skytribe

I agree that having a plan prior to going up and discussing concerns on the ground is much better than yelling in the aircraft. Simply saying they can do another pass is not an ideal solution either. Perhaps if both sat down and discussed the problem and resolution in the calm light of day then things can be worked out.

I'll throw a comment out there from a TI that is often riding in the back of the bus. Even before getting on the aircraft we have a good idea on jump run - the winds are very consistent at the DZ I jump at. Therefore, we know the ground speed and the exit delay between groups. The procedures are well documented about exit procedure. The pilots know when to turn on red and green lights. However, if you say 6 seconds between groups - people will wait 6 seconds then start climb out - then give exit count. Equating to much more like 10-12 seconds between groups. Depending upon the number of groups this can mean that the last out the aircraft are a long way out. Low experience jumpers will often take this time to climb out to do a solo exit - so its not just groups. My take is that the time between groups is just that. The time between groups exiting. Do take the climb out time into account - especially on days when there are high groundspeed run ins. Also bear in mind that on some days you may be getting out short of the DZ. Our pilot is given exact points to turn on red and green lights. Red light you can be looking out for traffic etc.. getting door open and ready to jump. 10 seconds later when the green light is one then you should be ready to leave. Exit points are a bit of a compromise in that everyone can't have a perfect spot but everyone can get a spot that should land them back on the airport.

Just from reading a few of the hits from Google - you will realize that there are a whole load of variables and differences in Nylon materials which mean that getting a simple answer is probably not going to happen. Thats said, the general opinion is the UV damages Nylon after exposure. That is not in doubt.

That's one way of looking at it, perhaps more the way Aarhus pitched it but there unwillingness to address issues meant container manufacturers removed approval for the devices in their products. Argus then decided it was easier to simply shut down than address genuine issues. Vigil and Airtec have had issues but have addressed then and therefore continue to do business.

That sounds real creepy. You should pick him up in a panel van.

The fact that if that scenario with the deployment between the riser groups had occurred and the student had determined that the two canopies were flying well together then the option to cutaway is not advisable and the action to avoid turning into a downplane. Using outside inputs from both canopies will transition to a downplane which greatly increases the descent rate. Keeping the end cells touching will result in a wing which is like a much bigger canopy. Both canopies will want to fly above your head and therefore will rest against each other typically with very little input to keep flying in a straight line. Inputs for collision avoidance should be slow and gradually. Anticipate this when choosing a landing spot. Also if the canopies are flying together happily then the formation also tends to glide pretty well. So anticipate a longer final approach to a wide open area. The idea of flying one dominant canopy and the other following is that if you turn a canopy away from the center the other canopy will have to want to come up more over you head naturally. When you straighten up the canopy that you are flying will gently push against the end cell and revert back to the original configuration with little effort. Slow and gentle inputs. If you try to turn the 90 degrees by steering one canopy and pushing the canopy this can result in pushing canopy tucking behind the other canopy. Not achieving the result and becoming less controllable. Hence turning 270 may be preferable to turning 90. As said previously, landing a side by side is really just keeping the canopies flying in straight line with end cells touching and being prepared to PLF. Do not try flaring the canopies. Typically the descent rate increases when the canopies separate. The best action for 2 outs is really to avoid in the first place. Well maintained gear, correct procedures and adequate deployment altitudes go a long way to avoiding the issue in the first place.

Ask Jim Cowan about the possible entanglement risk for side by side. It was definitely a real world situation and one he'd covered in his 2 out presentation at PIA a few years back. The checking the canopies are clear before cutting away is something we should consider on all two out situations. Blindly cutting away from one is often not the best solution. If the 2nd canopy has during deployment had gone through a riser group then when cutting away you have the real possibility of the main choking off the reserve (Much like the Racer double RSL). Cutting away from a biplane if the main is the front canopy also risks the canopy snagging as it is leaving. So as every single scenario is different and have potential + and - . No answer will apply to all scenarios. Sizes and shapes of canopies, positions of canopies relative to each other, RSL design are all factors as is general experience level and awareness under canopy. The best thing really is to avoid the 2 out scenario in the first place. Well maintained gear, gear checks, correct opening altitudes - doing all the things to avoid the situation.

Steer the front canopy and the rear will follow - or separate them into a side by side. Steering the rear canopy is not the correct action.

Simple: If it is a biplane formation that is one on top of another - then steer the front top canopy and leave the brakes set on the rear canopy. Be gentle with the steering and the trailing canopy will follow the top canopy. This is how CRW stacks are flown. Top guy (Pilot) flies the formation. If they are side by side and not entangled then pick the dominant canopy - slightly larger and fly this canopy gently. They will generally want to fly and the inside cells will rest against each other. The canopy you are not flying then leave the brakes stowed. Sometimes you will find its easier to make a turn by doing a slow 270 rather than a 90 as the no steering canopy will want to follow the other canopy rather than trying to push a canopy. Ensure you are comfortable with flying either formation and be slow and gentle in your actions. Giving yourself a large landing area. Landing technique is to be prepared to PLF but the biplane you can do a gentle flare on the front canopy but for the side by side simply keep the end cells touching and PLF. If they are clear and separate (such as a down plane) AND you have sufficient altitude you can cut away the main. But be aware that with two outs the reserve may have deployed between the riser groups and may not be clear and in this situation cutting away could make things worse. How do I know this works I do CRW and have flown these formations numerous times. Talk to experienced CRW jumpers who fly these formations around rather than just anyone. Also be aware that the compatibility of modern ultra-high performance canopies and more docile reserves may invalidate some of the above as the performance differential between the two canopies may result in them not being happy flying together.

Speak directly with UPT. I know that they have done this in the past and can give you the best information on converting the tandem rig into a student rig.

Are they a foreign jumper visiting the US then they can jump the gear. http://www.uspa.org/traveling-with-equipment If however they are a US citizen or resident then they can only jump gear with a TSO certification. I had a jumper bring a SWS fire to me and told me he was visiting. I had no problem locating the instructions and repacking the reserve. For AC-105 "Visiting foreign parachutists jumping parachute systems that the FAA has not approved must have their reserve parachutes packed by someone acceptable to the foreign parachutist’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) or by a FAA-certificated rigger"

Isn't that what everyone says until it is an issue. If you changing the line types then your introducing a new variable into the mix.

A collision occurs not just through lack of vertical separation. It requires 3 things to happen vertical separation, horizontal separation and time. If only two of these occur. So fly through the same spot in 3 dimensional space 30 seconds after someone - no collision. Fly at the same position horizontally at the same time but 1000 ft vertical separation - no collision. Fly at the altitude but 1000 ft horizontal separation at the same time - no collision. We don't determine exit order based upon canopy sizes - and how would we when you have jumpers in same group with small and large canopies. Neither do we determine that all jumpers open at the same time on larger aircraft. The 1st group are opening before the last group may have even exited. The exit order is a rough determination to avoid as much conflict as possible. ie. people drifting over other groups due to freefall drift (putting them in same horizontal area) and also opening altitudes (creating vertical separation for opening). However once opened it may be difficult - if impossible for a later jumper to remain above earlier exiting jumpers. Due to size wing loading. So vertical separation will be an issue. With all jumpers converging on the same area - the 20 yards square closest to the spectators/beer line/packing area etc. This is the problem as ultimately the horizontal, vertical and time components are all converging to a very small area. The simple solution is for jumpers to be aware of others and fly predictable patterns (Doh !!!!) and for dropzones to separate high-performance landing areas from general landing area (As USPA member DZ have agreed) and to encourage full use of the landing area not just the 20 yards square closest. This maximizes the horizontal area that people are in. I look at this incident and see issues with both jumpers but the upper jumper had ample opportunities to avoid a collision. The lower jumper was visible albiet a little bit unpredictable on final - the higher jumper could have made decisions earlier on to land a little further out rather than in the high making a choice that they would overtake the bigger slower lower canopy close to the ground and have both jumpers landing in the same area at roughly the same time. (All 3 components converge).

Well, there are two common things that could be causing problem - canopy or jumper. If this is new lineset and has been double checked for trim as well as an inspection on crossports to ensure nothing internally is damaged that should reduce down the idea it is the canopy causing the problems. I may also check the pilot chute/kill line at the same time. As minimal input as possible during canopy opening. Grabbing the risers during the opening especially early in the opening when the slider is up can cause problems - grabbing both/grabbing one asymetrically. This unbalanced grabbing of risers can cause the openings to turn off heading. There is a difference between being able to get on the rear risers quickly after opening to avoid collisions and influencing the opening by grabbing hold of the risers before the canopy is inflated. Try eliminating things 1 at a time - have someone else pack you gear, have someone else jump you canopy. Are they seeing the same issues or is it only happening when you are jumping the canopy. If it's happening on multiple jumpers then you may want to have the manufacturer take a look.

http://strongparachutes.com/library/Documentation/Tandem/Approved%20DHT%20Components.pdf http://strongparachutes.com/library/Documentation/Tandem/Approved%20TNT%20Components.pdf Well there's two containers that have Approved component lists which include AAD's.

Maybe not all cutter/AAD combinations but Kirk at para concepts knows much more. He was very knowledgeable about the various cutters as a result of the Argus AAD Issues with cutters. As with most technology things, it may be possible to hack cutters together with different control units but these frankenAAD's I think would have very little benefit and much more risk. Risk to the user, rigger and various manufacturers - so I don't see this as even a vaguely remote possibility for happening in the real world in the US.

I'd agree with Wendy that although pilot chutes can be part of the problem. There are other things that should be checked 1st. Watch the PD video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVAoiLl2B6M 1. Speed - slow down before opening 2. Packing - neatly packing and ensuring in the bag. 3. Canopy Age/design - Line Trim/Older designs 4. Line Stows - securely stowing lines 5. Slider - Different types of slider to slow openings. 6. Pilot Chute So I'd check 1-5 before resorting to 6. It sounds like you've had some brutal openings. We had a summer with tandems that experienced some brutal openings. Although we tracked it and it wasn't a specific packer, rig, jumper etc. The owner went out and spent time ensuring all the packers were packing in the standard manner - not just a cursory glance but actually correcting small things in the pack job. The problem then mysteriously stopped occuring. So small things, sloppy packing can have serious ramifications.

I know that the cutters do work (or at least it can be demonstrated easily). That said, the connectors are different and would need to be modified to make the cutters and AAD's compatible. That said, I'm with wolfriverjoe on this one, that is if I had a rig turn up with cutter/AAD that were from not from the same manufacturer, I'd let the customer know that I wouldn't be packing it. It is just not worth the liability for untested component combinations.

Well said, this guy obviously has some axe to grind.

We dont know the chemical composition - was it put on pre or post pin insertion. Either way - its not documented in the container or AAD manufacturers manuals and therefore I would remove from service if I was to see this. The closure loop strength could be compromised or the ability for the pin to slide freely. The only thing that goes on the loop is silicon which is included in the cypres kit and documented in the manual.

Or Cross Keys, NJ just over the river from Philadelphia.

If you look back to 1905 and Dolly shepherd two people under one parachute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_Shepherd Bill mentioned it in his presentation he did at PIA.

And that's the point - the reserve pilot chute requires to be packed that way or you have a high chance of coil lock. So you have container with a RPC that requires it to be packed in a very specific way, otherwise it will inherently make it sit up a little higher and result in increased chance of pilot chute material revealing as the pack job settles.

Yep, had one of those and it was way too tight. Sure it was a new canopy but advised customer to speak with Sunrise as they had sized the container. Next time the container reappeared it was a new container more appropriately sized. I agree with this to a certain extent - stuffing the pilot chute material between the spring coils always seems to make it sit up a bit higher. Packing like a Javelin, Vortex, Glide which pull the material out from between the spring coils always seems to make pilot chute seat better. Small containers on all the containers about have similar problems when the pilot chute cap is almost the width of the container. I agree with this that I like the simplicity of the wings boost and the lack of modifications to the container allowing for it to be retrofitted. The containers themselves are decently made. They are competitively priced and people still buy them.

The fact we have seen these and they have occurred in the past and have resulted in fatalities, does this not seem like there is still an issue here. In the past you may put it down to exceeding Cypres firing parameter (even though Airtec knew it was possible and simply chose not make that public knowledge) contributing to the death of Adrian Nicholas. In the current, having a changeable mode which is set incorrectly coupled with the more common use of extremely small higher performance canopies. Perhaps the general firing parameters for "Expert" need to be adjusted as what may have been applicable x number of years ago may not be as appropriate now. Having configurable is great but then opens it up to being misconfigured, like in this case. The jumper concerned was extremely lucky. The ones I've heard about firing seem to by Cypres'. Anyone know of other any swoop fires with Vigils or M2's ?