wasn't actually in it. That vehicle deployed the recovery parachute at high speed and shredded a lot of panels, being held together only by an intact lower lateral band. But the video I saw showed no landing and if he wasn't in it in the first place, not a problem. 

His 2018 flight had 2 parachutes, the first being activated a few seconds after apparent finish of thrusting but still during what seemed pretty high speed upwards flight. That seemed to be a very poor choice of timing. Still, the canopy survived. Later when low on the descent he seemed to realize the descent rate of the whole vehicle under canopy was pretty high so he fired off the 2nd parachute. The 2 canopies pulled apart into quite a Y-configuration but slowed him down a bunch in just the last couple hundred feet of descent. He got through the landing with some back injuries but how serious they were is a bit unclear.

I only know any of this from watching a few videos and reading a bit online. Hard to find much technical info on his vehicle & flights.

The company said: "The unit has been visibly damaged from the client, the soldering are not the original ones as well the battery has been changed even if the unit has 4 jumps only."

It is as if someone at Parasport doesn't realize that unit was ever sent in for repair by their own folks.... when clearly they should have some history from its serial numbers and see that it is a problem unit.  Do they have a poor database detailing their products shipped? Or tracking of customer issues? Especially with them having changed the serial number? Or is it a dumb employee who didn't use the databases correctly?

Hanlon's razor: " Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

So is their decision final or is there still a chance to explain to them how they messed up?

33 minutes ago, mark said:

The difference is that a MOJO retrofit does not require any container modifications,

 

Thanks, forgot about that!  -- The 'extra flap' is on the freebag itself.  

2 hours ago, airnutt said:

check out the incident with very low cutaway with injuries at Eloy, I watched this from the beer truck area, except for the last 500 feet, my beer was empty, but I'll bet this guy was glad he had a skyhook or something similar.I'd say they're worth the couple of extra bucks.

While we all can fuck up, maybe the original poster isn't going to be a total idiot and mess with a malfunction for 44 seconds (as was stated in the Eloy thread). Which is well beyond the sort of mess ups most of us are subject to from time to time. Or the poster isn't willing to bet $350+ that he'll be such an idiot in the next couple years while he has the rig.

I also question whether adding something worth $X to a rig is really going to add $X to the sale price. MARDs are becoming more and more 'normal' as more brands get them but I don't think not having one is yet making gear hard to sell at reasonable prices. But I don't know the used gear market well. The price for the MARD in this case is also going to be more than $350; it will be that plus disassembly, shipping and assembly.

The original questions still stand, about how the market prices MARDs in used gear.

The static line was made of some heavy tubular webbing or something like that, good for likely thousands of pounds of load. Note that this was a direct bag static line setup, rather than static line extracting a pilot chute or whatever those systems were like.

The student gear used an SOS system, so when the student pulled the emergency handle, it cut away the main too. The main canopy fell away at some point, rather than staying in the bag at the end of the static line. (What with the odd angles involved, I guess friction on the risers, despite being released at the 3-rings, could have extracted the canopy from the static line bag.)

As for do's and don'ts, the obvious lesson is to close any main container correctly to avoid bad things happening (freefall or static line), and that any 'pin check' (such as by an instructor) look for proper routing of the bridle.

In the end the closing loop ripped out of the rig (maybe distorting the plastic in the flap enough for it to do so). The static line stayed intact.

From my 2009 post after it happened at the DZ I was at:

" It is thought that the tab of the static line went into the heavy dacron closing loop from the right instead of the left, which is not normal DZ procedure. [Packer error, not caught by instructor] Still, it was a surprise that the static line actually locked up on itself in some way, rather than just causing a hard pull for a moment while it rotated back to the right orientation. I've never heard of the DZ ever having anything like this happen before in its many years of operation. "

The question of hook knives always comes up. The DZ aircraft 'always' had a hook knife, and the instructor happened to also normally have one. But his got lost the previous week or something, and someone doing maintenance on the plane moved the big hook knife in the plane shortly before. While some will say 'The instructor should have checked for the knife!', it is one of those things people don't check all the time as it was standard DZ equipment on the plane. (Did you check for the fire extinguisher in the airplane the last time you boarded?)

2 hours ago, ChrisHoward said:

 Any unit more than 8 years old will automatically get a battery change if it is returned to the service center for any reason.

But you can't hold that policy against them, as that's only one part of it: If the batteries are replaced between 8 and 12 years, and no mandatory replacement until the unit is expired, then the batteries are considered good for 12 years.

So yes Chris Howard, for someone to say 10,000 jumps is a "standard" is using too strong a word for it. Nevertheless, as Gowler pointed out, the expectation in the industry is many many years without a battery change for most jumpers.

8 hours ago, mbohu said:

There is therefore simply no one making any decisions of any consequence whatsoever. There can therefore be no moral or immoral action. Every action is simply an effect of the simple combination of physical laws and prior states of matter. "Morality" is meaningless and non-existent. (or the meaning of the word has to be completely redefined)

 

You kind of lost me there. While I'm not getting the subtleties, it feels like one is saying, "Everything is just atoms and sub-atomic particles... so nothing matters... everything we do is just movement of atoms or electrical signals and stuff... our existence and lives are all just irrelevant to the universe."

Um yeah, that's all true.

But that's doesn't make morality any less real as a concept. Religion or not, every society ends up trying to have some form of morality, which is a concept about fairness, justice, not causing harm, and whatnot. Pain may just be a mind's manifestation of electrical signals, but that still doesn't make it generally good for one human to torture another to death. (Whether or not a particular society suggests it as a reasonable punishment for some crime.)

I think I can bow out here and leave anything more to deeper philosophers.