df8m1

This scares the shit out of me. The reason I don't use a Cypres and instead use a Vigil is because of Cypres's "trust us, our black box knows best" attitude that's certifiably gotten people killed already. At least with a Vigil I know exactly what the behavior is, and adjust settings as I see fit. The thing is it doesn't take a whole new AAD to do a really simple job - measure barometric pressure and fire when it detects enough speed at low enough altitude. So why do I need to know that my AAD just recalibrated? Are you solving a problem that doesn't exist? Often a drowning person will overcome their rescuer and they both end up drowning... now and then I will get messages from newer jumpers, (at sea level), after they receive their new altimeter, saying that it is a piece of crap because it reads 11,000Ft and not 0, ( I am at 980MSL). They rant and rave saying they are going to tell everyone yada yada.. I take a breath, and start to enplane how the altimeter works and that it was zeroed at 980 MSL and that they are very close sea level, so the altimeter is indicating a loss of 900+ft (+-) weather... The response is usually... Oh!..... sorry... I did not understand how it worked.... thank you so much for your patience...

Yes you are correct in what I am referring to. That "deep thought" is mainly based on the operational principals that a system, solly based on barometric reference, will have the tendency to do if it is pushed beyond its settings. And as I said, with device that can kill you, if it screws up, and does not know where it is, it should stop. There is a good discussion, although totally hypothetical given only a hand full of people really know the code that the other AADs run on, about how the single channel AADs make decisions, and determine if it needs to fire. After the "incident", Airtec adjusted some values to try and keep the Cypres code from getting confused, however they would not have abandoned the code that is susceptible to this problem. Not to say that a multi channel platform could not also have its issues, as every device that will ever be built will have, but having the ability to cross reference other channels greatly bolsters the awareness. The trick is keeping the complex as simple as possible. That being said, a single channel platform is as about as simple as you can get, and I tip my hat to the manufacturers that have figured out a way to get the AADs that are on the market to work as good as they do, and I mean that sincerely. It is a lot easier to make informed decisions when you have more information to work with, but it is easy to dround in information after a point. There is a balance.

In time I will provide more information on the differences with this AAD over others. Marketing is a tricky thing if you keep sex out of it lol... The instrumentation is not accessible to the jumper, it is used by the processor to determine what is should, or more importantly, shouldn't do. I am sure it would be an easier sell to the average person if I did not say anything about what is inside or what it does. That would reduce the "what do I need that for" response, and as long as it looked cool, that would help them over come the price lol.. but seriously I am a believer that people should buy what they feel most comfortable with. For some people that comfort comes from a lower price, and others it is what it offers. Unfortunately that gap is very difficult to bridge. Take me personally.. An AAD that can fire on a plane under any circumstances is not desirable to me, as are AADs that can get confused and lock up (as they should if they are confused, my point is they should not get confused in the first place). If I were looking to buy an AAD, I would look for a unit that would not fire in a plane or get confused, and I would be curious as to how it was able to do that. When I design a product, I try to build something that I would want to buy, and although that increases the over all quality of the item, it does tend to narrow down the customer base. My goal is not to dominate the market, but rather to produce the best product that I can given the technology currently available. Striving for the highest confidence level has its cost. For example requiring a 4 year check, a standard set by the currant dominant manufacturer, sparks much debate, however, reliability is one of the most critical aspects for an AAD IMOP and I feel that insuring that the device is preforming as it should every now and then, is a critical piece to the complex puzzle that reliability is. Some people strictly look for the cheapest option, and there is nothing wrong with that. Very often a lower priced item is priced that way purely for competitive reasons, and does not reflect a lower level of quality, the manufacturer has decided to make a little less per unit in favor of selling more units. I am not of that thinking in case anyone was wondering lol.. I feel this new unit will offer a good value for the price, not everyone will agree, that is something that the car companies struggle with all the time. In time I will provide additional information that will help this unit to distinguish itself from the current AADs. You mentioned an adjustable firing altitude; I have a different philosophy on "firing Altitudes", yes it will be adjustable, but with a twist .

Having dabbled with microcontrollers and doing simple circuits, I'm aware of the types of sensors consumers can get for relatively cheap. GPS, barometers, accelerometers, etc. Can you generally talk about what type of step forward this new type of AAD would take either in terms of components or perhaps software + processing power that improves the performance and reduces the failure modes? I'm assuming a big step forward in this space would require a paradigm shift in technology beyond the legacy AADs. When we started working on Cargo AADs back in 05 someone told me that we are taking a mechanical problem and making it a software problem. I have always seen the current processor driven AADs as electronic clones of their mechanical predecessors. Our approach is to utilize the power that the processors have and let it do some work that is virtually impossible to do strictly mechanically. There is a cost to using processing power, and that is battery size and life. The less an AAD does, the smaller the battery can be, and longer the battery will last. Just think how long you cell phone battery lasts depending on how you use it... No way you will get 15 years on one charge lol Like Lee said above, I do have to be careful about how much I divulge and when. There are several traditional AAD failure modes that this approach, along with some different philosophies about operation, allows us to address. How we do that is a trade secret.. But... I will try to be as open as I can, so don't be afraid to ask anything...

Lets see if I can fill in some gaps that I have created... The purchase price for this unit would be equal to the Cypres, even with all the additional internal sensors and such. What goes on under the cover will be very different however, with the processor looking at 10 channels of data at a sample rate of about 4 times faster that the Cypress or Vigil, not sure what the Mars sample rate is. The cost of service is TBD. I see that as a double edged sword in that, like with your reserve that has to be repacked by a rigger, and most of us have to pay to have that done, the manufacturers of the rig don't cover that. And, at the same time, seeing the units ever 4 years allows us to catch problems and address then before they become a problem, and that I think is something that benefits us, so why should the customer have to pay for our quality control program? The units will be put through a rigorous validation process every time they are sent in, and that will take some labor and ware and tare on the equipment, which could be argued as the cost of doing business, and with any cost, it would be passed on to the consumer. Lets just call this TBD :) The black box is not for "data logging" as traditionally understood. The jumper will not have access to the SD card as it will be packed in the reserve container. This unit will use the data recorder to provide it self with the senses needed to determine the conditions it is in, which we call "Situational Awareness". With it being situationaly aware, it can make decisions based on the conditions it is sensing. One example of situational awareness is having to land in the plane. Every AAD on the market will fire if the pilot descends to fast (provided exceeded the arming altitude). Because my AAD is/will be, aware that it is still in the plane, or more correctly stated, it knows it has not exited the plane, it will not fire when it detects the high descent rate at the magic altitude. The data that is stored will be useful for post accident analysis, and will provide us with a record of its operation between service intervals. AADs are meant for a specific purpose.. I have data recorders if anyone wants to "collect data". The military wants them to be simple too lol... Your requirements are different than the military, that is why there will not be any WiFi to download the data. There also won't be a self destruct feature... Personally, I am very reluctant to do anything non Government, but I am confident enough in this unit that I have let several people of whom I greatly respect convince me that the liability can be mitigated.

I am giving way to the pressures to mirror my military free fall AAD and make a sport version. Testing could begin as soon as this summer. This unit, like it's military counterpart, will be intelligent, and will not fire in the aircraft regardless of descent rate and altitude, or to say it another way, it will not arm until after exit from the aircraft. It will utilize the "black box" data recording platform, but without the WiFi. Data would be stored on a micro SD card. Each AAD will have its own log book, (just like a reserve does). This log book will be a record of test results and services performed on the unit throughout its life, which is to be determined.. A four year check will be required to maintain airworthiness, but on the flip side you won't have to sent it out of the country for service. The unit will display barometric calibration changes so you can be confident that it is recalibrating it self just like you recalibrate your altimeter before you get on the plane. Just a hint, no 15 year battery life claims... This unit will be doing a lot of work which requires power... There will be other features to be announced in time.

I took the opportunity and went to Parachute Lab's seminar on pins. As an accomplished machinist and a former certified welder, I was surprised to hear some of the statements that Nancy made during the seminar. I will not attempt to repeat them as I did not write them down or have her on video, so I can not quote her properly, but anyone who was at the same seminar (the first one) I’m sure knows what I am talking about. Nancy did give us two new pins to use in our comparison tests, which was nice of her. I want to get some Capewell pins as well to compare. I have some cleaning up to do from preparations for the show, as well as some follow up work to do, but I will start designing the test rig and the process to load and measure the forces of interest on each pin. I might even make a pin of my own to see how it does in comparison for grins… The goal of this series of tests is to gather real data and publish it, so when the subject comes up, people can reference real numbers instead of opinions or claimed results of tests that were never made public. I will test standard diameter pins as well as larger diameter pins and compare the pull forces to provide some real data on that subject as well. I want to have something by mid summer…

Gotcha... thanks for the specifics in your case. How old do you think the oldest gear still being jumped is? I still have my first rig, and one of its smaller brothers (both Infinities) and they are about 17 years old I would guess. My Vector is probably about 6 ish. I wish I could make one rig from the best features of the two lol... My main interest is in current equipment, but how does one define "current"?

I want to see how much it takes to bend a pin through the flap. Two schools of thought on this one.... One is to make changes to reduce the situations that can result in bending a pin, (which is good to do, but still leaves a pin that can be bent), the other is to address the pins ability to bend in the first place. When employed together, the two approaches provide the best protection. Don't get me wrong, improving the flap makes sense and is a good thing to do, but the term "band-aid" comes to mind. Again it comes down to the opinion of if the pin should bend easily or not in the first place. Additionally, testing can provide some idea of what it takes to bend a pin with the improved flaps. I think it would be nice to be able to compare what it takes to bend a pin with the old flaps, to what it takes with the new flaps. Again, I am hoping the results will be fantastic, and it will be good to know how good our gear protects us, just like how we want to know how our cars protect us.

There seems to be two camps in regards to pins. One camp swears that pins don't bend, or at least not bad enough to matter, and the other camp says they have seen or had pins bend so bad they would have been a fatality if the jumper needed to use the reserve. I was just talking with an associate the other day about Tandem pins. My area is dominated by Sigmas so I don't have any first hand experience with any other Tandem containers. To anyone that has experience with pins bending on Tandems, any information about what caused it to bend would be helpful. Please feel free to PM me or the OP if anyone does not want to go on the record. The really scary thing to me about something happening to a tandem reserve system is that there is someone on the front that has no clue in reality all the things that can go wrong, and signs up based on "good times and high fives". I have the up most respect for Tandem Masters (from my era) / Instructors who do everything in their power, which includes sacrificing themselves, to protect the passenger when things go wrong. One of the tests will be to simulate what happened to you, so the more information we can get to use to duplicate the conditions the better.

We are very interested in any information anyone has regarding any experience with a bent, or "deflecting", reserve pin. If the pin batch can be identified that would be great, as would what container, size, and reserve size bellow it. (now I know that people are, shall I say, reluctant, to identify a container or manufacturer publicly, so feel free to PM me with the information). Also any pictures of the pins while packed would be good to have, place a straight edge on top of the pin for a reference. Additionally, I am interested in exchanging some bending or, "deflecting", pins with new ripcords so I can test some pins that are deflecting and compare them to currently manufactured ones. To qualify for this offer, the owner of the rig with a bent or deflecting pin will have do go through some hoops so to speak, such as first a pic of the pin as it is packed with a straight edge on top of the pin to give a reference, (this will give us an idea of how much it is deflecting), and type, size of the container, the reserve size, and date of last repack, number of jumps on current repack. Then, if we want that pin, we want to take some pack density measurements prior to pulling the pin, (is the reserve a brick or a pillow), and some loop tension measurements as well, both static and with the rig worn and the body flexed in different, yet every day body positions, (this will tell us how the loop tension changes in that specific container set up as the container moves with the jumpers body). Then we will pay for a replacement rip cord for that rig so we can take the deflecting one and put it through the gauntlet. It is critical that the background data and history be documented properly in order for the pins to be compared to others. The rip cord replacement offer will be very selective, as I can’t go around and replace everyone’s rip cords lol..

Good to know and sounds like a worth wile seminar. I would have liked to have some tests done prior to PIA, but getting ready for the show has me booked up. I am sure I will be testing pins outside of the industry standard test procedures, and that is the point of them. All tests will be relevant to real use scenarios, so it will be interesting to see how the results compare to the “standard tests”.

It has a small hole in the end... Perhaps it is a temp pin, closing tool of sorts? Perhaps you stick the real pin in the hole and remove the temp pin (handle) which leaves the real pin in the loop?

Fifty plus years is a pretty long track record. I think the ice may be a little thicker than you are measuring. I have not seen any measurements lol... but you may very well be proven right when some are taken. One thing you said struck me... "Fifty plus years"... I don't think it is fair to count the time while cones were used. That loads the pins totally different than spanning the grommet with load in the center (generally). But even then your point still has a lot of years of applicable reference to sight… or does it? Thinking as I type, how many other things that were designed back in the day are starting to be considered not up to every aspect of the modern sport? I am hearing more and more that the AADs were designed for old school jumping, and the modern "high speed" disciplines might push the AAD, or reserve system for that matter, beyond its limits, and that is possibly why some jumpers have gone in after an AAD fire. Of course AADs have not been around as long as pins have been spanning grommets, but one might say that 20 + years of AADs is a pretty long track record, and yet I saw 2 reps from a manufacturer openly saying that the AADs "might" be behind the times, or , "might" not be compatible with modern high speed disciplines. I mention that reference not to redirect the thread, but it was the only thing that I could think of that really fit what I am thinking, and that is many people have posted about how the reserves have gotten smaller and the loops tighter over the years. Much like the introduction of head down "might" not be totally compatible with the current AADs that were designed based on jumping years ago, the introduction of smaller and tighter rigs with narrower closing loops compared to the traditional loops, might be stating to push the pin that has plenty of margin in a big soft container with a traditional closing loop, to its edge, and in some cases it will bend? The more I thought about it last night, the more I am wondering how the “worn die” problem progressively affected the pins being produced. If there was a batch that made it to the field that were defective, who is to say there weren’t batches of pins with lesser levels of defect? These pins still might do well in larger and soft reserves with fat closing loops, but when stressed with the narrow Cypres loops, they might “tend to move and not come back”? Thinking about it, the pin spanning the same size grommet is the only consistent thing over those years you have sighted, and rightfully so. However all things have not been equal from past to present. The introduction of the loop cutting AAD that required changing to a narrower closing loop that concentrates the load over a narrower point in the span over the grommet loads the pin differently than the wider traditional loops used up to that point. The introduction of the micro rigs (comparatively from back in the day) with over stuffed reserves which don’t give as much as a softer pack like John Sherman pointed out, and when worn and flexed, the pins are strained with additional load. The introduction, and common use of a power tool get the tight containers closed, and that generates enough power to bend the back plate in the rig allows the narrow loops to be tighter than ever possible when packing with just a pull up cord and ones hands. So personally I would say in response, yes, there has been a long history of success with only a couple of outlying situations that most likely were the result of an extreme series of events. But over that time the conditions that the pins are expected to perform under have changed, demanding more of the margin just to maintain, and perhaps in some cases the margin is a little less than others which results in the OP starting this thread. In the past reserve systems were not questioned as being ablt to save you if activated above 750ft, but now that is not so much the case. Altitudes have been raised and testing is starting to be preformed to try to find out why reserve systems have started to fail their owners where in the past such happenings were the result of an extreme series of events. My point is things change at levels that can easily be over looked, and individually might very well be inconsequential, but when you stack them all together, they very well might be using up more of the margin than we realize. For example, the loop tension required to generate say 20 lbs of rig on jumper pill force is 100 lbs (just pulled that number out of thin air, not to be implied to be the actual tension), and after a over grommet bent test it is found that it takes say 150 lbs (concentrated over the with of a Cypres loop in the center of the grommet), then we have a margin of 50lbs to be used when the rig is flexed or what ever increases loop tension momentarily above the original 100 lbs. It might be proven that it takes 200 lbs to start to depress the pin into the grommet to a point where it will not spring back. That would be a very nice margin. But if it only takes less than 150lbs (in this example only) then the margin is on the lean side. Without knowing what the loop tension is for a tight little rig to start with, and what it can reach when the container is flexed to an extreme, there is no way to determine how much margin we need to maintain, is there? I suspect from what John Sherman was hinting at is he has that data, and I imagine it is a trade secret, and as such, we will never know what loads are actually being put on the pins, and how much margin there is in the extreme reserve configurations. Without that data, the only thing we have to go on is past performance, and hopefully that performance will not claim any lives. I do not have a data base of fatalities to reference, as I doubt any of us do, at least with any accuracy. All we have are the reports of gear checks that probably saved a life to base this debate on. Even so, it is important that this debate take place. With out numbers, there are not any wrong points and there are not any right points. Each side of the argument has validity. Staying aware of the trends and being proactive albeit within reason, is all we are able to do in the lack of any real comprehensive data.

Does it take a fatality? No attitude implied, but isn't it the objective to be proactive and prevent it from getting to that point? As I corrected my self regarding how the Cypres birth happened in the previous post, the only potential case that I can reference is based on the OP's account of a preboarding gear check, however, I am not a fatality data base, and the information we do get is sketchy at best. They say 1 inch of ice will support a person, but if they slipped and fell is it not foreseeable that they might fall through? Given that foresight, is it not unreasonable to recommend that the ice be a little thicker before some one walks out on it? That is how I look at the pin, yes it obviously is working, but how much safety margin is there? Are we jumping with 1 inch of ice on our back? You are correct, I recall Bill Booth talking about how he never liked an RSL untill he designed his. With his system, the RSL lanyard is connected to the pin as aposed to a ring that the reserve rip coard goes through. This design was availale before the Sky Hook was available. As I said in my above post, I did not intend to convey in any way that Bill Booth felt one way or the other regarding standard swaged pin strength or any issues that are being discussed in this thread. That is for Bill Booth to talk about. Now that being said. Given what I know about Bill Booth he doesn't do something that could increase the complexity of a rig without a reason, what ever that might be. In the case of his choice to use a the thicker pin, his reasons might have had nothing to do with any of the aspects being discussed in this thread. His RSL design uses a straight pin with a loop on the end and is not swaged to the cable. There were/are straight pins with loops on them available at the time that he was designing his RSL, and for some reason he decided to have them made for him as apposed to using the pins that were available. Why that is only Bill Booth knows, and it would be very interesting to hear the story. I have talked with Mr. Booth on many occasion and not once can I recall him deciding to do something that was not reasoned back to a relevant point. In the case of him having his own pins made, that are thicker, I have no idea. How one defines a problem is the key to everyone's positions on this and other subjects. We can't pull over when we have a problem with our gear once we leave the plane, so it is in our best interest to be as proactive as possible to avoid problems that can be foreseen. You are right about there needing to be a balance between addressing one concern while at the same time creating different ones which may be more deadly than the initial concern. How many rigs have you seen where the free bag won't come out of the pack tray? They are known to exist and some argue that some jumpers have gone in because it that. My point is everyone posting in this thread are a minor percentage of jumpers, just because "we" have not seen something, doesn't mean it does not exist. Would you agree to that? In reality the problem is lack of information. We as jumpers do not have any data on how rugged the pins are, and without data reverent to real life use, none of us can say one way or the other. What I have proposed is a series of independent tests on the two pins that are used, to create a performance envelope that each pin can be expected to operate in with predictable performance. It may very well prove that both pins are more than adequate and that there is a batch of them that are more prone to bend, just like there was a batch that tended to brake. This would explain why there are jumpers who say the never have seen an bent pin and two of my rigs that were made about 2 months apart have pins with depressions over the grommet. How long were the pins that broke in use before the "problem" was identified? That is a serious question for anyone who knows, I do not recall how many or how long they where in the field. It would also seem to me that the wearing of the dies was a progressive issue that gradually affected how the pins were made, so who knows, maybe these bent pins that some are saying they have seen were made just prior to the pins that brake?

I was not aware of this, can you provide a reference? How long have you been jumping? lol... That story was very well known years ago. I thought maybe the story would be on Airtec's web page but it is not. For newer jumpers who may not be up on their history, the AADs prior to the Cypres were mechanical and pulled the reserve pin. (I have no idea if there were other electronic AADs prior to the Cypres, but there may have been).. These mechanical AADs were known to have a wide range of activation altitudes, but when maintained properly, worked fairly well, but sense it pulled the pin, if the pin was bent, the AAD could not pull it. On my first AFF jumps there was a mechanical FXC AAD in the rig with the dial on the hip. My recollection of the story is that a close friend or family member, (someone feel free to corect me here) had a mechanical AAD and the pin was bent for what ever reason. Something happened during a jump that called for the AAD to open the reserve container, but it could not extract the pin because it was bent. The jumper died. This motivated Helmut Cloth to do two things, one to find an alternative method to allow reserve pack opening other than the extraction of the pin, and two a better means of activation management, so that another jumper doesn't suffer the same fate from a bent pin. The severing of the reserve closing loop was his method of choice to over come the bent pin issue, as it is an independent way to allow reserve pack opening. To control the severing of the loop, the results of his efforts was the Cypres 1, a microprocessor controlled AAD with a pyrotechnic actuated loop cutter, that provided an independent method for reserve pack opening. If you are at PIA this year you should stop by the Airtec booth and I am sure they will be happy to tell you the story without the 100th hand in inaccuracies lol.. EDIT: I did just find a story here http://www.cypres.cc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=98&Itemid=131&lang=en And it is totally different than I have heard it several times. According to Airtec page, the jumper did not have an AAD at all.. Am I totally getting senile, or am I not the only one who heard the version of the story as I described it? I remember a post for Lee in a different thread about a pin that broke while he was closing a repack. The Airtec people were there and they asked him for it because of it's significance. I learn something every day lol.. My sincere apologies for any inaccuracies that I have posted based on years of folklore around the camp fire.

Lots of points in your post. But in reply to just this one I will note that if you order a Vector without any RSL, as some people still do, it will come with a good old standard pin on a good old standard steel cable. Yes, I believe you are correct. My above comment was not meant to imply that Bill Booth changed the pin he uses in some instances because he felt there was an issue with the standard ones, and I certainly do not want to create an impression of his opinion either way, that is for him to to say. My intended point that I was trying to convey was that there are straight pins with a loop on the end available, and yet he decided to, for what ever reason, have his own pins made for his RSL design. I look at that extra effort as being driven by something, and with out knowing exactly what it was, (could have nothing to do with the subject at hand in reality), because of his past performance I put some weight in his corner in regards to improving the pin rigidity. It would be interesting to hear what the reasoning was not to use the available pins and have his own made.

I did not mean to hijack the OPs thread and stop debate on the subject matter. So perhaps something that occurred to me last night might get the conversation going again. I see many times in this, and other threads, jumpers dismissing a posters concerns about something on the bases that the presumed problem is "very rare" or "the instances where it has been an problem have very few" or "the problem is not big enough to make jumpers or manufacturers worry about it". I am not good with statistical averages or actuary tables, so some one who is could provide a more accurate picture, but I will try to explain what I am wondering.. There are apparently two types of problems, perceived (low occurrence or importance), and recognized (independent of occurrence, but of high importance). I would categorize the bent pin problem as a “perceived” one purely based on the responses to the OPs concerns, which seem to be dismissive based on the percentage of occurrences, and therefore not worth any effort or additional expense to deal with it. Then I think about how many jumpers were killed (independent of reason) last year, out of how many million jumps, and it occurred to me that that percentage is probably much lower than the percentage of bent pins to the number of rigs that are out there. If one assumes that every jumper has at least one rig, that would be one pin per jumper, and the number of jumpers can be estimated I would think. I bet you could even estimate how many rigs have been made over a give range of time. I doubt that the number of rigs built, or that are in service, are in the millions, but I may be wrong, I have nothing to base any number on. So I bet that the percentage of bent pins per total pins that are in service is higher than the percentage of deaths per total jumps in a year. (that could be worded better I know).. If the percentage of deaths per total jumps in a year is indeed lower than the percentage of bent pins out of the total number in service, then the dismissal of a perceived problem, based on the low percentage of time that a perceived problem occurs, is not a valid argument. Now factor in that the perceived problem that the OP is pointing out is related to our absolute last chance to live, and the percentage argument really looses any relevance IMOP. The Cypers was created in response of a fatality due to a bent pin. The OP has sighted that he observed a potentially identical outcome prior to the jumper boarding the plane. Bill Booth has a larger pin made for his rigs and he is known for solving problems and yet that seems to carry no weight. “Is a problem only a problem when the body count gets above a certain number?” I know that is an extreme statement but that is what a non jumper friend said to me while discussing testing protocols.

The military/government has no such test. They do require this test: When the pins are initially formed they have a blade length of about 3 inches. They are mounted to the cable then the end of the pin is bent 90 degrees. This bend makes attaching a holding fixture to the blade of the pin, for pull testing to 300 pounds, possible as a straight blade would have a propensity to pull out of a compression grip. Some other folks were testing by "hook gripping" at the junction of the pin shank and the cable. This doesn't stress the blade which is required. This was a principal reason for pin failures getting into the field some years ago. We have done loop load vs. pin pull force tests in the past and were convinced then of our current position. The 90 degree test that I am talking about is a destructive fatigue test were it is determined how many times the pin can be bent 90 degrees, both directions from straight successively until it brakes. Obviously, softer materials traditionally will allow more repetitions than harder materials. My concern is the repeated bends (albeit little bends) over 15+ years of repacks and abuse from every day jumping, fatigues the pin over time. The destructive bend test will provide a comparison the other pin and possibly other materials as to how tolerant they are to being flexed many times. Harder materials generally do not make as many bends as the soft material, but the harder martial is much more difficult to bend in the first place. I am expecting the standard pins to do well in this test, and they better given how they bend in the field. The pull force test I was talking about is in regards to “bent pin” pull forces. A test fixture that allows, a controlled loop tension, the rip cord housing positioned as it is on a rig that a jumper is wearing, and has the ability to apply controlled force to bend the pin at the loop in controlled amounts would be made to conduct the test. The first test would be with a straight pin with enough loop tension to create 20 lbs of pull force. That loop tension would be recorded so that it can be duplicated during the next tests. Then force will be applied to the pin (concentrated over the same area as the Cypres loop width) and the pins will be bent into the grommet say in .010/.015 inch increments. The loop tension will be the same as the first base line test, and the pull force with a .010/.015 depression will be recorded. Then the pin will be bent in an additional .010/.015 making the total depression .020/.030 and the pull test repeated at the same loop tension as the base line. This test will continue until a total failure to be able to extract the pin is reached. Every progressive increase in pull force and pin bend will be documented for comparison. In addition to the pull force, the amount of force required to bend the pin each time will be recorded for comparison as well. This test would be done on the standard pin, the UPT type pin, and I may make one of each out of a different material to see how they do. Is this the test you are saying you did? Or do you mean you just did a loop tension vrs pull force with a straight pin only? Regardless, it would be great to post the results and clarification of the exact test parameters. Please do not interpret me as being confrontational, that is not my intension at all. There seems to be this curtain between the jumpers using the gear the manufactures make, and the tests that the manufactures do, and we are told to, “trust us, everything is fine” but no one seems to be willing to support their claims with meaningful test results. This IMOP creates a cloud of suspicion that need not be there. Don’t you agree?

Is there any interest in a comprehensive comparison test? This test would compare a standard pin to a UPT pin, and I could make a UPT style pin out of 17-4 as well as a standard pin as a material comparison. One test would be how much pressure does it take to make the pin start to deflect and get sucked into the grommet. One test would be to do a pull force test at different stages of deflection with consistent loop tension. The pull force with a straight pin would be recorded, then the pin would be deflected into the grommet in measured amount increments, and pull tested at the original loop tension. This process would continue until a total failure to extract the pin is reached. The cape well test would also be performed on all of the pins, with increasing weight to see at what point they each fail at. There is also a fatigue test where the pins are bent 90 degrees each way until they brake. It would be nice to have the tests done by PIA but I am swamped getting things put together for the show. I might be able to do some quick and dirty tests before the show, but nothing that could be published. If there is interest, I could perform the tests and have the results published in Parachutist. I am not a pin manufacturer, nor do I have any association with any container manufacturer.

I am sure you know that 303 Alloy Stainless Steel can not be hardened via heat treating, but also that other alloys of Stainless Steel can be heat treated. Heat treating is a blanket term, and people generally think that it means that the material is being made harder and that is not all ways the case. There are many different Alloys of Stainless Steel, and different heat treating processes that some of the alloys respond to that result in different material conditions after processing. Some times the result is the material being harder, some times it results in the material being tougher. Sometimes it results in the material being softer or stress revealed.. The accuracy of the statement is dependent on the material used and its condition. For instance, if the UPT pin that you are referring to were made from 17-4 Stainless Steel in the H900 condition (heat treated with 40Rc) the strength and toughness would be way higher than the 303 regardless of how it was processed.. I use 17-4 PH 900 for the pins in my timers, and they are the same size I think as the standard reserve pin. I will try to remember to compare them when I have a min in the shop. I have a few rip cord pins laying around so that might be a fun comparison, who knows, I may be all wet lol…

I think you meant to say that the "old" center pull Military chest reserves used them. The "new" T-11R chest mount reserve replaced the old center pull reserve, and uses two curved pins. The activation direction is to pull forward as apposed to up so the curved pins are needed.

The new Vector ripcord does not have the pin swaged on the cable. I believe that adapting that setup would require the bit of velcro and tab on the RSL lanyard, and I'd assume that would not be something that a rigger would see as "interchangeable parts". More importantly the rig has to be packed in accordance with manufacturer instructions using the approved components. Not only would that not be in accordance with manufacturer instructions but if it were done it would constitute an alteration to the system which would require a master rigger and approval they aren't likely to get. I know I wouldn't do it and don't see it as "interchangeable" if someone brought that request to me. It would obviously have to be something that would not have to be "approved" by the manufacturer in order to be able to be done, as no manufacturer would approve of a competitors component on there rig. I don't remember if John Sherman was sighting the language that I am thinking about when he was playing with his power rip cord. I don't remember if he thought you would need the manufacturers approval to install one, or be a rigger for that matter, but I might not be remembering correctly. A "Plan B" that I would be more comfortable with than the skinny pins spanning the grommet, (not "exactly" as they were designed for, albeit close), with "a lot" of tension on them, would be a larger diameter pin of the same material, just scaled up so to speak. If a fatter pin was made in the same process and from the same material, where would the conflict be? If the standard skinny pin made in the same process and from the same material meets the requirements, the surly increasing the pins cross section would not render the pin non compliant would it?

I also have concerns about the slight bending back and forth over the years of use. I feel much better jumping my Vector with that fat pin than the tin pins in the other rigs I have. I have considered replacing the reserve rip cords in my rigs, but who is to say that the new pins are not any better... A conversation in a different thread comes to mind, and off the top of my head I do not remember the specifics other than it was an interpretation debate regarding a riggers ability to replace or substitute parts of a TSOed system, like swapping a reserve pilot chute for a different one. If a rigger can indeed change a reserve pilot chute, why could he/she also replace the reserve rip cord with one that meets the TSO requirement? I would love to have a UPT pin in all my rigs. Have I totally miss understood what the discussion regarding a riggers ability to interchange parts?

I agree that the marketing desires of the manufacturers might be a little over zealous in regards to the range of reserve sizes that they approve for use in some containers. And I also agree with what you said about “masking” problems. After seeing MARDs from spinning malfunctions, I strongly believe in the value of them in that case, but the added complexity could cause a problem in different situations. I am very interested to see how meaningful the test data that UPT collected for PIA is in respect to gear combinations at the extreme ranges. If they only tested middle of the road combinations then one would not expect to see anything too exciting. One of the tests we are going to do is to take a rig and reserve combination that works well, as in, no bag extraction hesitation at terminal or cutaway speeds, and the find out what it takes to make it fail. If it takes shoe horning in a tandem reserve into a micron to get it to hang up so be it. Then we can gradual go back down in size, both square footage and bulk distribution, and get a feel for what has the most effect on the bags ability to freely exit the container. It would not surprise me to learn that it is a packing problem. The reserve system is made up of several different sub systems that all need to work with in the certified tolerances in order to be of any benefit. We need to identify the operational limits of each component as it is used in real life, vertically as apposed to horizontally. I totally agree that 750ft is low to start the reserve process at high speed. Jump tickets are not that expensive so no need to “maximize” all available altitude lol.. If you have any links to any reserve hesitations or problems, please post them if you can. Thanks