Bent pin

[Hooknswoop 19]

Yesterday, I was going to supervise someone re-packing a reserve. The rig wasn't their, but a friend's. We started the paperwork and popped the reserve. I asked if the ripcord handle had any markings on it indicating whether or not SB CW-03-01 had been applied. It didn't. I checked the handle and it had been manufactured in 2002. Then he explained that a rigger at a DZ they had gone to had tried to bend it with their hand and when it didn't bend, signed it off on their waiver and they were allowed to jump. I looked over the pin and it was bent. It was the off-set pin style, like in the picture on page 2 of the SB. Instead of the pin being angled downward like the picture, it was bent up, past the plane of the swaged shoulder. I called the manufacturer and we agreed that 1) the ripcord was grounded and 2) it was most likely caused by the rigger trying to bend the pin by hand. Because the ripcord was probably fine until the rigger applied their own field test, they felt they shouldn't have to supply a new ripcord at their cost. I agreed and feel that the rigger should pay for it. The rig was grounded as of 15 July 2003 until the SB was complied with and had been packed after that date, without the SB being completed.

The rig should not have been packed after July 15th without the SB being completed.

The rigger that did the hand 'field test' should not have done that, nor allowed the rig to be jumped, nor neglected to enter any information on the packing data card.

The rigger that did the 'field test' could not or did not detect that the pin was bent. I have no way of knowing how many, if any, other pins were bent by the rigger's 'field test'.

The rig is down until a new ripcord can be ordered and shipped. There was probably nothing wrong with the ripcord before the 'field test' was applied.

If your pin has not been tested according to CW-03-01, get it done.

The SB is here: CW-03-01

FAQ's , is Capewell's FAQ's for CW-03-01. FAQ #10, explains that Capewell will send a rigger the block described in CW-03-10 for free.

Derek

[tombuch 0]

Quote

The rig was grounded as of 15 July 2003 until the SB was complied with and had been packed after that date, without the SB being completed.

The rig should not have been packed after July 15th without the SB being completed.

The rigger that did the hand 'field test' should not have done that, nor allowed the rig to be jumped,

I gotta disagree.

The Capewell field test is NOT mandatory. Some dropzones, mine included (The Ranch) do not require this test, but strongly suggest it as a repack service item.

We initially did the test requested by Capewell with the required 15 pounds of force, but we bent a pin and our other customers didn't want the test done after that. We offered Capewll an opportunity to drive about 120 miles to visit us and and explain the problem and the test to our 500 club members, but they declined.

At The Ranch we made the testing service available at no charge for three weeks, posted the Capewell notice at manifest, and announced the testing service over the PA four times on six weekend days. We also discussed the pin failure and testing throughout the DZ so our club members and guests would understand the issue, and then we let them make their own informed decisions. It is really the customers choice unless a specific rigger wants to require the test.

One option suggested by several riggers and manufacturers I spoke with was to simply push or press on the pin with LESS than about 15 pounds of force, so I suspect some riggers and some rig owners have done that as an option short of the official test.

I don't know what rigger or DZ you are talking about, but I support the decision not to do the formal test if a customer is advised of the risks and declines the testing. If the test isn't done, it obviously shouldn't be listed on the card.

As for the bend on your customers ripcord pin, it may have been there before the pin was handled by the other rigger, or it may have happened since.

Tom Buchanan
Sr. Parachute Rigger
Safety and Training Advisor
Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[Shivon 0]

Regardless of wether the pin was bent before or during the test, I wouldn't feel comfortable packing a bent pin. For Hooknswoop - are you going to give the rigger a call? I would be interested to hear what his/her attitude is to what has happened.

[sundevil777 102]

We should not have to worry about 15 or even 50 pounds bending a pin. That is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

My more complete diatribe:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=578265;#578265

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

I gotta disagree.

The Capewell field test is NOT mandatory. Some dropzones, mine included (The Ranch) do not require this test, but strongly suggest it as a repack service item.

Just to clarify:
Capewell says the test is MANDATORY;
The FAA says it is RECOMMENDED.
Seems odd to me.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I gotta disagree.

The Capewell field test is NOT mandatory. Some dropzones, mine included (The Ranch) do not require this test, but strongly suggest it as a repack service item.

You are correct. Technically it is not mandatory. There is the grey area of 'manufacturer's instructions', but that is thin.

Quote

We initially did the test requested by Capewell with the required 15 pounds of force, but we bent a pin and our other customers didn't want the test done after that.

I can understand that they don't want their pin bent, but i would think they would want to make sure that their pin is OK too. Except for this pin, the 2 or 3 others that failed the test were replaced by the manufacturer for free.

Quote

We offered Capewll an opportunity to drive about 120 miles to visit us and and explain the problem and the test to our 500 club members, but they declined.

I do feel their FAQ's answered most of my questions, except for the '.005-inch bend criteria'.

Quote

At The Ranch we made the testing service available at no charge for three weeks, posted the Capewell notice at manifest, and announced the testing service over the PA four times on six weekend days. We also discussed the pin failure and testing throughout the DZ so our club members and guests would understand the issue, and then we let them make their own informed decisions. It is really the customers choice unless a specific rigger wants to require the test.

You have definately informed the jumpers.

Quote

One option suggested by several riggers and manufacturers I spoke with was to simply push or press on the pin with LESS than about 15 pounds of force, so I suspect some riggers and some rig owners have done that as an option short of the official test.

It looks like at least one rigger 'gorllia'd' a reserve pin. It is too easy to put a apring scale on the pin and know for sure. TSO requirements require that the pin take 22 lbs and still be usable for later tests.

Quote

I don't know what rigger or DZ you are talking about, but I support the decision not to do the formal test if a customer is advised of the risks and declines the testing. If the test isn't done, it obviously shouldn't be listed on the card.

Riggers are required to note any work done on the reserve card. This wasn't done in this case.

Quote

As for the bend on your customers ripcord pin, it may have been there before the pin was handled by the other rigger, or it may have happened since.

I assembled the rig, it had been re-packed once by another rigger, and then the pin 'inspected' by a third rigger. He has put himself in a bad position by trying to bend the pin by hand and either bending it and not realizing thaat he bent it, or if it was previously bent, not noticing it. Obviously his 'field test' isn't working becaus ehte pin was bent and he OK'd it.

I am going to try to contact the rigger, but it depends on if the owner of the rig knows who it was, which I don't think they do.

Very few skydiving gear Service Bullitines become AD's which make them FAA-mandated. I think we should treaty manufacturer SB's as FAA AD's.

Derek

[riggerrob 643]

I gotta disagree.

The Capewell field test is NOT mandatory. Some dropzones, mine included (The Ranch) do not require this test, but strongly suggest it as a repack service item.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes the un-named rigger goofed.

However when did the Ranch become more powerful than the FAA?

The third line of Capewell's SB says the inspection is "MANDATORY."
If individual clients decided to ignore an SB, it is their lives.
Just don't ask me to repack anything with an outstanding SB, AD, etc.

Did you read the part in the FARs about "maintaining in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions?"

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Quote

I gotta disagree.

The Capewell field test is NOT mandatory. Some dropzones, mine included (The Ranch) do not require this test, but strongly suggest it as a repack service item.

You are correct. Technically it is not mandatory. There is the grey area of 'manufacturer's instructions', but that is thin.

Not thin at all. The "Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin" from the FAA dated August 21, 2003 says clearly "...Due to the potential consequences of a failed pin, the FAA strongly recommends all parachute users inspect their ripcord pins in accordance with the Capewell Service Bulletin."

Clearly, the test is not mandatory, but simply recommended by the FAA. No gray. No thin line.

I agree that everybody should have the test done, but at The Ranch we really try to let our members make their own decisions. We mandated the test for three days, bent a pin, received complaints from our membership, and then increased training but made the test optional. In a short while all rigs will have been packed by a rigger, or penciled by the owner. I suspect most of those actually repacked will be tested by the rigger. I'll probably do an informal survey of our most active riggers to see if they are actually doing the test at repack.

Tom Buchanan
S&TA, The Ranch

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

In a short while all rigs will have been packed by a rigger, or penciled by the owner.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[NightJumper 0]

Quote

Clearly, the test is not mandatory, but simply recommended by the FAA. No gray. No thin line.

That's a joke right? hehehahaha

If you have a rig fail as a result of not following a recommendation from the FAA watch what happens. Think crucifixion!

And I would think that a DZ would be commiting legal suicide not to require the test.

[Hooknswoop 19]

You are right, I meant the argument about having to follow the manufacturer's instructions was thin (my argument).

It is required by the manufacturer, and recommended by the FAA. Is it a FAR violation to not do the test? No, it isn't. It is a violation to do an alternate, non-approved test and not log anything on the data card or personal logbook. It is definitely a bad idea to pull on the pin and see if it bends, especially if the bend goes undetected afterwards.

It would be a difficult position at best to defend if someone went in because a pin broke and the rigger hadn't completed this SB that had packed the rig. "I didn't feel it was necessary and I didn't want to bend the pin." Is going to sound very weak in the face of a fatality investigation.

We must remember, there is what is legal and what is right, and they don't always mesh. I can legally put a MA-1 reserve PC in my Micron, but I sure wouldn't.

Derek

[tombuch 0]

Quote

It is a violation to do an alternate, non-approved test and not log anything on the data card or personal logbook. It is definitely a bad idea to pull on the pin and see if it bends, especially if the bend goes undetected afterwards.

I don't consider pushing on a pin or moving a pin a test, it's more of a general field inspection, similar to a jumper asking if his three ring system is too tight and a rigger pulling the rings apart and moving them around, or perhaps dressing the exterior of a pop-top without pulling the pin. I don't think there was a consideration that the pin might bend under the low load applied by the rigger, and I suspect it didn't.

My hunch is that the pin was already bent through regular use and the rigger didn't see it. That's a failure on the part of the rigger, but probably not a really big deal or a life threat (I didn't see the pin, so I don't know how much bend there was). Pins do bend in regular use and some manufacturers don't consider a small bend to be a big deal. Heck, the Relative Workshop even told me a tandem reserve pin could be left alone or "unbent."

Quote

It would be a difficult position at best to defend if someone went in because a pin broke and the rigger hadn't completed this SB that had packed the rig. "I didn't feel it was necessary and I didn't want to bend the pin." Is going to sound very weak in the face of a fatality investigation.

I disagree. A rigger should not be performing a test that is only recommended if the customer specifically says not to.

The risk of a fatality here is very small. Consider: A tiny fraction of of a percent of pins have broken (about seven total, worldwide, I think). In order for a pin to cause a fatality it must break when needed, so not only must the pin be susceptible to breaking, the jumper must actually need to pull the reserve and the pin must break at that precise moment, under that specific load. Further, the jumper must NOT have an AAD, or the AAD must fail. It is highly unlikely that all these conditions will be met. I agree that pins should be tested, and mine have been even though they are outside of the date range. It is a good idea,

The argument I am making is that a jumper has the right to make an informed decision about how much risk he/she is willing to take. The jumper should be able to decide if the risk of bending an otherwise good pin and being forced to purchase a new ripcord assembly, is greater than the risk of a fatality if the pin is actually bad and remains untested. The FAA specifically left that decision to each "parachute user." Should a fatality happen because a pin broke when needed, a rigger should be able to say that the customer was clearly informed of the risk (it was published in Parachutist and Skydiving over several months, it was posted on the local dropzone web and on many other sites, posted on the DZ bulletin board, announced over the DZ PA system, testing was offered and encouraged at no charge), and still the individual jumper refused to have his pin tested, as was his legal right."

[NightJumper 0]

Quote

The argument I am making is that a jumper has the right to make an informed decision about how much risk he/she is willing to take.

No a jumper does not have that right, that is why we have BSR’s, FAA and DZ rules. A rigger has the right not to repack a reserve or pack the rig if you don't allow the test. And a DZ has the right to not allow you to jump there if you don't have the test done because it doesn’t matter how much risk the individual is willing to take as it may affect others as the result of a failure.

[riggerrob 643]

Individual - adult - jumpers should be responsible for their own gear between repacks.

However, if a jumper asks me to repack his reserve and NOT test the ripcord pin (assuming it was from the suspect batch) then he gets his rig back, unsealed, unsigned and unpacked.

If the rig was manufactured outside the suspect dates and there are no notes about ripcord replacement, etc. I do not waste my time testing ripcords.

[ZigZag 0]

Capewell issued detailed instructions for performing Test #2, and even the FAA sent me the Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (note to riggers: you must maintain a current address on file with the FAA ). The required load for Test #2 is 11 lbs. I have since tested numerous pins with the aluminum block and a calibrated 11 lb weight, and none of them have failed or bent. The pins may flex a bit during the test but do not take a set.
Most riggers are leary of Test #1, as it is quite easy to bend the pins at the 15 lb load specified for this test when performed incorrectly.
Anyway, getting a block of aluminum, drilling a plumb hole of correct size and mounting the jig was not really that much of a hassle. In fact, it was kinda fun getting up to date with a new security issue.
Now a rip cord pin-test ( #2 ) barely takes a minute, and I can sleep better, knowing that my customers'
rip cord pins are compliant.
The jig is not a hassle, but rather just another tool in a riggers arsenal in performing a vital airworthiness test. This is what riggers do!!!

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Anyway, getting a block of aluminum, drilling a plumb hole of correct size and mounting the jig was not really that much of a hassle. In fact, it was kinda fun getting up to date with a new security issue.

I got the block from Capewell today. They Fed-ex'd it, overnight! I has multiple holes for different length pins and is manufactured and labeled very nicely.

They will ship any rigger one of these blocks for free. A quick e-mail w/ some basic info and it showed up. There is a "Supplemental Instructions for Test #2" included witht the block. It simply says that the holes in the aluminum block need to be cleaned out with a #32 'jobber drill', by hand.

Quote

Most riggers are leary of Test #1, as it is quite easy to bend the pins at the 15 lb load specified for this test when performed incorrectly.

Para Flite has a note on their web page recommending against the use of test #1 and some cautions for test #2.

In reply to TomBuch-

I have to agreee with TomBuch;

Quote

The argument I am making is that a jumper has the right to make an informed decision about how much risk he/she is willing to take. The jumper should be able to decide if the risk of bending an otherwise good pin and being forced to purchase a new ripcord assembly, is greater than the risk of a fatality if the pin is actually bad and remains untested. The FAA specifically left that decision to each "parachute user." Should a fatality happen because a pin broke when needed, a rigger should be able to say that the customer was clearly informed of the risk (it was published in Parachutist and Skydiving over several months, it was posted on the local dropzone web and on many other sites, posted on the DZ bulletin board, announced over the DZ PA system, testing was offered and encouraged at no charge), and still the individual jumper refused to have his pin tested, as was his legal right."

But I hold in reserve my right no not re-pack a reserve unless I've tested the pin.

Derek

[ZigZag 0]

Just for clarity, the 3rd quote you are referring to is not my statement.
Ziggy