riggerpaul

Two words- GEAR BAG! -and people wonder why I put my rig in a plastic bag and THEN in a geqr bag. Many of the gear bags I see are Cordura, which is to say, Nylon. So a gear bag alone might not offer much protection against leaking acid. That's why I recommended plastic storage tubs, like the Rubbermaid storage tubs I use. There are tubs large enough to just toss your loaded gear bag right in. Might as well protect your gear bag as well as your gear. Cheap insurance against all sorts of damaging things that might be found in the car.

So sorry to hear about your rig. I hope billvon is right and the damage can be minimized and repaired. Even if you think your car is clean and safe, consider using something like a plastic storage tub (I use Sterlite or Rubbermaid tubs) when you carry your rig in the car. You don't necessarily need to put the lid on the tub. But if you never put anything else in the tub, it will help you be sure that your rig is not exposed to all sorts of nasty things. Best luck in getting your rig fixed!

Is this really a general rule? For instance, the latest Javelin Odyssey manuals show a different technique for stowing the reserve pilot chute fabric. Can that technique be applied to older Javelins? I've always been a bit confused about what it means when the manuals change. I generally thought that the manual that was in use at the time of manufacture was always the correct one, and that newer manuals were not retroactive unless there were specific instructions to that effect. In some instances, the change in the manual reflect a change in the design or construction of the equipment. How do I know if the new instructions are safe with the older equipment.

she told everyone this after she went in? No, The AAD analysis told us that the AAD had been turned on when she was at the elevation of her home. The rest of the story, of course, is the result of the investigations that followed. Is this the best you have to offer to the discussion? (Added in subsequent edit.) I apologize for my outburst. I really try not to resort to stuff like that last line, but I found the post particularly frustrating. Please excuse my rude behavior.

Well of course not, but with the RSL there are way more variations of elements that can be factored in. My RSL beat me to the punch, so what, doesn't mean next time I cutaway I am going to wait on the RSL because it worked so grandly this time(even though I wasn't waiting on it, just so happened it deployed VERY fast), especially if the situation is different and I am at a much lower altitude. I actually talked to someone this last weekend who had a cut away and said she experienced the same exact thing I did, in that the RSL deployed her reserve before she pulled silver, doesn't mean she was waiting on it, just means it beat her, which is a good thing, and doesn't require ridicule, it just means the RSL did its job. -Evo First off, "you" as used in the following is in the editorial sense. I don't mean to single out Will_Evo at all. From this post, I fear the point has not gotten across. People who have RSLs should EXPECTED that the RSL will beat them. Especially if you use a two-handed pull, where both hands must move from the cutaway handle to the reserve ripcord handle. Still, you should complete your emergency procedures even though you expect the RSL to beat you. When you get down and you have not completed your emergency procedures, somebody should say something about it, because you should be completing your emergency procedures. Maybe ridicule is not the best teaching aid, but it is all some people have got to offer. But the ridicule wouldn't (shouldn't?) be about that the RSL beat you. That is EXPECTED. The ridicule would be about not completing your emergency procedures. Maybe some people who employ ridicule are focusing on the wrong target with their ridicule. Again, not everybody is the best teacher, or has the right advice to offer. But the fact remains that if you do not complete your emergency procedure, you have something to do better next time. Some people will see that the procedures are not complete, and employ ridicule as the teaching method. No, not the best possible approach. But if that's the best they can do, its the best they can do. They care about you, and that's got to count for something. So we should all try to look at the message, not the delivery.

The ridicule is not for having the RSL begin the deployment. As you say, that is what the RSL is for. The ridicule is for not completing your emergency procedures. Some ask "why complete them when I already have a reserve over my head?" The answer is that you want your emergency procedures to be automatic. If you have considered that the reserve is already over your head, you've thought about it too much. You may be jumping a rig someday where you don't have an RSL or maybe the RSL is disconnected or worse, rigged wrong. (Yes, I have seen a rig where the rigger, not me, failed to put the reserve ripcord through the ring on the end of the RSL. Mistakes can and do happen.) Having the EP completed, and completed quickly, might mean the difference between getting a reserve out in time or not. Taking the time to notice that the RSL did not start the deployment might mean using all the time you had and more. Which is better? Landing with the reserve handle in your hand even though you know the RSL did its job, or failing to get a reserve because you were deciding whether or not to pull the handle? Maybe another, more dramatic, example would help to clarify. There is the story of a woman in SoCal who turned on her AAD when she was at home. The elevation at home was something like 1500 feet below the elevation of the airport and its landing area. She had a mal, and went in while she was waiting for the AAD to fire. No doubt, this example is far more extreme, but it illustrates the point that you really must not rely on the secondary systems like the RSL or AAD. If you really aren't relying on the RSL, you will be pulling the silver handle at about the time you are feeling the reserve starting to open.

Actually, I was more remarking on JumpRu's mention of opening shock causing a premature brake release. You are right that the OP's problem didn't mention that. The OP mentioned many times seeing the bottom out on opening without resulting in a premature brake release. So I still wonder what makes his instances of premature brake release different. If it was simply that the position of the bottom keeper was wrong, wouldn't that tend to cause a premature brake release more often? Maybe it is a combination of the bottom keeper being wrong, and the slider then being able to knock the toggle off the rest of the way. But it didn't sound to me like it is simply that the bottom is pulling the top free of the deployment brake eye. With respect to JumpRu's mention of opening shock, I still don't think that's really coming into play.

Like Kelly, I have lots of jumps on risers that had no keepers, and the hard tab of the toggle didn't come out of the eye. This included the hardest of openings, so I am skeptical that the opening shock itself is what caused the premature toggle release. I wonder if the key to the problem was the introduction of skinny Type 17 risers. When all the risers used fat Type 8 webbing, the slider did not come down past the links. When the mini-risers showed up, we could now have sliders that didn't stop at the links, and sometimes they would push the toggle's hard tab out of the eye, or perhaps the slider can simply pull the toggle free when it goes past the rest of the toggle. So, had your friend's slider come down past the links on the jumps where he had premature toggle releases?

Before we started putting the toggle through the eye on the brake line, we pulled the eye down to the guide ring, and daisy-chained the line that was below the guide ring starting by pushing a bight through the eye. From there, you just kept daisy chaining until all the slack below the guide ring was taken up. If the text explanation is not clear enough, I can set one up and post a picture if you like.

If you download a copy of the Wings manual, and go to the section that talks about the RSL, there is a picture of the top end of the RSL housing. I have a manual dated 27 February 2009. In that manual the stuff I am talking about is on page 16. The picture in the lower left of that page shows what it looks like under the flaps at the top of the rig.

right riser did not release and part of the RSL-thing was also stuck to the rig. either on the velcro or on the riser-cover of the reserve sorry again for not being very specific, i know i cant expect a proper answer if i dont know all the details.. when i walked away from it, all i could say is "another reason for me not to get an RSL!". i was pretty shocked. but that will not help i suppose.. With those answers, it sounds to me like Terry's theory about the RSL ring hanging up on the end of the housing could be at least part of the problem. But that leads back to Terry's question about which side was doing the towing. If the non-RSL (right) side was under tension, it should have released if the cutaway cable had been pulled. But if the RSL (left) side was doing the towing, maybe there was not enough tension on the right side to release it, and it was just coming along for the ride. In the case we are talking about here, that only explains why the right side might not release. In this case, even if the right side had released, the left side might have remained hung up. So simply having had the right side release might not have really made any difference. With a bag lock, the tension on the risers can be very uneven. so at this point, with this information, it is impossible to tell if there really was a release problem with the right side 3 ring. The RSL lanyard on the Wings is similar to several other RSL lanyards, and has a shackle at one end (the end attaches to the riser), and a ring at the other end (the end that goes to the reserve ripcord under the top cover flap). If the ring had hung up on the end of the reserve ripcord housing, there would be evidence that the end of the housing was not properly secured to the rig. If the end of that housing is still securely and properly attached to the rig, it is unlikely that the RSL ring had been hung up on it. With regard to your comment about another reason to not have an RSL, not all RSLs are created equal. The Wings system has a single guide ring on the reserve top flap that helps ensure that the pin will be pulled in the right direction by the RSL. Some other rigs have a second guide ring that will prevent the RSL ring from snagging on the end of the reserve ripcord housing even if that housing is not as secure as it should be. On the Wings system, if the housing end is secured and configured properly, so that there is no housing extending past where the heavy cord is securing the housing to the rig, the ring cannot hang up on the housing. But it is important to inspect the end of the housing on a Wings to be sure that it is correct, or a hung up ring can certainly happen. If that housing is still secure and configured correctly, then we have to try to figure out another way to snag the RSL lanyard if we are going to hold it responsible. But I don't think it is likely that you can tell us enough to figure that out, since you've already told us all you know. Sorry.

Maybe some question/answer will help. Was the cutaway cable pulled? Was the cutaway cable pulled clear of the housings? Was the right riser 3-ring released? Was the left riser 3-ring released? Was the reserve ripcord pulled? Was the reserve ripcord pulled clear of the housing? I understand that you might not know the answers to these questions. But without these answers, I'm still not sure I understand the question.

The subject says the question is about an RSL. Are you saying that the RSL is what has hung up the main so it won't really leave? What sort of rig? I am interested in the design of the RSL. Vector-like? More "conventional" type?

Doh! (ala Homer Simpson) The AAD pocket - of course! You could also use the pocket under the stiffener plate at the bottom of the closing loop on many rigs. That's certainly good enough for a start. I'd still prefer a separate purpose-specific pocket to help ensure the documents don't get destroyed by whatever else the pocket was really for. (Where's the extra pocket on a Vector? I don't think I've ever noticed it, and I have even assembled some SOV rigs a while back.) But what is really needed, if we really want to go there, is a true commitment to having good records in the first place. All the rest would easily follow. That would require separate logs for separate components, just like airplanes have separate logs for airframes and powerplants. The ability to lose a card and quickly whip up a new one with little or no consequence totally defeats all effort to the contrary. But we're getting quite far from the original discussion of this thread. Sorry, I don't mean to hijack it.

If the point is to protect oneself from liability for the guy who dies after his pencil pack, then I don't see where that piece of paper would really help much. Wouldn't that piece of paper likely be gone by the time he gets to the ground in what would likely be a violent event? What that piece of paper would do is to help the next rigger notice that the rig had been pencil packed, but as others have mentioned, there's not really much consequence to that, as it is 1) an essentially victimless crime, and 2) unprovable for lack of physical evidence. If we really wanted to deal with the pencil pack question and other questions too, all we really need is a pocket inside the reserve container for the packing data card. This would also go a long way to solving the issue of "lost" cards as well. The card that is accessible to the jumper really only needs to show who repacked it the last time and when. The external card is mostly to show the manifest desk that the rig is current. They don't really look to see that every SB was applied, for instance. That's something that the riggers do. Having the real history of the rig inside in a protected place would solve most of the clerical questions that we seem to want solved. But really, we have other questions that are more important. For example, if you really want to keep an accurate history of the rig, you need a log for the h/c, another log for the canopy, and probably a third log for the AAD. These components can and do get moved around so that a single history is grossly inadequate in the first place.

If this is happening to you regularly then I would suggest it is a major safety problem and you need to correct it before jumping again. I've only got 300 and change but this has NEVER happened to me. I have NEVER had a canopy wrap and I've NEVER had to use my knife. I've NEVER personally seen a handle floating, never seen a wrap, and never seen anyone use a knife. I know in this sport shit just happens but sometimes I think people stress about very unlikely events. Sir Snagsalot will probably never get a chance to slash his spectra ripcord. When the OP gets his spectra or mine come with my new rig then I will spend some time comparing it by jumping around as a fake floater... I believe the metal since it will have no give whatsoever. In other words if it snags and is pulled 1" then your pin moved 1" - POP. The snagged spectra will first have to stretch the distance of the bungee section before it starts to directly apply the pressure on the pin. -Michael - Sir NoSnagsalot. I agree that if d123 is having trouble keeping his reserve handle in the pocket, he has a problem that should be attended to with all haste. d123 mentions the rig is new. Well, sometimes even brand new rigs have problems. Sad but true. d123, please have someone who can determine the cause of your floating handle look at your rig. Then get it fixed. A recurring floating handle is a disaster waiting to happen. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. With regard to the snag danger being different between a metal ripcord and a spectra ripcord, I don't think I agree with you, hackish. Once things get snagged, they don't usually just magically free themselves. Metal ripcords are supposed to have some free play too. You should see it as the cable extending inside the handle when everything is in place as it should be. But metal or spectra, I don't think a snag is going to be better on one over the other. Again I will say that I am not in any way defending the spectra ripcord. I do not think it is really ready for general use. There are too many unknowns. It might be ready for people like Andre (erdnarob) to be doing field trials, but he is far better able to regularly inspect it and evaluate its real performance of the new component than the run of the mill jumper is. So, though Jan and I had a difference of opinion going here a little earlier in the thread, I tend to agree with her conclusion regarding the spectra ripcord - it could just be a bad idea altogether. But at the very least, it is something that needs field trials in the hands of people who can adequately assess the performance of a new component.

was the ripcord handle still in the pocket when you got to the ground? Both times?

That is the RC stop. . That's just not true. If it was a ripcord stop, I would not be able to pull the ripcord out of the housing when I do a repack. And I do that all the time. If someone reading this has had a ripcord jam on a Vector3, please speak up. Bill Booth, I know you read this forum, can you tell us if this is happening? Jan, if you read the early posts on this thread, you'll see that I was one of the first to point out possible problems that I felt made the spectra ripcord not yet ready for the general public. I still have those same concerns. I don't have any need to use misinformation to bolster my position. There is no ripcord stop on the Vector3. The design of the system is that either sort of ripcord, steel or spectra, will clear the housing when you pull it. Do a search on ripcord stop or pulling handles for a repack. There are several threads here that mention that the RSL pin was jammed against the housing with the RC eyelet still attached. Here's one of those threads http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1009073 There are a couple of other threads that say the exact same thing from around that same time period. The UPT RSL system does not always act as a RC stop, nor was it designed to do that, but sometimes it does. The velcro is supposed to keep the RSL pin in place and allow it to rotate so that the eyelet clears the RSL pin. But that does not always happen. Here's a more recent thread explaining the situation http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3390225 and there are 3 different jumpers stating that they had RC stop effect. . Yes, I have read these threads. I am not disputing that these things have happened. Councilman24 was quite clear in one of his posts that ripcord stops are banned. Ergo, the Vector3 does not have a ripcord stop. The disconcerting mode of the Vector where the pin jams against the ripcord housing and you cannot pull the ripcord clear of the housing is quite different from the ripcord stops that were banned. In the case of the Vectors, the only way for it to happen is after the pin has been pulled out of the closing loop, and so the activation is already in progress. The banned ripcord stops had a nasty way of jamming before the pin had been pulled. These are not the same things at all. The post to which I responded said that the spectra ripcord was not designed to clear the housing. That is not true. You are free to argue that the design fails in some cases, but that's not because it wasn't the intent of the design for the ripcord to clear the housing. You said that the Vector3 has a ripcord stop. But this is also not literally true. Sometimes it might seem to act like the banned ripcord stop, but in truth, it does not. It lack the main problem of the ripcord stop, which was that the ripcord could stop before the pin was pulled. Just because the one reminds you of the other does not mean they are the same. You might feel that the distinction between the two is not significant. But in skydiving, little distinctions can mean the all the difference in the world. So I try hard to be very clear. The ripcord stop is deadly and banned. The Vector RSL has its own foibles, as do all our rigs. But it is not fair to say that it has a ripcord stop when it does not.

That is the RC stop. . That's just not true. If it was a ripcord stop, I would not be able to pull the ripcord out of the housing when I do a repack. And I do that all the time. If someone reading this has had a ripcord jam on a Vector3, please speak up. Bill Booth, I know you read this forum, can you tell us if this is happening? Jan, if you read the early posts on this thread, you'll see that I was one of the first to point out possible problems that I felt made the spectra ripcord not yet ready for the general public. I still have those same concerns. I don't have any need to use misinformation to bolster my position. There is no ripcord stop on the Vector3. The design of the system is that either sort of ripcord, steel or spectra, will clear the housing when you pull it.

The spectra ripcord is as likely to clear the housing as the stainless steel cable with the marine eye. The little velcro sandwich tab on the Vector RSL and top flap is meant to help ensure that the pin doesn't get pulled up to the ripcord housing. Doesn't always work, but the problem is not unique to the spectra ripcord at all. But, currently, the reserve RC stop is unique to RWS/UPT rigs. As you say it does not always work (the clearing of the reserve lanyard from the housing). There are lots of posts about this issue too. Ripcord stops are black death. . You are really making me scratch my head here, because there is nothing that I'd call a ripcord stop on the Vector3, which is where the spectra ripcord might be used. There is a possibility that the pin, which is attached to the RSL lanyard, may not come out of the eye on the end of the ripcord. That's no different on either the metal or the spectra ripcord. That possibility is addressed by the velcro tabs that are intended to ensure that the pin comes out of the eye on the ripcord. The post to which I responded stated that spectra ripcord was not designed to clear the housing, and that is simply incorrect. The design absolutely intends that either the steel or the spectra ripcord will clear the housing when you pull it. I have never personally seen the steel ripcord fail to clear the housing. I have personal knowledge of several occasions where steel ripcords cleared the housings, as their design intended. I have heard stories that the pin can jam in the eye, so I mention that for completeness. But what's any of that got to do with a ripcord stop? It is absolutely the intent of the ripcord, steel or spectra, to clear the housing. So, please explain why you say there is a ripcord stop on the Vector3. Just look at the attachment you posted. The picture has a big lump on the ripcord that will actively prevent it from clearing the housing. There is simply nothing like that on the ripcords of the Vector3.

The spectra ripcord is as likely to clear the housing as the stainless steel cable with the marine eye. The little velcro sandwich tab on the Vector RSL and top flap is meant to help ensure that the pin doesn't get pulled up to the ripcord housing. Doesn't always work, but the problem is not unique to the spectra ripcord at all.

Jump number are not the whole story. Certainly they are part of it. But the simple number of jumps doesn't tell the whole story. The problem is that you must be around a sufficiently long time to see stuff that you hope you will never have to experience. Then you have had to spend enough time thinking about what you have seen to formulate plans and habits that will keep you from having to experience all you have seen. A lot of people say they understand the risk in skydiving, and that they accept them. But I think they would be far more accurate to say that they understand the possible consequences of skydiving. Understanding the consequences is where you must begin. Understanding the risks is what you get from lots of jumps and lots of time being a jumper who is learning what he needs to know to survive. You can make hundreds of jumps doing something wrong and not even know it. Not every little mistake ends with a fatality. Not every little mistake ends with something bad happening at all. Lots of the little mistakes will have no apparent consequences at all, but that doesn't mean they weren't mistakes. Sometime that little mistake might just kill you, though. Sometimes it will take that one little mistake plus some other little mistake to combine with just the right (wrong?) circumstance before anything bad happens. Knowing all these little things just isn't something that can be learned without being around for a while. This is partly because there is no comprehensive catalog of all the silly little mistakes. Sure, some skills come just from jumping a bunch of times. But other skills will not be developed unless you are around listening and learning from all that goes on around you. Even being around lots of times and making lots of jumps doesn't ensure that you will learn what's out there to be learned. If you come to the dz, and keep to yourself, and make a few jumps each time, and go home, you will be missing a huge chunk of the learning opportunities. You need to be around, asking questions, hearing stories, sharing experiences, to learn all that needs to be learned. So even just time in sport and jump numbers doesn't tell the whole story. It has to be QUALITY time in sport, time where you are actually learning something, to count. That's what Bill means by "IN SPORT" as opposed to on the couch.

Ok... So maybe we need to ask the USPA to change some rules and policies. My view, as the instructor signing the bottom line, I want to see everyone who helped the student along the way, and their progression. There are lots of real good coaches who are more than qualified to verify that a student used their rear risers, landed within X feet of a target, or was able to explain what an RSL or AAD are. If the USPA requires instructors to sign every line, not coaches, then instructors are going to pencil whip lines when "coaches working under them" are doing the work... So as the instructor signing the bottom line, I won't see the student's accurate learning progression - or worse yet, when I quiz the student and they answer incorrectly, I don't know which coach to confront... So, I believe the 2 page card should be accepted with coach signatures along the way, with only a few blocks that only an instructor is qualified to handle clearly marked, "An USPA coach is not authorized to sign this block". In the long run, the instructor who signs the bottom line needs to know which coaches helped the student along the way as they will be held accountable for knowing who helped the student. "Working under an Instructor's supervision" means that each coach should be able to put their signature on the line to take accountability for what they taught instead of hiding behind the signature of an instructor. I love seeing coaches work with students, and at least at my dropzone, I trust all of them to inspire and teach. I want them to be able to sign the card as it is their signature that proves they did the work and are willing to take credit for their work, and take accountability for their workmanship. Rant over. Anyone else agree? I hope that it was clear that I only meant to amplify/support what you said. And, yes, I'd like to see coaches be able to verify more things, just as you do. Anyway, as I said, it sort of used to be that way. But that was perhaps only with a lot of winks coming from HQ. So, on the one hand, I am glad they've stepped up and made the requirements clear now, but on the other hand, I don't much like that they further restricted the value of my Coach rating. I'll probably let my rating lapse at the next renewal. It won't really mean much of a change to me. Mostly mostly just that USPA won't see my renewal fee. I'll still be spending the time I can with the new jumpers, as I did before I had the rating anyway.

Wrong. A student, who's 2-page A licence card I signed the bottom line on, as an AFFI, and other AFFIs signed the check dive and verbal quiz - was rejected by USPA because of unauthorized signatures. It sounds like, from what I was told, the USPA saw a coach signed one of the accuracy landings or other line items... I sent an email to HQ and got a quick response confirming what tdog is saying. The gist of it is that, though they are not always actively checking all the verifications, if they happen to notice one from an unauthorized individual, they will now reject the application. In the past they had told me that they were not checking the verifications except for the final authorization, and that it was essentially the dropzone's choice who would fill in the verification blocks. This no longer the case. They might not check every verification on every application, but if they find a unauthorized verification, they will reject the application.

That is an interesting stance to take. Observers on planes that do not have seats is clearly a FAR violation. You think it should be up to the DZO to decide if he should follow the FARs? Do you feel the same way about airplane maintenance issues? Ryan I think that what is really up to the DZO is whether to treat the person as a student or not. If they aren't a student, then they'll need a seat. This would also open the whole messy issue of rides for hire. But that's for another discussion. As long as they are students, I don't think they'd be violating the FARs to be in the plane without a seat. Some students just aren't ready to jump yet, that's all.