• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
  • License
  • License Number
  • Licensing Organization
  • Number of Jumps
  • Years in Sport
  • Second Choice Discipline
    Freefall Photography

Ratings and Rigging

  • Tandem
  • Pro Rating
  • Rigging Back
    Senior Rigger
  • Rigging Chest
    Senior Rigger
  • Rigging Seat
    Senior Rigger
  • Rigging Lap
    Senior Rigger
  1. It was me that proposed the opening procedure in the UK. It will be circulated to all packers and riggers in the UK as an acceptable method of opening a reserve. It does include guidance when to refer the system to Riggers committee. It is not mandatory or a rule as that would cause difficulties if a rigger is handed a container that is already open for example but many have started to use it already and are surprised by the results they are getting. I hope it will make packers more aware of the effect of closing loop length and trapping canopy material under the reserve pilot-chute. I also hope, with having a lot of people measuring the extraction force, we will start to get some useful data that can be discussed with manufactures if it is high. At least they will have to say if a rig is OK at 40+lbs or not. Its time we started to ask from a position of Knowledge rather than ignorance to avoid the smoke a mirrors manufacturers sometimes employe when they don't really want to answer the question. Credit to Mr John Sherman for his ideas and help . The BPA has adopted a standard test, attached. Additionally they have released a companion video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSvxHutNFTM Additionally, See:http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=Extraction_of_Rsv.&SortBy=DATE_D and http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=18pounds&SortBy=DATE_D The extraction force can not excede the capability of the pilot chute. In many cases still an unknown.
  2. Unfortunately you have moved my reply from the Z hill incident thread where it was answering incorrect or misleading information posted previously but you have not moved or removed that still misleading piece of information Post 161 I think it was. You will notice I only post on rare occasions when I see something that needs to be addressed.
  3. Hi Deyan You are correct but there are many original vigil's in service with their original manuals. The point is that many of the comments in this thread are answered by simply reading the manual that comes with the AAD Cypress or Vigil. and clearly the questions and comment that are being asked in this thread need to be answered in this thread. with all due respect to the previous poster although he is correct in that perhaps those questions should not be being asked here.. This statement is partially incorrect. I'll explain why. Apparently they have changed that function on the Vigil. The new Vigils ( from # 26172 ) WILL shut down after 14h even in flight, but don't bother reading the manual. It's not there. The info is on the flier they will put in the box with the new unit. When I asked why, not in the manual, they said that the change is not significant to change the whole manual. So reading the manual is not always the answer.
  4. Vigil will stay on if it believes it is in flight. In rare circumstances it may think it is still above the altitude it was at when turned on because of changes in pressure or because you have driven to a different location that is higher. The manual clearly tells you to turn the unit off before transporting. Many of the comments on here are answered by simply reading the manual that comes with your AAD. I find it nothing less than astounding that anyone would use a piece of equipment that your life may depend on and not read the manual. There are differences in the way Cypress and Vigil operate. Those differences are deliberate and justifiable but the owner must understand the implications or the difference could become a problem. [Reply] There were two jumpers at the World Meet in Dubai last December who both had two outs due to AAD fires and landed in the Persian Gulf. Same team. Same jump. (not USA) They both had the older version of the Vigil and had, evidently, traveled half way around the world with their AADs still on. While they were making their first practice jump before the meet - Voila. When asked if they did a gear check before donning their rigs they responded - 'Yes and thought it strange that their AADs were on. But then just assumed that the rigging loft turned on their AADs for them during the mandatory gear check at registration.' Maybe they were thinking 'Wow - we heard Skydive Dubai was a great place but this is real service.' Th DZ did fish them out of the gulf. BTW due to these kinds of unexplainable happenings - Vigils now shut down after 14 hours. .Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be. .
  5. Pretty much as john has outlined on the Jump shack Webb site. With the rig on the owners back laying prone on the floor and the main still in place. The pilot chute should clear at least to eye level (4 to 5 ft). The extraction is measured by pulling the bridal between 20 to 30 degrees from vertical towards the jumpers head using a luggage scale (that is supposed to be the direction of least resistance). Its not lab conditions but it is practical in the field and simple to do. What it does provide is comparable information and will raise Alarm bells for anything that deviates much from the norm. It would be nice to use a measuring scale and video every opening but what we do has to be practical and easy otherwise few will adopt it. At the moment I think comparative performance is more useful than very accurate measuring and our results are on containers that have been packed for a reasonably long period, 6 months (in the UK) or 120 days in the USA. When there is an investigation of an incident the manufacturer can never replicate the exact circumstances because he can't leave six days between each test let alone six months.. As I said already I have been getting unexpected result that have surprised me. Of course its not necessarily the case that a high extraction force means a rig should be grounded but the owner needs to understand the implications. It may be his rig with its high extraction force is good for radical Free Flying but if he had an aircraft emergency at 800ft he would be better off to stay in (unless the wings have fallen off) where as another jumper with his Racer or single pin Pop top would be better off leaving the aircraft and I would not recommend a container with a high exaction force for doing demos. I believe its become necessary for us as riggers and advanced packers (in the UK) to make it obvious that we are taking notice of this type of performance issue and educating jumpers so they can make informed purchasing decisions. The strongest incentive for manufacturers to change is after all what the customer demands.
  6. Keep up all the good advice gentlemen. I have adopted John's procedure for opening reserves and already the results are surprising. I have had a container where the pilot chute only jumped 18" out of the container. That would not be good as you hurtle through 750ft, having lost altitude awareness, perfectible flat and stable with your reserve pilot chute in your burble. I just did an extraction force test on another customers container and it was 32lb. Pilot chute jumped a clear 6ft for all the help that would be if you are sub terminal say getting out on an aircraft emergency! Its all scary stuff. I am now documenting every reserve I open for pilot chute clearance height and extraction force.
  7. That's good. Unfortunately one thing that's very hard to replicate is that little bit of extra resistance added to everything just because it has been closed for months and everything is bedded in and settled. Even the flap fabric will stretch and take on a slight set shape over time. Perhaps its time to introduce a standard method of opening reserves for repack to try and identify this type of issue on containers that have been closed for months and maybe measure extraction force while we are at it.
  8. Why do you think that it's an assumption? And I never said that Airtec wants to blame the jumper. What I said that they don't want to be sued when their unit did its job, but someone else's product failed.... For you might be a ridiculous reason, but Airtec had to spend money in the past to defend themselves in the court , so I guess they know better. And of course they are aware of the problem with some containers. USPA is aware of the problem as well. Even the container manufacturers are aware of the problem with their rigs, but as long as the TSO is valid and people are buying the rigs, there's no reason for change. Someone might argue that there's no problem at all since it happens once-twice per year over some million jumps all over the world and statistically they will be right. What about that?! What you actually said was "To get themselves off the hook in the courtroom when somebody hit the ground with the free-bag still in the container. They just want to give the responsibility to the jumper . That's all" You very clearly say they want to give the responsibility to the jumper. You didn't say anything about being sued. Nor did you mention anyone Else's product failing. I see now maybe what you meant is "To get themselves of the hook in the courtroom when somebody hit the ground with the free bag in the container because the free-bag stayed in the container even though the AAD had fired at the set altitude." Its just not what you said. You are correct that the Manufacturers see no reason to change things. Unless you as customers start asking relevant question. If enough people ask and the answers get circulated people may start to choose equipment based on its performance and reliability. manufacturers would have to fall in line with those that can give the answers or loose their market position. But I am stating the obvious. Ask your container manufacturer what the Hard deck is for your container reserve combination. What is the drag factor for your Reserve pilot chute Etc. As I said before I don't usually post on forums because its to easy to get suckered into these rather pointless misdirected debates. Use a bit more time tackling the manufacturers
  9. Just to state the obvious in answer to some of the points people have raised. The most well known recognized test is the TSO and the rig is not on someones back for those tests. The manufacturer has not been able to replicate the malfunction and therefore has not explained it. A theory is nothing more than a theory until it is proved. The manufacturer has not recommended any action to avoid the same problem occurring again. Other than correct length closing loop. But as they couldn't replicate the problem with an over length loop that would appear to indicate the loop didn't cause the issue. This is not the first time this has happened by any means there have been a number of incidents involving several manufacturers so the problem is well known and over length loops do appear to contribute. This is just the latest example that the problem is still around. But ask yourself this if a container tested to the TSO requirements can fail to open when opened by the method designed to open it. e.g. pulling the pin. Will it work when opened by an AAD that has not been tested at all as part of the TSO. When a container is opened by the AAD, which is also an unconventional method, the container does not have to meet any standard for performance. Add the extra piece of string left in the grommets when the AAD fires and it sure is not going to help the container to open. So when your AAD tries to save you at 780 ft cuts the loop and nothing happens its to late. Now is the time to ask the manufacturers what the hard deck is for your container when it is opened by the AAD or the pin?????. The previous poster's assumption that Airtec have introduced the ability to set the hard deck so they can blame the jumper is a bit ridiculous. I think its more likely they know some containers take to long to deploy.
  10. Denial of what exactly? Seems to me it's hard to fix something that's not really broke. Having a qualified rigger using the right loop appears to be the 'cure'...or did I miss something? That's the point they are not fixing it so lets hope its not broke. If you are interested in the bigger picture though read my previous posts. By the way i love it when a big boy comes to my rescue. See the thread Cypress announces variable activation height. All you need to know now is what height do you need to set for your container and reserve combination. Start asking the manufacturers ???????. Why do you think Airtec have done this !!!!!!
  11. This is the latest from Aerodyne. Looks more like a denial than a cure to me. http://www.flyaerodyne.com/download/ReserveActivationEvaluation1112.pdf Edited by slotperfect: clicky!
  12. Hey there this is not a new problem it has been around and effects small containers designed for free-fly and extreme conditions manufactured 2003/2004 onwards. Only occasionally does a very obvious demonstration of this known issue occur. There have been fatality's because reserves didn't fully deploy before impact, in the last year, where the AAD fired at the correct height. If you had been involved for longer than a year you might realize how inappropriate your post is. Most people simply want to keep others alive by posting what is very important information. Oh and please don't swear it does nothing to support your point of view.
  13. Again, because factors outside of the manufacturers control will effect the performance of the rig. Of course, becasue you can test for those things. You can push a weighed dummy out the back of a plane flying at a specific speed, and see the results. Harness manufacturers can give you specs on the strength of the harness because that's easy to test. Strap a harness into a hydraulic pull tester, and see what it takes to rip it apart. There are just too many variables to a reserve deployment to assign a hard number to it. Generally accepted practices in most of the word are that main deployment should be initiated by 2k ft at a minimum, and then EPs should follow immediately if need be. If a jumper wants to push things to limit, they can dump at 2k and take their chances. If they want to add in some 'wiggle room', they'll initiate main deployment higher than 2k, and EPs immediately after if needed. In terms of an AAD, they can all be adjusted to fire higher than the 750 ft default setting. The problem then is that you increase the risk of a two-out if your main snivels into your AAD firing altitude. If you did adjust your AAD, you would want to also 'adjust' your main deployment altitude up to match. Hey thanks for your interest but I don't usually bother with forums because there is always someone who wants to just get into some sort of personal debate or argument and unless you work for a container manufacturer I don't see any reason for you to argue the other corner. My first post was deliberately worded as information encouraging people to start questioning and therefore learning about what they have just assumed. If the customers don't ask then container manufacturers will never bother. Please check out the PIA web site and the new additions to the TSO system TS118/112 this is the start of performance standards for containers and the use of AAD's. By the way you cannot set the Hard deck on a Cypres, you can tell it lies about the altitude of your intended drop zone if you want. But the point is owners don't have the information anyway. I don't want to be rude, but my efforts have been directed towards the Manufacturers and by being an active member of the UK riggers committee. I even spent two days in Germany recently to discuss some of these issues.with Airtec. We can all do our selves a favor by directing some of the energy spent on forum debate towards the Manufacturers themselves. Forums are great to share information and for support.
  14. The grounding is lifted, should have included that in my first post sorry :) Aerodyne say "the grounding is expected to be lifted". But it has not been lifted yet BPA communication with Aerodyne less than 1 hour ago.
  15. QuoteCommunication with Aerodyne today by the BPA.. Aerodyne claim it will be lifted but it has not been lifted yet. Less than 1 hour ago