JohnSherman

No, actually PLI has a waiver, from the FAA, for that part baised upon my arguements here. I believe the language has been changed to reflect less approval from the rig maker.

That was a good design. We have a simular system which can be configured as a puller or as a pusher. Shown as a puller: [inline image008.jpg] This is the foudation for the in-line puller as the shaft is replaced by the ripcord cable and the housings cover the cylinder. We have just intergrated it into the housing. JS

Effectively none. The housing is lined with a firing cylinder. The helix winding of the housing reinforces the cylinder but is not necessary. By the time the piston leaves the cylinder tube the forces have dissipated and the exhaust is through the housing walls. As too exact numbers I can tell you that we are exerting 125 pounds of force on a .210 piston with a .1 exclusion resulting in about 5000 pounds within the cylinder. Me too!

Yes! And so has PIA What were we supposed to do and what are we supposed to do now. We were conned into thinking that cutters would not interfear. We allowed them although we did not approve them. The Cutters started to fail and we realized their faults. OK so now as an industry we have 20,000 rigs in the field which are potentially ticking time bombs. If you think I am going to fall on that sword alone over that forget it. My way to fix the problem has been to design a better way. I think I have found it. Time will tell. In the mean time I know that there are a lot of folks who believe cutters are find. None of those people are the container manufacturers that I know. They have expressed to me more times than I care to remember. "We gotta get rid of cutters". There will be a time when we do stop facilitating cutter instulation. However, the process within the insustry must be gradual so as not to upset the flow of business. So a re-education plan is necessary. That is what I am trying to do. Ask any of the other manufacturers privately, as they sure will want to avoid any possibly contriversy, and see what they say. BTW: It is not up to me to tell you that cutters are technically illegal but the FAA. Ask them. Remember that letter authorized nothing more than what was authorized without or before the letter. It was intentionally written that way. JS

I am saying that it is now and always has been (unbenonced to the industry/sport) illegal to install a cutter in any rig where it might interfear with the normal operation of the certificated reserve. I don't know of any instulations which do not violate this prime FAA directive about attaching things to reserves. I have always installed, at the factory, accessories for installing AAD in my products. I believe that a rig with an AAD and a cutter is better than no AAD. I did not realize the problamatic nature of cutters until the Argus problems. This caused me to take another look. As to the letter of "Approval": If you read the letter you will find that it authorizes nothing more than is allowed without the letter. I am also saying that if a rigger were to pack a rig with a cutter and the cutter failed causing the rig to total then I believe that rigger would be in a world if hurt. The FAA could ask; "By what authority did you install the unapproved cutter into this Certificated rig?" What would your answer be? JS

Read the words in the letters. They are ambigious at best. Ours is based upon the fact that they won't interfear. They did interfear therefore they were not approved. JS

Here is as close and as much as you can see. The end of the housing where the ripcord comes out is the end of the IOpener. Next to the housing to the right you can see a wire crossing under the open top flap. That wire is comming from the gas generator located about 2 inches back from the front of the housing. It is going to the AAD or actuator. [inline Javlin_with_IOpener_in-line.jpg ]

The Video of the Javlin reserve being fired by the IOpener In-line Automatic Ripcord is now on You Tube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BTn3vxi50o Here are 2 more views:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeYnFVBYAjQ and:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxHRrXH-nkA Enjoy

The firing is at 4:00 this afternoon. I imagin it will be videoed from many angles. I expect reps from several other manufacturers who will probably also bring their cameras. I will post mine as soon as I can after that. Maybe by 6. That is if everything works. Now if that isn't intentionally hanging your butt out I don't know what is! Many crossed fingers xxxxxxx

I beg to differ. Anyone can hang a hook knife on a chest strap. Anyone can add anything they want to to the rig as long as it does not interfear with the normal operation off that device. This has been a long standing FAA policy. The FAA views AAD and anything else you hang or attach to a certificated assembly as a "Black Box" Don't believe me. Ask you local FAA rep if you can afdd the cutter pockets (they don't interfear) then ask them if you can add the cutter after explaining the possible problems it might encounter such as the possible interfearance. You paragraph "F" only says yoiu can detach a chest reserve. Nothing more. Remember I have been living under these rules for over 50 years and I wrote many of them. The document to which you refer is speaking to the certificated assembly not ot the attachment of a device which would not alter the function or operation of the certificated assembly. Remember it is not an alteration unless it affects the certification..

All of a sudden? Let go back a few years when the Argus cutters first started to fail. I posted on this foum the dangers of cutters and how I was surprised to suddenly realize them. I also challenged the industry to develope a system which could better do the job. I had no idea it would end up being me. I asked questions and one thing led to the other. I invite you to go back in the post history and find my same arguements then as now. Oh yes, I have learned about the reverse threading problem recienty. We have not been using them successfully. They have been failing. We had one about a month ago in Poland. PLI never approved them. The only reason we didn't ban them ater we found out about the problem with cutters is because we felt that a rig with an AAD & cutter was better than a rig with no AAD. Lee you got it backwards, the problem existed before my new toy and my new toy exists because of the problem. I am only reminding the folks who don't know history, as to why.

The instulation of the mentioned components may be accomplished by anybody according to FAA regs. They do not require any rigger license as they do not interfear with the normal operation of the reserve. This is the Prime Directive from the FAA. Anyone may do anything to the Certificated Parachute Assembly as long as it does not interfear with the normal certificated operation of that parachute system. AAD's are not certificated by anybody to any standard and their instulation need not be authorized or approved by the manufacturer unless they do interfear with the operation. PLI never approved or disapproved of any AAD's. None of us (gear makers) realized the cutters would or could possibly interfear with our operation until we started having failures. When we looked around and examined the situation closely we found several problems. The video at the beginning of this thread was one and the scenerio I described was the other. Not to exclude the obvious loop jam problem. PIA created TS -112 to provide the manufacturers a method to OK the instulation of the interfearing device. You should read this standard. The existance of this standard proves that cutters are in fact illegial and violate the Prime directive. With a pin pusher/puller, which is what the IOpener is, you do not looose any function as it retains "the normal function of". You just gain an assist device by intergrating the power of the cutter with the action of a normal ripcord. John

Container lock, No! But they do change the way the container works normally. On a Javlin when the pin is pulled it releasers the top flap which in turn releases the pilot chute an so on. When the loop is cut from the botton it releases the loop and it must unthread from the bottom through the bag then through the pilot chute starting from the bottom to the top. Releasing the bottom of the pilot chute before the top can allow the bottom to slide out and flip the pilot chute bottom first in to the air stream. If this were to happen the pilot chut would loose its thrust out of the burble and possibly lay on the back, in the burble, of a belly down jumper. This was presented as a possible reason for certain rigs failing to deploy their resreve after AAD firing at 750 feet. Now I ask you if that is the "Normal Operation of"?

You bet you buns it is different. Cutters are illegal no mater how you look at it. They can, have and will again interfear with the normal operation of a certificated system. That makes any rigger who installs a cutter in a rig and the rig/cutter fails the rigger would be liable. The IOpener doen not interfere with the normal operation of the certificated system. You can still pull the ripcord whether it fires or not. Please pardon the back to back posts.

Not a chance. Think about the power of the activator vs the resistance of the cable in the velcro. Not even close. I tuck my excess cable into the pocket also.

I disagree. A rigger can interchange major components from different manufacturers. The ripcord is a major component. A housing replacment, which the instulation entails, may be done by a senior rigger as it does not affect airthworthyness. It, additionally, does not affect the normal operation of the cerificated component. Additionally, I am currently offering it directly to some manufacturers and they would supply it OEM. BTW: I am currently installing one in a Javlin and will show the video of the activation Monday. The Javlin has ARGUS written on the side so I assume it will have an Argus in it.

I'm LMAO at the wild mad speculation. This thing works as it is. Just look at todays video. However, this has been good, for example I used tissue paper to disprove the gas exaust theorie at the handle and around the generator. I would not have done that if David had not mentioned it.

The stroke is controlled for about 2 inches then it just slows down to a stop. We get about 6 inches on the in-line. I will video the firing of a Javlin monday. I have a wings rig in the shop and plan to build one for it. I don't anticipate any problems. Here is another view for the In-line firing on a packed rig:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ts_CsqV5jA Actually Lee, the designer can locate the Gas port anywhere along the housing they choose. So as to provide enough housing for a flap. You just don't get as much slack on the firing side. The chamber does have to be locked down. Two turns of 5 cord seems to do the job.

Ok Gang here is the next step/test. http://www.jumpshack.com/iopener.htm Go to the bottom of the page and click on the link to You Tube. The Video is only 8 seconds but it is self explanitory. The Tissue paper at the handle is for hot gas detection. It came out clean. We also put some at the Squib and got no burn. This thing is tigh enough that we believe we can hold it in our hands while firing It took us all week to get this on done but Monday we will do it again and with other rigs.

The handle is most definitely ours and the mark PL-97 verifies that. It also verifies that we supplied it without cable. The cable has a ball shank swedge which we have the tooling for but rarely make. There are now several rig makers who have the roller type tooling for pins and ball shanks. We did not make any part of the cable or the pin or ball. We did, back in 1997, supply ripcord handles to RI this appears to be one of those.

Yeah, I figured you would bit on that. Another case of the uninformed, writing standard about which they know nothing. I know the origin of that number and it is wrong. The US Government standard is what it should be and always has been 300 pounds for 3 seconds. I am not excluding myself in the blame for this as I was there in the room when the 600 pound number was originally brought up discussed and adopted. I didn't know then what I know now and I probably voted for it. I am now the major supplier of ripcords and pins. In getting here I learned the science of the art and believe me 600 pound is not practical. The cop out is that Standards can be intermixed and not all call for 600 pounds.

To the OP: I make ripcords and can identify the handles and pins by the tool marks, etc. If you would like to post a picture of the handle and its marking with the ball swadge visible, I will make an attempt to identify it. Additionally if you do care to have it tested I will do it for you if you get it to the company. I anticipate a 24 houre turn around for the test. If you do as others have said and load it to 600 pounds it will probably fail. The correct test is 300 pounds for 3 seconds, pin blade to ball. In as much as you pin blade has been trimmed the test is pin shank to ball. We have tooling for tests. It takes less than a minute.

I think he would. Any time, no charge for any individual test. Guaranteed!

Yes!

It has a breach block or it would not work. Go to: 1st Test of pusher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbxeT4hnNjE 1st Test of Puller with one pusher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gZZtHN3q8 1st Test of Pusher/Puller: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvjas7HKArI 1st Test of In-line puller: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyP7m-HkXQY All of these tests were with a Gas generator. Sure it get warm but we have had no gas escape heat problem. The ATF tells us that what we are doing is exempt. We are way past the point of how much force is required to move the pins. The CO2 thing is not how we test the IOpener it has been used as a demo tool and inspection tool quite successfully. Video of rigged system comming this week. We have a Racer and a Javlin being packed for video demo as I type. Stay tunned. JS