riggerpaul

Nice pictures! I wish I could do as good. How did you draw them?

Why do we care at all that the rig was legal? If someone pencil packs and goes in on it, why do we care? Sure, at some level, we care because someone died for something really stupid. But most of the world says that about any skydiver death. Now, maybe for rental gear, but when jumping your own personal rig? Should we care? There are many ways for a rig to become non-airworthy without any damage to the seal or packing data card. The final determination of airworthiness rests with the person jumping the rig, not the rigger who inspected it 179 days ago (fill in an appropriate number for people who don't have a 180 day cycle, of course). Who actually checks the credentials of the rigger who repacked the rig anyway? (I can't remember anyone ever asking me to see my certificate.) How do you really know he was a rigger in the first place? If a properly certificated rigger sealed the rig the way this thread is discussing, clearly, all the "legal" in the world won't save to poor guy who pulls that ripcord. So what's the point anyway? Except for people who take the time and make the effort to learn how to do it for themselves, we're all just going on blind faith, aren't we?

I just found a funny little behavior in the Forums. Not really important, but interesting. From the Forums main page, if you click on one of the underlined links in the "Last Post" column, it does not seem to update the information about what you have read. That is, refresh the Forum main page, and it will still say that you have unread posts in the forum you just visited. Not a big deal. But I just noticed it, so I thought I'd mention it. Or is it supposed to work that way because you might not have read all the posts except the last one?

Are you referring to the sketch posted by theonlyski? Even in that method, if the thread is through the closing loop, and the thread breaks between the lark's head and the seal, the seal could jam the in the grommet. It would depend on exactly how far from the pin the seal was set. If set too close to the closing loop, there would still be a danger. If set right next to the pin, I would hope there would be enough force to break the remaining leg of the thread. Since you say that your method would not have that failure mode, I'd still love to see how you actually do it. Maybe someone else who is familiar with your method could post a drawing. Of course, all this is just mental masturbation if the thread isn't through the closing loop in the first place. I don't put the thread through the loop, and I don't know of anybody who does. If I ever see such, I'll say something to whoever did it. I just thought of a way that would absolutely not be able to jam the seal in the grommet. Begin with a length of seal thread. Fold it in half and hook it around the pin blade. Now lead the folded double thread up to the cable and tie it there. A couple of half hitches should do it, but use 3 or more for good measure. Now put the seal on the free ends of the double thread beyond the pin. Crimp the seal. For tamper resistance, the seal must be close enough to the cable so that the knots cannot be untied while the seal is in place. With this method, the seal cannot be pulled to the grommet, because it is on the opposite side of the pin from the loop of thread. Even if the thread was through the closing loop, the seal cannot jam in the grommet. Now, I just thought of this, and I would love to hear if there's any way for such a seal to jam. So I absolutely invite comment.

Who's going to stop someone from ordering a whole spool of it on paragear and pencil packing their own reserve? Should someone actually care?

yes, I get what you say, and where it broke. I am surprised at where it broke - between the cable and the seal. It seems more likely that it would break on the loop side, since that is where the single point load would be. But, no matter. If the thread is not through the closing loop, it doesn't matter where the thread breaks. It won't hang up the closing loop. Knot or not (oh! a bad pun!!), I don't see that Terry's method guarantees that the thread will break at the pin. But I probably still don't understand his method.

Can you post a photo or a sketch of how you seal? Regardless of how you seal, if you don't put the thread through the closing loop, it won't affect the closing loop when the pin is pulled. But even if the thread was through the closing loop, shouldn't pulling the pin break the thread? How did it not in this example?

That's exactly what we were using in Bulgaria till 2009. Then the people in charge thought that the lead seal is better than a piece of paper But why put the seal thread through the closing loop in the first place? Depending on the rig, putting it through the loop may be easy, or it may be difficult, but either way, it is not done without actually trying to do it. Some rigs have many flaps between the pilot chute (spring) and the pin. More flaps means that less force from the spring will actually get to the end of the loop to break a thread that is through it. By the time the closing loop has gone through 4 flaps, I am not surprised that the force has been reduced to where it will not break the thread. The full pilot chute spring force won't be available until some of the flaps have peeled back. Considering this force reduction from the flaps, it is critical that we never do anything that might make it more difficult for the pilot chute to deploy.

Your second photo has the answer. That photo shows the inside of the drogue, where the Type IV tape that secures the drogue kill line is attached. Apparently the kill line puts a lot of force on these bartacks. As has been said, the lighter colored lines indicate which bartacks failed most recently. The light colored marks are at the outer of the 3 bartacks on either side. The inner bartacks failed some time ago, as their locations are no longer light colored.

Actually, back in the days when "conventional" pilot chutes were the norm, most used the larks head. At least, that's how I remember it. Anyway, "sort of an improvement" is exactly why I said it wasn't a definitive improvement. If you must qualify it with "sort of", I don't consider that a clear win.

(You can use the button at the bottom of the post composition window to insert the URL tags as you create the post.)

I am not proud to admit, but I will admit for the benefit of others, that my only significant injury in this sport was exactly because I hesitated to use my reserve. I am a big fellow, but the reserve was big too, a 193. Still, it would have been the smallest 7 cell F111-type canopy I'd jumped to that point, and I thought that my slightly messed up Raven 4 (arguably, 282 sq ft) would get me down okay. I was wrong, and wore a foam neck brace for the next 4 months. All in all, I got off easy. But if there is even a hint of being unsure if your reserve is a poorer choice because of its size, well, it could happen to you.

Read Ron's reply above. Sometimes shit just happens. I had multiple lines break on a canopy that had

Perhaps because a soft link, properly closed, cannot, short of catastrophic failure, open. I have seen french links in this and other locations that were loose or had actually opened. But, in general, I agree with your question - neither seems definitively better to me.

Why? Lets be honest. Most of us have a DZ that we call home, and do the majority of our jumping there. If there is an altitude offset between the DZ and the LZ, it seems rather logical that an AAD would retain a setting in its memory. Certainly more logical than having to remember to set the offset every time the unit is turned on. Perhaps one might suggest it would be convenient for the offset to be displayed on the screen for easy verification? Or a happy medium - remember the offset from jump to jump in a single power "session". Reset daily instead of every jump. Considering the Argus menu system, there could even be an option to set the persistence of the offset setting - reset each jump, reset each day, remember for the duration of the power-on session, remember across sessions. But that does leave a lot of responsibility on the user to understand his AAD. Might be time to stop saying "set and forget". Umm... we still sort of need the OP to confirm that the owner was messing with the offset. Surely some will assert that Aviacom is lying to us.

Wasn't there recently a thread (or an existing older thread that got a new post) about a lightweight fabric tearing in a BASE application?

I have been informed that the BPA has rescinded the Argus grounding once the cutter has been replaced per the Aviacom SB AMMO050910/2 (Revised). Attached is a notice that was forwarded to me.

On the other hand, it is also possible to interpret the Aviacom paper as a cry for a level playing field. If a circular-knife cutter is a problem, maybe all circular-knife cutters should be banned? If not, why not? The APF "Argus Event History" cites US FAA AC-105-2C as stating that “assembled components must function properly and may not interfere with the operation of other components”. Taking that to the logical conclusion says to me that any rig with a cutter that could lock a pilot chute should be grounded, since we can never know for sure that any cutter will work properly until it actually fires. There are now several rigs with the AAD cutter positioned such that a failed cutter could prevent extracting the pin from beginning the deployment. Should rigs like that be banned as well? If not, why not?

www.cypres-usa.com/CYPRES_disc_update.pdf

C'mon. you knew that

But is it the LAW? OP asked if it was REQUIRED. Your personal preference may govern your actions, but the LAW is the final word on what is REQUIRED and what is not.

if you're talking a contest involving anything rigging, i can save you time, money and potential embarrassment to other riggers. PETES (the swan man) will win any contest held; even if he's not there..that's how damn good he is! Oh yaaa, what if Chuck Norris isn't there too?!?

If it is allowed at all (and make no mistake, that is a matter of some contention, as PeteS mentioned), why would it need to be the same rigger?

This would be true for any rig where the cutter is on a flap, wouldn't it? Oops! Stratostar beat me to the post.