Analyze This ...

[ChangoLanzao 0]

I recently received a rig to repack and found this.

[Nelyubin 0]

You're kidding?

[ChangoLanzao 0]

No ... really. I'm not kidding. I popped it and then pulled on the bridle, lifted the bag slowly and felt some resistance ... so I took a closer look.

Scary, huh?

[Nelyubin 0]

Not terribly. Terrible ...

Cut to the rigger ears, for the most eggs.

If it does not protest against the location of cartridge Cypres.

[sid 1]

The "trapped" line is to the outside of the cutter (not trapped between the closing loop and the cable channel) and would almost certainly have just slipped off during deployment. BUT it was sloppy, and really sloppy isn't good enough - I found this a couple of years ago http://www.sidsrigging.com/riggers/whats_wrong.htm - let's be careful out there riggers..... please! Rigger Please!

Pete Draper,

Just because my life plan is written on the back of a Hooter's Napkin, it's still a life plan.... right?

[Glitch 0]

I'm assumming you spoke to the rigger who packed it... what was his/her reaction?

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[skybeergodd 0]

I have seen that before when on the Javelin containers. It can happen when riggers get sloppy putting the bag and risers in. Especially if they leave too much line hanging out between the top of the riser and the stow pocket on the bag.

[riggerpaul 1]

I wish I could see more detail in the darker areas of the picture, especially right around the cutter.

There seems to be something else besides the trapped line crossing the cutter.

Can you tell us what that is?

To be clear, you are telling us that that mess of lines was the way it was in the container?

Depending on what I cannot really see in the picture, I might tend to agree with Sid - this is sloppy in the extreme, but it would likely have slipped off.

Still, there's little excuse for such a mess. We should all strive to do better, much better.

Sure hope it wasn't mine.

[irishrigger 32]

i have also come across a case like this,it is indeed a sloppy packjob,but i also agree that it would propably slip off on deployment.
but looking at the pic further,(although not a great pic),it looks to me like the closing loop is looped around the cutter??? and its not very clear,but did the loop actually go through the cutter itself?

i always closely inspect a reserve on opening,to see if there is anything untowards with it.
well spotted and hopefully we wont find anymore of these things.

blue skies

rodger

[councilman24 37]

Is the closing loop wrapped around the cutter too? It's hard to tell.

Frankly, I've found much worse than this. This would probably work. I've found things that wouldn't.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[ChangoLanzao 0]

  Quote

I wish I could see more detail in the darker areas of the picture, especially right around the cutter.

There seems to be something else besides the trapped line crossing the cutter.

Can you tell us what that is?

To be clear, you are telling us that that mess of lines was the way it was in the container?

Depending on what I cannot really see in the picture, I might tend to agree with Sid - this is sloppy in the extreme, but it would likely have slipped off.

Here's a better pic, I hope.

Yes, this is the way it was in the container. I gently lifted the bag straight out, simulating a stable deployment. It did slip off, but it looked a little ugly. Who knows what could happen if the bag gets pulled out hard from the jumper's right at terminal. It seems at least a possibility that the line could have bitten the closing loop and prevented things from clearing as smoothly as we would like.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

  Quote

Is the closing loop wrapped around the cutter too? It's hard to tell.

Frankly, I've found much worse than this. This would probably work. I've found things that wouldn't.

Yes, that's the closing loop wrapped around the cutter.

[Nelyubin 0]

1) Can slide off.
2) Can will not slide off.
3) Can tear off a cutter torch.

It is all the same packed inaccuratly.
Rigger has unequivocally badly made the work.

[riggerpaul 1]

Thanks, now I can see much better.

Pretty sad.

Glad the jumper didn't need a functional AAD.

I'll also bet the rigger had to crank down pretty hard to close it, what with the closing loop being about an inch shorter than he was thinking.

How long did that closing loop turn out to be?

I still can't tell exactly which container it is. Please tell us.

[Unstable 9]

I agree - you would think that the rigger would miss that extra 1" of the closing loop when he tried to close those last two flaps...... Honestly, I made this mistake before, but I caught it myself long before I came close to closing the container.

=========Shaun ==========

[ChangoLanzao 0]

  Quote

Thanks, now I can see much better.

Pretty sad.

Glad the jumper didn't need a functional AAD.

I'll also bet the rigger had to crank down pretty hard to close it, what with the closing loop being about an inch shorter than he was thinking.

How long did that closing loop turn out to be?

I still can't tell exactly which container it is. Please tell us.

Pull force was ok when I popped it. I made a replacement closing loop that was about 1/2" shorter and it turned out good. Javelin.

[hookitt 1]

  Quote

Glad the jumper didn't need a functional AAD.

It would function. The loop would cut, the pilot chute would still launch.

The suspension line would probably just slide off but it also may have pulled much of that line out of the stow before doing so.

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[riggerpaul 1]

  Quote

  Quote

Glad the jumper didn't need a functional AAD.

It would function. The loop would cut, the pilot chute would still launch.

The suspension line would probably just slide off but it also may have pulled much of that line out of the stow before doing so.

OP. can you tell us if the closing loop was through the cutter?

From the second picture, it is not clear to me that the closing loop goes through the cutter.

You can see the loop coming out of the grommet and over the cutter, but I can't tell if it actually goes through the cutter or not.

If it does go through this cutter, this cutter would have to be rotated 180 degrees and the closing loop would have to be entering the top of the cutter, not the bottom. That's not impossible, but I cannot tell if that's what it is from the picture.

Hookitt, please look at that second picture again and see if see what I am talking about.

[ficus 0]

  Quote

You can see the loop coming out of the grommet and over the cutter, but I can't tell if it actually goes through the cutter or not.

I can pretty easily see the back side of the hole in the cutter, and more hole behind the closing loop for that matter.

I don't think you would see the closing loop wrap the cutter at all unless it was in fact going through the hole. I'm pretty sure tension on the loop is what rotated the cutter 180 degrees such that the loop is entering it from the top.

[riggerpaul 1]

  Quote

  Quote

You can see the loop coming out of the grommet and over the cutter, but I can't tell if it actually goes through the cutter or not.

I can pretty easily see the back side of the hole in the cutter, and more hole behind the closing loop for that matter.

I don't think you would see the closing loop wrap the cutter at all unless it was in fact going through the hole. I'm pretty sure tension on the loop is what rotated the cutter 180 degrees such that the loop is entering it from the top.

Your monitor must be better than mine, but I see it now. Thanks.

Bearing that in mind, my estimate of how much short the closing loop would seem is incorrect.

This makes OP's comment that he shortened the loop 1/2" make more sense.

Thanks, all, for straightening me out.

[hookitt 1]

My monitors are great. It looks exactly like it's going through the cutter. If that's how it was, it's not correct by any means but it would work.

My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto

[riggerpaul 1]

I never said anything about the quality of yourmonitor. I only said that Ficus' monitor was better than mine. I had to turn my brightness up to see what both of you saw. By the way, I have a Samsung SyncMaster 213T, which was a damn fine monitor when it was new, but might be less than perfect now. Then there's the question of my old eyes.

Anyway, yes, I see now that it is through the cutter, and the cutter would certainly have been able to cut the loop.

So let's just forget the comment about the AAD being non-functional.

Any theory on how the cutter got turned over?

Right now, I wonder if he threaded it from top to bottom for ease, and then failed to get it in the correct orientation after that.

I'm having a hard time believing it would rotate like this during closing.

[JohnDeere 0]

Not a rigger...... maybe the closing loop after routed through (from the bottom) the closing loop looped back under the cutter. So when closing the pack job put tension on the closing loop and twisted it 180 deg??? That is the only thing that i can think of that would make sence. If the rigger threaded it from the top, then i would think he would just be lazy.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[riggerrob 643]

I might tend to agree with Sid - this is sloppy in the extreme, but it would likely have slipped off.

......................................................................

Not defending the original rigger, but I have seen WAAAAAAY sloppier than this.

[riggerpaul 1]

  Quote

Not a rigger...... maybe the closing loop after routed through (from the bottom) the closing loop looped back under the cutter. So when closing the pack job put tension on the closing loop and twisted it 180 deg??? That is the only thing that i can think of that would make sence. If the rigger threaded it from the top, then i would think he would just be lazy.

So, you are suggesting that this rigger was NOT lazy?

I've seen cutters with a loop around them. I haven't seen one that looks like this.

Doesn't mean it cannot happen. I just find it unlikely.