MUST READ - Airtec Issues Rigging Safety Notice for CYPRES AAD - 10/29/2010

[riggerpaul 1]

(Not responding to NovaTTT, just following his post.)

I am not completely certain that it is a good thing to say that AADs begin the deployment of a parachute.

I realize that this is being pedantic.

I want to say that I don't mean to argue with MEL or NovaTTT or anybody.

But I know I want to discuss it more.

---

If we say that an AAD begins the deployment of a parachute, what does it mean when the parachute fails to deploy after the AAD "fires"?

We all know that there are situations where a loop-cutter-type AAD doesn't actually make anything open. We've likely all seen the video of the Mirage with the too-long closing loop. That rig locked up after the cutter fired. Had the deployment begun? The flaps were all in place - the pilot chute was still inside the rig. Had the deployment begun?

Even in the case of a pin-puller AAD, we've seen that pins break, and the rigs don't open.

If we say that AADs open parachutes, or even if we say that they begin deployments, aren't we inviting people to have an unrealistic impression of what the AAD will do for them?

As far as we are concerned, isn't this unrealistic impression what has led to the current lawsuit against Airtec?

Bearing all this in mind, wouldn't we be much better off if we were all very careful about what we say an AAD does?

A pin puller tries to pull a pin. A loop cutter tries to cut a loop.

Even if the incorrect impression never leads to a lawsuit, shouldn't we be as accurate as we can so that all the people we talk to about these things has a realistic understanding of what we get when we use these safety devices?

If we don't set expectations correctly, aren't we just inviting people to give us grief when what we said would happen, doesn't?

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Through fault or misfortune, an AAD firing indicates a skydiver failed to save himself.

Which is exactly why skydivers install AAD's, for that simple mistake or failure!

Quote

With positive action one anticipates positive results - one expects the reserve to begin deploying when the handle is pulled.

One could consider installing an AAD a positive action also.....

Quote

The AAD is designed to initiate the deployment sequence but it cannot be considered fail-safe or infallable, regardless of a successful firing.

I never rely on them, but do expect if installed, to be installed correctly.

Cheers,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[NovaTTT 2]

Did you understand my post? I'm not anti-AAD, but I don't pretend it is a guarantee. The AAD represents a possibility - the reserve might deploy successfully if one does nothing to save onesself.

There are a number of incidents that prove to us that an AAD is not a certain saviour. This doesn't mean we shouldn't choose to use an AAD, but neither should we pretend it's a magic bullet.

The AAD is designed to fire in the basement, moments before impact. The concept is to set it and forget it, not set it and rely on it. It is a last hope.

Of course, it's the rigger's job to install the thing correctly. There is just no good excuse for a mis-rigged AAD.

Quote

Quote

Did the skydiver save himself by pulling the reserve handle if the reserve was packed by sombody else?

Seriously? That line of reasoning became passe in grammar school; I wouldn't want to rely on that logic as a defense in court.

"But Your Honour, I didn't load the gun! I only pulled the trigger!"

Quote

Quote

People keep repeating this about AADs while they don't seem to remember that same is also true for your reserve and rigger who packed it.

All I can say is, choose your rigger.

And if one can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. There's a bowling alley next door.

Quote

@Paul:

I understand where you're coming from, but pulling the pin or cutting the loop is the first step in deployment so we can probably just say deployment has been initiated.

That's not to say deployment is proceeding, or will complete. There are many factors that can inhibit a clean AAD reserve deployment, just as there are with a ripcord activation. But there is certainly one less impediment when the ripcord is pulled.

I say, let's just make sure, as riggers, that any incidents are not caused by our actions, mistakes or omissions.

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[JerryBaumchen 1,446]

Hi Mark,

Quote

but do expect if installed, to be installed correctly.

I am with you on that.

Another wrinkle that might work against AirTec. Let us say that Joe Builder develops a new rig, the WhizBanger 6. He locates where he wants the AAD to be & then sends it off to AirTec for their 'approval.' But after they ( AirTec ) run a few tests they tell Joe Builder that he must relocate the cutter and then they will 'approve' the installation. So Joe Builder relocates the cutter per AirTec's instructions and all is well with the world.

Now, some jumper goes humming along without pulling, the AAD fires but the canopy only begins to deploy as he impacts.

Now along come the lawyers ( we only hate them when they are doing something we don't like; we love them when they are doing what we do like ) and they see some problems ( similar to what is described in this latest lawsuit ) plus they now say that AirTec is further liable because they required that the cutter be relocated. And then they 'approved' the configuration.

If I were making an AAD, I would call it a Loop Cutter only and I would allow the rig mfr to put it anywhere he wanted. This 'approval' by AirTec IMO is just asking for more problems.

Thoughts out there in dz.com-Land?????

OK, down off of my soap-box,

JerryBaumchen

[labrys 0]

Quote

The bottom line is that a deployment of a reserve parachute is a chain of events that either can be started by cutting the loop or pulling the pin.

This is true, of course. I will try to explain my feelings about the difference. I can inspect my equipment, look at the reserve closing pin through the loop, see that the loop isn't frayed, the seal is intact, and the pin is firmly seated. I can, I think, be reasonably sure that when I pull my reserve handle I am making an "informed" attempt at a reserve deployment.

I can't be sure my rigger hasn't mis-rigged anything, but I've done my part.

I can't say that about the AAD, really. I can't see what's going on under the flaps, I can't inspect anything but the control unit. All one can do, IMO, is accept that the thing is supposed to cut your closing loop if you need it.

I do see a difference:

If someone pulls a reserve handle they have attempted to deploy a reserve.

If an AAD fires, it has not attempted to deploy the reserve, it has fired. In normal cases when it fires, it cuts a closing loop.

People have intent and machines do not. I guess if I take these thoughts forward, it could carry right into the idea that AADs don't even cut closing loops, they just perform a mechanical cutting activity when they work properly.

Bottom line, I think that anthropomorphizing a machine like an AAD by thinking that it's deploying a reserve is a frame of mind best avoided.

Owned by Remi #?

[mjosparky 4]

The problem I see is we have produced a generation of jumpers that haven’t got a clue. They don’t know their gear or how it works. They can’t be bothered reading a manual. I know jumpers with 1000+ jumps that can’t tell you what the component parts of system or what they do. When was the last time you know of a student washing out a program. Are we so good that we can teach 100% of the people who what to jump to it safely and survive. We have so many bozos around now that it is not safe on the ground much less the air. Jmo (rant over for now)

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[metalslug 36]

Quote

The problem I see is we have produced a generation of jumpers that haven’t got a clue. They don’t know their gear or how it works. They can’t be bothered reading a manual. I know jumpers with 1000+ jumps that can’t tell you what the component parts of system or what they do. When was the last time you know of a student washing out a program. Are we so good that we can teach 100% of the people who what to jump to it safely and survive. We have so many bozos around now that it is not safe on the ground much less the air. Jmo (rant over for now)

In your opinion; how much gear knowledge should be enough for a student to complete a program ?
Should we include a comprehensive rigging chapter into the FJC beyond that which is already covered ?

From your own words in a previous post; even certified riggers can make "mistakes". All the rigging knoweldge in the world will not make one immune to a skydiving incident. Even the percentage chance of improving your incident odds through rigging knowledge is, well, debatable.

[Hellis 0]

Quote

The problem I see is we have produced a generation of jumpers that haven’t got a clue. They don’t know their gear or how it works. They can’t be bothered reading a manual. I know jumpers with 1000+ jumps that can’t tell you what the component parts of system or what they do. When was the last time you know of a student washing out a program. Are we so good that we can teach 100% of the people who what to jump to it safely and survive. We have so many bozos around now that it is not safe on the ground much less the air. Jmo (rant over for now)

Sparky

This post is not directed at you Sparky.

And how does this add up with the other thread about FJC time?
Right now, the numbers show ~50% had 5 hours or less.
I know the poll is a bit off since some of those who answerd jumped rounds and i asume there was not much talk about how a wing works and how to fly it.
To properly show and explain all parts of the gear takes about 2-3 hours, right?

Yes i agree, some jumpers dont have a clue, i see that here on DZ.
When i was still a student i read a gearquestion a guy with 300 jumps had, and i knew the answer.
But if its a problem why not take care of it wile you can? When they are still students.
Once they get their mad skills they either dont need the knowledge or dont care since they made it this far.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

In your opinion; how much gear knowledge should be enough for a student to complete a program ?

Total - and by "completing a program" I take it to mean "cleared for self-supervision".

Quote

Should we include a comprehensive rigging chapter into the FJC beyond that which is already covered ?

No

Quote

All the rigging knoweldge in the world will not make one immune to a skydiving incident.

True enough

Quote

Even the percentage chance of improving your incident odds through rigging knowledge is, well, debatable.

I would argue this. Knowledge is power.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Another wrinkle that might work against AirTec. Let us say that Joe Builder develops a new rig, the WhizBanger 6. He locates where he wants the AAD to be & then sends it off to AirTec for their 'approval.' But after they ( AirTec ) run a few tests they tell Joe Builder that he must relocate the cutter and then they will 'approve' the installation. So Joe Builder relocates the cutter per AirTec's instructions and all is well with the world.

Jerry,
Until AirTec gets a TSO on their units, (this is an action item with the FAA BTW), all approvals of that nature will have to be approved by the H/C manufacturer as I hear it.

The sceniro that you present has "probably" already played out in several different incidents.

http://www.pia.com/piapubs/ServiceBulletins/SkydiverAdvisory3-31-2010.pdf



The one that really stands out is this one-

http://www.pia.com/piapubs/PIA-180FAQ.pdf


This is with regards to the tandem double fatality in Garrettsville,OH.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3678254;page=5;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;



Cheers,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

I do see a difference:

If someone pulls a reserve handle they have attempted to deploy a reserve.

If an AAD fires, it has not attempted to deploy the reserve, it has fired. In normal cases when it fires, it cuts a closing loop.

Absoluetly no differences in the above...

Both actions are attempts to activate, deploy, initate,etc...the reserve.

Quote

People have intent and machines do not.....

Machines have intended purposes given to them by humans. Therefore, they in fact do have intent.

Quote

Bottom line, I think that anthropomorphizing a machine like an AAD by thinking that it's deploying a reserve is a frame of mind best avoided.

As far as anthropomorphizing, I never gave an AAD any human traits.

I never said that an AAD carries out the full deployment, it merely starts the chain of events of deployment, just like pulling a ripcord does.

That is if it is installed correctly,etc...

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

The one that really stands out is this one-

http://www.pia.com/piapubs/PIA-180FAQ.pdf

How does the 180-day rule come into play?

[metalslug 36]

Quote

In your opinion; how much gear knowledge should be enough for a student to complete a program ?

Quote

Total - and by "completing a program" I take it to mean "cleared for self-supervision".

Can you more closely define what "Total" is ?
Total, to me, is everything that a master rigger would know, and then some. Is this the level of rigging knowledge that you believe all students should have before completing a student program?

Keep in mind that the incident that triggered this thread was a student fatality; someone who would not have "Total" gear knowledge even under the best of student training programs.

Quote

Should we include a comprehensive rigging chapter into the FJC beyond that which is already covered ?

Quote

No

Then given your answer; What would be your suggestion on how students could acquire "Total" knowledge of their gear without extending the FJC ?

Quote

Even the percentage chance of improving your incident odds through rigging knowledge is, well, debatable.

Quote

I would argue this. Knowledge is power.

True enough, but where would we set a feasible training balance ?
How many incidents in recent years can be directly attributed to "bozos" that "don’t know their gear or how it works". A high percentage? Nope.
More skydivers die under good canopies than under faulty rigging.
Should we also add an advanced canopy control course to student training along with the extra rigging course and the FJC ?

On planet Utopia, yes we should, but I'm pretty sure the extended time, expense and resources required from both the students and the DZ to go through all of this before completing a student program would significantly shrink both the community and the "business".

When compared to a certified expert, I know little about medicine, law or parachute rigging.
So, I get a lawyer to work my case, a doctor to perform my surgery and a rigger to pack my reserve.
I do this not only because I trust them, but because I cannot legally perform their job myself anyway.
If either of them make a mistake, I would not find myself blaming my own lack of medicine, law or rigging knowledge, but rather my lack of judgement in selecting these inferior professionals over more reputable one's.

[labrys 0]

Quote

I never said that an AAD carries out the full deployment

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you at all.

You have 10x the number of jumps that I have and probably well over 10x the knowledge of skydiving. I have absolutely no doubt that you know what you're doing and I didn't claim that you said anything.

My concerns are addressed to less experienced jumpers who seem to have the "AADs deploy reserves" frame of mind.

We can argue about semantics and mechanical function and in the end, from a strictly logical point of view, I agree that what you've said is true and you win...

But if one person reads this and leaves with a better attitude about who really needs to deploy their reserve themselves, I'm good with that.

Owned by Remi #?

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

How many incidents in recent years can be directly attributed to "bozos" that "don’t know their gear or how it works". A high percentage? Nope.

I see a good deal of stuff that could easily become an incident, were it not for the fact that I spotted it on the packing floor before it went into the air for another chance to become an incident.

Wear and tear on rigs is a serious thing, and too many jumpers are clueless about such things.

Worn steering lines break, and people have to decide how to handle the situation. The best thing would have been if they understood their gear well enough to realize that service was needed.

Twisted brake lines can cause tension knots. Again, an understanding of gear would help the person avoid a reserve ride.

These are just two examples from the endless list.

Nobody said that every jumper needs to be a master rigger. But every jumper should understand his gear well enough that he can determine when he has a problem that needs attention.

In the case of the first jump student, that's not possible. So we try hard to make sure that the student gear won't suffer from the sorts of problems that would require that in-depth gear knowledge.

But once a jumper owns his own gear, he should absolutely be able to tell me if it needs work or not.

Too often, that is not the case.

[masterrigger1 2]

Paul,
The 180 Day document was issued by PIA, but in reality, Cliff Schmucker of SSK for the Airtec Cypres.

There was a double fatality apparently from someone installing a Cypres battery and reclosing the container improperly. It captured the double sided RSL as per Nancy's report.

One could say that it was done using the document from PIA.

There is some verbage in some of the eariler Regs (adopted from the Military) that state that ..."parachute packing should be a continous,uninterrupted operation.

If you have a earlier PPM, you will find evidence of that in 9.3.1.1 in the last paragraph.

This something the FAA is still working on resolving.


MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Paul,
The 180 Day document was issued by PIA, but in reality, Cliff Schmucker of SSK for the Airtec Cypres.

There was a double fatality apparently from someone installing a Cypres battery and reclosing the container improperly. It captured the double sided RSL as per Nancy's report.

One could say that it was done using the document from PIA.

There is some verbage in some of the eariler Regs (adopted from the Military) that state that ..."parachute packing should be a continous,uninterrupted operation.

If you have a earlier PPM, you will find evidence of that in 9.3.1.1 in the last paragraph.

This something the FAA is still working on resolving.


MEL

Thanks!

Capturing the RSL on a Racer could happen whenever someone works on a Racer with the main still in place.

It isn't the re-closing that is at fault, it is the not understanding the rig that is at fault.

Me, my skills are such that I prefer that the main is not in the container when I do a repack. But the master at the dz where I work is fine to do an I&R with the main in place, and lots of the customers prefer it that way.

Do the regs or recommendations say anything about this one way or the other?

Anyway, sure, not allowing a re-close might address the problem to some extent, but the real bigger problem is that the rigger does not have the knowledge to correctly do the work he has done.

Prohibiting a re-close masks that problem - it doesn't solve it. The rigger who has that problem will surely find other ways to have his problem manifest itself.

When I read that last paragraph of 9.3.1.1 (yes, I have an older Poynter manual), what I got from it is not that a re-close should be prohibited. What I got is that when you are working on a parachute, you should not leave the parachute unattended, as it could be disturbed in a manner that is not obvious. That's good advice, but not necessarily applicable in all situations. If I am packing a parachute at home, for instance, I am alone, the pets are outside, and there is no way for the parachute to be disturbed even if I take a break. Continuous oversight is not necessary if it is impossible that a disturbance could occur, is it?

That section also talks about the order of operations. A lot of it seems to presuppose that rigging is done in a loft where there are other people working, and possibly customers walking around to disturb the process. Again, that's often the case. But it is not always the case.

If I inspect a parachute, and then I put it into a container and on the shelf to be packed sometime later, have I broken any rule? Do you think that I should not be allowed to do it that way?

[NovaTTT 2]

Quote

Quote

how much gear knowledge should be enough for a student to complete a program ?

A FJC student generally should know the basic components and layout of the system and specifically should know about the three (or two) handles and when and how to use them.

No point in going further as there will be little or no retention and there is the issue of 'overfilling the bucket' to consider.

Quote

Quote

Should we include a comprehensive rigging chapter into the FJC beyond that which is already covered ?

(see above) No. Comprehensive rigging training should be for those who aspire to become riggers. Subsequent to that, there is no shortage of learning opportunities.

Insofar as the student progression is concerned, I believe any and all students who graduate the program should have a basic understanding of their gear, the components, how it works, how it is assembled and how to perform routine maintenance.

Let's remember it's a process with no end; hopefully we're all continuing learning.

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[BrianM 1]

Quote

But the master at the dz where I work is fine to do an I&R with the main in place,

He may be doing a fine R, but he sure as hell isn't doing a proper I. Sounds like a good rigger to avoid.

"It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

But the master at the dz where I work is fine to do an I&R with the main in place,

He may be doing a fine R, but he sure as hell isn't doing a proper I. Sounds like a good rigger to avoid.

What can he not inspect?

[billvon 3,080]

>What can he not inspect?

The grommets on the main loop anchor, for one. That's killed at least one jumper.

[grimmie 186]

Bill, I was thinking the same thing.
Gear knowledge is pretty poor these days. Beyond what colors to put on their rig and canopy, a lot of newer jumpers don't know much about the equipment. We all know folks with 1,000's of jumps that couldn't pack their main if they had too.
Any rigger can make a mistake and we don't have x-ray vision to see what is under the reserve flaps.
But I do think learning about properly seated grommets, worn out soft links, closing loop wear, properly hooked up three rings, checking the movement in the cable housings for debris after a dirt crash landing, steering line wear, container wear, properly set pilot chutes and kill line wear, etc all can save our life someday.
All little items we can teach "A" license jumpers along their way to a safe, fun skydiving adventure.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

>What can he not inspect?

The grommets on the main loop anchor, for one. That's killed at least one jumper.

I'll mention that to him.

The work area is small, and I don't get to watch him do an I&R. If we are working at the same time, I'm am in the main packing area, and he is up in his loft.

So I don't know that he doesn't open, look, close and continue with the reserve I&R.

All I said is that he is okay to have the main in the container when he packs the reserve.

That really doesn't say he isn't inspecting the whole rig.

But, as I said, I'll mention it to him.

Thanks!

[mjosparky 4]

I think you know exactly what I mean and you are just trying to argue. No students don’t have to learn advanced rigging skills but they should have a basic understanding of the gear and how each part works. For this to happen it takes time invested by both the student and the instructor. In today’s puppy mills time is hard to come by. We need to take the time to teach students to take the time to learn.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[riggerpaul 1]

And I'll add to what mjosparky said again -

When the person gets to owning his own gear, he should know enough to know when something need attention.

Way too many that I see don't. They get a license, they get a rig, and they stop packing. Many seem to hardly ever look at the rig they are using again. That's not good.

Now with the 180 day I&R, there's more reason then ever before to know enough to at least know when the rig needs attention.

(Now, this side-thread has little to do with the original Airtec notice. And I recognize that nothing the owner can do helps to catch a loop that isn't through the cutter, but owners should still know more than most seem to know about their gear.)