mark

I accept these conclusions as stated: . . The cutter was damaged in use . . The loop material could not have caused any damage to the hardened steel blade. However, the report also concludes, "Without the damage, there is no reason why the cutter should not have performed as designed." That conclusion is not supported by the evidence in the report, and the report itself does not state that the steel ball caused the damage. The report doesn't rule out other possibilities, and so the investigation is incomplete. Three things would be helpful: . . Close-up photos of the steel ball, showing scuffing, scarring, and/or deformation; . . Duplication of the cutter malfunction; and . . Examination of the Poland, Portugal, and Italy cutters to see if they show any damage or similar damage. Aviacom's best interests would be served by having these tests done by an independent investigator with no ties to any AAD manufacturer. Mark

Until Aviacom finishes its investigation, we won't know if the steel ball was cause or coincidence. Mark

It's up to Aviacom to complete their investigation. As for PIA publishing a retraction, what exactly is it that PIA is supposed to retract? Mark

The PIA president chairs only the PIA Executive Committee. The Technical Committee is chaired by Dave Singer (Sunpath), and the Rigging Committee is chaired by Terry Urban (an independent rigger and DPRE). None of those individuals has banned his competitors products, and the PIA has not banned any products. Mark

They may be waiting for Aviacom to complete its investigation. Mark

PIA did not ban Argus. PIA cannot lift a ban they did not (and could not) impose. Individual harness/container manufacturers disallowed Argus in their rigs. If you want to put an Argus in your rig, talk to the manufacturer of your rig. What is disappointing is that Aviacom has not been more forthcoming with their investigation. They need to demonstrate how exactly how the steel ball interfered with the cutter. The best way to do that is to duplicate the cutter malfunction. Mark

The jury is still out. The photos we have are inconclusive with respect to scarring or deformation of the ball. Nor does the Sky Supplies report say definitively that the cutter damage was from the ball. Mark

The report was a positive but preliminary step. I'm not sure anything has been proven. The report was of a steel ball; the report suggested it was something that might have come from a packing weight. The report does not say how big the steel ball was; photos of the ball are not detailed enough to show the expected scarring or deformation; and the report does not suggest a mechanism for how the ball caused the cutter damage. Mark

Can we use the cutter size to estimate the ball size? Is there optical distortion that would cause the ball to appear larger or smaller than it actually is in proportion to the cutter? Mark

What is the cylindrical object in the photo of the steel ball? What is the (estimated) diameter of the steel ball? Mark

Better yet, manufacturers might add this phrase: "The owner should remove the seal before use. Leaving the seal in place may result in pull forces exceeding 22 pounds and void the TSO." The seal is not a talisman that protects against tampering. Protection from tampering is solely an owner/operator responsibility. While there is a requirement for riggers to seal rigs, there is no requirement for a rig to stay sealed once it is in the owner's possession. The containers are TSO'd without seals. We should be jumping them in the configuration they have been tested in. Mark

If you look at the photos, you will see the bridle tied loosely around the base of the canopy. If the pilot chute had been towed by that entanglement, the knot would have been tighter. The photos also show the canopy folds still in place. If the canopy had been partially out of the bag while the jumper was still in the air, the folds would have been disturbed. The more likely explanation is that the loop broke at impact, with the bag being ejected at that time. Mark

If you Google "Argus AAD SB" you can find a cached version of the page. The links to the pdf SB's still work as of now. However, if Aviacom is no longer providing instructions for maintenance, does that mean a U.S. rigger can no longer pack any rig with an Argus? Mark

Rigging Innovations withdraws approval for Argus AADs: http://rigginginnovations.com/support/sb/SB-1548.pdf Mark

That excerpt is from NAS 804 / TSO C23b. That req'ment went away with TSO C23c. JerryBaumchen NAS-804 had no spec for the shape or composition of the data pocket. All rigs built these days (not just those grandfathered in under TSO C-23B) have inside data card pockets. We put AADs in them. Mark

My profile is more or less complete, and I agree with sacex250. What is legal is not the same as what is prudent. Mark

Yes, on (mostly student) rigs equipped with a Stevens Lanyard. The Stevens Lanyard was an RSL, a piece of tubular nylon that ran from the right riser to the chest reserve ripcord handle. The cross connector prevented reserve handle pull when only the right riser was cut away. Mark

Fortunately, all manufacturers include cable ends you can practice with before you set your cables on fire. Mark

Unless the manual said otherwise, if your X210R came with a diaper, removing the diaper and using a freebag would be an alteration. If so, the canopy must be marked to show that it has been altered. Without alteration approval, the canopy would not be a legal reserve, even if it had been packed many times, and even if it had been used successfully. Mark

The OP didn't say which Deland company. Jump Shack and Aerodyne are two other Deland companies also selling canopies. Mark

BobKnoss wrote: In my version of reality, there is a Minnesota Supreme Court (with Justices) and a Minnesota Court of Appeals (with appellate judges). There are no Supreme Court Appellate Judges. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals are triers of law, not of fact. They accept briefs and arguments, but not evidence (including sworn identification). YMMV. Mark

Help me out. Is "irony" the correct term for what's going on here? Mark

Parchment white? Really? That eliminates military or civilian manufacture. Aliens, maybe? Disguised as "dummy" chute? The chest-mount? Have you any idea what a terminal velocity opening on a 24' flat circular is like, especially in that configuration? Mark

Swear all you like, but you are not telling the truth. There was no such thing as a "nylon standard issue, white big canopy" in the 60's or later. There were white canopies, and there were big canopies, but there were no white big canopies. Mark Mark, As you are probably aware, the standard "sports parachute" in the early 1960s was an ex-military 28-foot diameter rip-stop nylon canopy with a 5-TU or 7-TU modification. It was steerable, more or less, and usually white. The word "big" is relative so maybe it was big and maybe it wasn't depending on who is speaking. Some people have recently stated that one of the Cooper chutes was a Para-Commander. Again as you are probably aware, the earliest Para-Commanders were round and had their own front mounted reserves. So these allegations cannot be correct since neither of the back packs given to Cooper had reserve hardware attachments on the front. Robert Nicholson The sport mains of that era were not white. The 24' chest reserve was frequently white. The 28' canopies used as mains came as either orange and white, or orange-white-tan-O.D. PCs (and their variants, like the Papillon and later the Sparrow) could be ordered in any color. The double-L, 5-TU and 7-TU canopies were considered steerable, and the PC-class canopies were "high performance." Mark

Swear all you like, but you are not telling the truth. There was no such thing as a "nylon standard issue, white big canopy" in the 60's or later. There were white canopies, and there were big canopies, but there were no white big canopies. Mark