JohnSherman

Members
  • Content

    553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by JohnSherman

  1. Corn Huskers Lotion is the answer Nylon is hydroscopic and as such sucks the moisture out of your hands like corn husks do. All well equipped lofts should have a bottle or two on hand. CORN HUSKERS LOTION And I don’t even get a commission. John
  2. You want data you are going to get data. The Main Speed Bag has been in use for some 10 years. No Malfunctions blaimed on the bag. The resere bag has been used for a lesser period of time, but no real problems. Now here is the real data. In 2006 the United States Air Force Academy made 850 jumps they had 14 malfunctions. In 2007 they switched to SPEED Bags- Zero malfunctions. Again in 2008 Zero Malfunctions. In 2009 they had 1 malfunction (a line knot). From 14 mal in one year to out of 850 jumps to One malfunction in 3 years out of 2550 jumps. One of the instructors did make one jump during that time where he didn't use a SPEED bag. He broke his neck. Nuf said
  3. Read: http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=Speedbag&SortBy=DATE_D and: http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=Rubberbands&SortBy=DATE_D and: http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=Reserve_Speedbag&SortBy=DATE_D At our shop we used the Speed Bag on our mains for some number or years. I called my staff together (About 5 masters & 2 seniors at that time) and suggested that we release it as a Reserve free bag. They had all already done that. Most reciently we recieved a report from the USAF where they started using SPEED bags in 2006. The year before they had had 14 malfunctions on their mains for 850 jumps/year. In 2007 & 2008 they had ZERO malfunctions and in 2009 they had one (A line knot). Marty correct me if I have anything wrong on this. John Sherman
  4. OK, this is it, my final post and the one some of you have been waiting for. I have not previously participated in one of these forums. I did not even have a password or account until about a week ago. I really don’t believe in social networking and some say I am a bit of a hermit. So be it. I felt this issue was so important I violated my own rules and got involved. I felt that USPA had violated, not only, a trust with me but with its membership. I fear that the organization of which I am a lifetime member has not only lost credibility with its members, but most sadly, with the FAA. This will hurt the sport in the long run and that makes me sad. I have been doing this for 52 years and I think it is a great sport. The FAA will, if they haven’t already, be knocking on our door (USPA) for the data to which I refer. I had hoped the USPA would be pro-active and not adopt the “Bunker Mentality” but alas I was wrong. The data will come out officially. However, it will take some additional time as the FAA has began an “Official Investigation” and that makes everything confidential until it is over. Who knows how long that will take. I have been advised by the FAA not to talk of certain facts and events until it is over. Those facts do not include what I was told by the USPA staff about the 8 AAD activations with a failed reserve. Those occurrences are distributed as follows: 3 Vectors 2 Javelins 1 Reflex 1 Quasar II I had forgotten the 8th one but have been advised by a 3rd party it was a Wings. Additionally, I have information about testing of pilot chutes by NASA at the NASA Ames 7 x 9 wind tunnel facility at Moffett field. These tests were performed in conjunction with the development of a mid-air refueling drogue. I was the principal investigator. Tested were the Vector 1 & 2 pilot chutes and the current Racer pilot chute. A drag coefficient was calculated for each result. Before I proceed let me put it into perspective. The Toyota Prius is the most streamlined car in the world. It has the least drag of any automobile. It has a Cd of .34, or so my son tells me. An MA-1 pilot chute is listed as having a Cd of .65 Result of tests at NASA Ames: Vector I Cd = .79 Vector II Cd = .33 Racer Cd = .84 The Vector II pilot chute beats the Prius for the best streamlining. I showed this data to the designers of the pilot chutes. The Vector designer responded, after 3 days of study, “Well that proves you can’t test a pilot chute in a wind tunnel”. I shrugged my shoulders and walked away. Additionally, I invite you to view this video: www.jumpshack.com/videos/spin_test.wmv It needs no comment. Well, you have it all. I have nothing more to say. I thank you for the spirited repartee. It has been enjoyable. I will now crawl back into my cave and enjoy the rest of my retirement. Good luck, Blue skies, Go fast, pull low and have fun. But don’t die. John
  5. Here is the rule. If you make a minor change which in your opinion does not affect the airworthiness of the item, it is a minor change. You must still test but you have 6 months to advise the FAA-ACO. If it is a major change you must advise immediately. I can't speak for the others but I have certified our products in all versions of the TSO b,c,d. I believe the NAS 804 C23b is the best standard for structure (strength) and compatibility. Therefore, I have never changed the label on the Racer. It is a "Standard Category" (unlimited) to weight and speed. Tested to 5000#. This level of strength testing will assure the shedding of body parts before failure. TSO C23c (AS8015b) has no provision for compatibility therefore it shouldn't be used with anything. A component so certified is effectively unusable. The Racer Tandem System is certified under this Standard and I must say, it was much easier to certify than the previous one (C23b). See: http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=Compatibility&SortBy=DATE_D for further information. All comments about the paper are solicited AC-105 provides instruction for mixing or matching approved components. This is the document that allows for the use of a canopy from 1 manufacturer with a container from another. Without it only complete systems from the same manufacturer would be allowed. There are forces in this sport who would (and have tried to) eliminate this option. John
  6. The rule at Parachute Labs is and the sports should be. IF YOU CAN GET IT IN IT SHOULD COME OUT. If a container is so designed as to capture an overstuffing it is unsafe. No rigger should be asked to make a decision about fit. Canopy volumes vary so much that the container manufacturer can't predict how it will fit. We provide a canopy volume chart. It is only there as a guide for ease of packing and cosmetics. There is nothing uglier than an overstuffed Racer but it will work. Give it a try!
  7. I love the way polititians mince words. Had to go all the way back to 1974 to find something to accuse me of. That's 36 years ago. Terry, I don't have a belief about anything. What I know has been proven. I hope you enjoy the video at the private link I sent you, feel free to share it. I will tonight. I am sure you have learned, by now, how to "sit up and dump" As to the rest of your post I am preparing a PM for you but I don't want to muddy the water anymore than it has been. We must focus on the release of the data in question. BTW: I asked the question, about releasing the data, in legalieze, just for you and I was correct you fell for it.
  8. One example is low reserve deployments. Research shows that In the past 10 years there has been about one fatality per year in the U.S. in which for uncertain reasons. the jumpers snuck the ground without a fully functional Reserve parachute after apparent reserve activation at a sufficient altitude. Although most of these incidents occurred after the automatic activation device (AAD) initiated reserve deployment. others occurred after a manual reserve ripcord pull or activation by a reserve static line (RSL). PIA bas tasked its Technical Committee to collect and review relevant data. to work within the industry in order to identify any trends or specific causes and to make any relevant recommendations. The above paragraph taken from the advisory and indicates that there is problem with any and all parachutes. If that is not acquisitory to all rigs then I don't know what is.
  9. Terry, Thank you for the correction about who saw the final Advisory. In that you were one of them I ask Why did you throw me and my rig, and the Mirage, and the Talon, et al. under the bus by not identifying the offending equipment and allowing a shadow to be case over all of us? Additonally, you left the users wondering about their rigs. I have recieved numerous e-mails asking what to do. Should I jump my rig is it safe? The answer is some of them are and some of them aren't. USPA won't tell us. I only have one question. Are you for the complete disclosure of any and all information know to USPA & PIA or not?
  10. I answered Jan by private mail. There are thing I can tell her which I can't post. But here is the deal in a nut shell. Girl buys gear asks Mom to buy her a AAD and promises never to die if Mom will do it. Girl dies. AAD fired at 755' she gets line stretch too late. Mom call her friend the Senator who calls FAA who call USPA. USPA get a rig similar and presents it to the FAA. Good pilot chute launch with main closed. Takes 2 hands to dig the bag out. USPA being the astute folks they are (And I mean this) did a good job of researching the data base coming up with 8 rigs where the AAD fired at 750+/- and the reserve failed. I was contacted for root cause definition as I was familiar with this problem having been yelling about it for 20 years. I suggested to USPA that this had been going on for some time and that the data base should be reviewed for low pills no opening. They found 7 more. Their lawyer advised them that they had a legal obligation to warn the membership. An Advisory was prepared and submitted for approval which was received. There was push back from PIA in the form of the President Cliff Smucker. He along with reps from the 2 biggest offenders persuaded USPA to revise the Advisory which was done. This revision left out the offenders identification and revised the Intro. You now have that document.
  11. I have read the thread, all 10 pages of it. I have searched for all references to CYPRESS, CYPRES, and SSK. While there are many there is no data from SSK. There is conversation near the end of the thread refering to the unknown results. Plerase post these results on this thread. I believe I have been told by people in the know that her CYPRES fired at 750+/-. In all fairness I have had to digest so much information lately that I may have some mixup of incidents. I would like to clairify this particular event. However, the point remains do you want the data released or not. Simple answer Yes or NO.
  12. Here is the quote from The Dropzone.com Database: The jumper had turned their AAD (Cypres) on at sea level then drove to a DZ much higher to jump. The AAD was not recalabrated to the new elevation before jumping.
  13. Right on Rob, And the report from the AAD is what is missing in the fatility report data base. Let me ask this about the incident at Perris refered to above. Sorry 'bout using you space to ask a question of others. If she lived at sea level and turned the AAD on at home. She traveled to Perris elevation 1320' and jumped. They are saying it fired at 100 to 200 feet above the ground. That's 1420 MSL it should have fired at 750 MSL 'cause it was set at Zero MSL. If this is true then her AAD fired some 700+/- feet to high.
  14. What do you conside "Verification" Are you saying that 8 AAD records of activation at 750+/- feet is not verification of activation altitude? Yes, data must be released even if it includes a Racer the data should be made public. We as manufacturers have the responsibility to face and respond to any and all reports. Any manufacturer who hides behind the skirts of their National orginazition must be suspect. Everything is our sport must stand the light of day. If one more fatility like the 8 previously mentioned occurs, and I believe it will, we will all be to blame. John
  15. THe Racer may be on the list. I don't know. But if it is let the chips fall where they may. BTW: These 8 deaths are not unconfirmed. The AAD's all show firing at 750+/- and the reserve didn't work. No excuses. All 8 of them can't be hapenstance. Maybe we should be discussing this on the forum "Reasons not to buy an AAD". All the AADs involved in the 8 deaths did was fink on the rig. BTW: Don't even think about burble as some of them were unstable.THe TSO doesn't allow for burble anyway it requires a 300 foot opening after activation. Additionally, most of them occured with the main closed. The data must be released so we can make our own decissions.
  16. You bet your buns that is so. Your quote of the spec is right on. I have video of all of my tests. You can see much of it in my video gallery. I can't answer for anyone else and I don't mean that snidely. I presume they do the same thing I do but the results do bring that into question.
  17. Because of who I am, if I were to release what I know it would be characterized as Sour Grapes and the messenger would be attacked, and probably will be anyway. Additionally, I don't know it all and a partial release would take the pressure off of USPA to do its complete job and might cause undue concern about the unreleased part or the part that I don't know. USPA pulled the old Washington trick of releasing info the night before a 3 day weekend then going home to avoid questions. USPA has a legal responsibility to inform its members. They violated a trust with me and I believe their feet should be held to the fire. I will tell all I know publicaly, if USPA doesn't, by Wednesday. I believe they deserve a chance to correct their wrong. For the life of me I don't know why. I have already told a number of people on this forum privatly even though I believe it should come from USPA. BTW: The FAA already knows and in fact initiated the entire study which is what I want released. Your help is solicited, contact your USPA rep and demand they tell all they about these equipment failures.
  18. I don't know what all of the rigs are. I know 7 of the 8 with AAD's and none of the 7 without AAD's. It is not my job to warn the membership it is the Legal responsibility of USPA. You can help by contacting your USPA represenative and demanding they do what is right. Of the ones I know (which is less than half the total) there are no Mirages.
  19. Doug, Read my lips. I want the data released. It isn't raw it is conclusive. It identifies the problem. I have been consulted about it and have had the opporitunity to digest it. I want you to have the same opporitunity. The Racer is not on the list. BTW: I am not sure what a "Dynamic Corner" is but if it means that the closed corners are excessively holding the bag in the container. It certainly is part of the problem. It is what the Advisory calls to be checked by evaluating the extraction force. The chickens are comming home to roost.
  20. USPA has the details but won't release them. The average jumper wont be able to find the correlation between the incident and the AAD report as they are seperated. USPA has done the correlation. I was consulted on this problem and I do know some information but not all. We must demand the release of all the data. You can't know the good rigs from the bad without the details which are being concieled by USPA. Is is a conspiracy? I wouldn't go that far but I do believe the guilty are being protected by our membership orginazition. No I haven't requested it directly. They came to me and offered it to me for my comments, I do know what 7 of the 8 rigs equipped with AAD's are but I can't relate them to specific incidents even though I have tried. When they asked me for my help they said all data would be released. This proved to be not true. I believe they were talked out of it by PIA. PIA has no fiduciary responsibility to warn anybody whereas USPA does have such a responsibility to it's members.
  21. Collecting data and forming a committee is the action of a bureaucracy. Concealing information already collected it the action of people who are fearful of the truth. There is already data, 15 deaths which paint a horible picture about the lack of performance of the gear out there. You should demand the immediate release of data already in evidence. I am for studying the situation but believe the apparant conflict of interest between the chair of the committee collecting the data and his employer (as I mentioned in my open letter) must be resolved inorder to provide assurance of no "hanki-panki"
  22. In the advisory they refer to about 1 problem per year for the last 10 years. In actuality there has been 8 fatilities where the AAD fired correctly. There have been an additional 7 w/o AADs where a "Low Pull" was reported. This is refered to the list of 8 and the list of 7 Total 15 not included is the 2 last weekend (stay tuned I have advance info). As to the non-affending rigs. This is what we don't know as USPA has not released the list. All I know is that my rig was not on the list. John Sherman
  23. From: John B. Sherman To: USPA & PIA Subject: Skydiver Advisory dated April 1, 2010 (We are all the April fools) I have just read the subject advisory and find it to be a complete “Cop Out” and cave-in to the special interests of the manufacturers who have had these failures/fatalities. It is a Pablum-laced document that fails to identify the problems, their frequency and where they were found. It falls way short of fulfilling your fiduciary responsibility to warn the skydiving public. It paints the complete industry with the same brush and is a reflection on all manufacturers, even those of us who were not on the list. You have damaged the reputation of manufacturers who have taken great care to avoid these specific kinds of failures, and shattered the confidence of users of non-offending rigs. Why? Paragraph 2 instructs the rigger to remove the rig from the wearers back and lay it on a table for bag extraction evaluation. This is poor advice, as it changes (releases) the tension of the riser covers and changes the whole dynamic of the retention system. The bag should be extracted while on the wearers back. Additionally, this evaluation process will not reveal the root cause failure on most of the rigs, as it makes no provision or allowance to evaluate the pilot chute drag. I call for the immediate complete disclosure of any and all data known to USPA & PIA concerning failures of the reserve system after confirmed AAD firings at the correct altitude. I understand there are eight such occurrences. Additionally, I understand there have been 7 deaths where the reserve pull or RSL activation was characterized as “Too low”. This information too should be released. The owners of rigs similar to those, which have failed, have a right to know the facts. By not revealing that information you are depriving them of their right to be warned, which is the responsibility of your organizations. As you know, you are liable for such actions. If we have another fatality of the type described above, on a rig that appears on the list, a good lawyer will clean us out. Some might say this data is already in the public domain. This is probably true but it is fragmented and not in a consolidated form that would connect it to its own AAD report. Furthermore, sending data to the PIA technical committee, whose chairman is an employee of one of the companies on the list, is certainly a conflict of interest. While I personally don’t believe this specific individual would violate a trust, it is an appearance of a conflict of interest that must be avoided. This breach of trust and the exposure to liability of our organizations, in the production of the subject document, is so serious that the individuals responsible for its generation should resign or be fired. I notice that the documents don’t identify the writers, I wonder why… and who they are. John Sherman