riggerpaul

Actually, I think that the distinction between the two versions of the APF document is quite important. The "C" version includes the statement "Under moderate tension the rings should overlap each other and maintain metal to metal metal to metal contact between each other", and then goes on to give the other details. I'm not completely sure what that riser would look like if some real load had been applied. But I think there is a chance that it would have changed the verdict on these risers. The "B" version of the document implies that the riser should look like the picture without intervention on the part of the inspector. Clearly, the first picture that the OP offered did not meet that requirement. But the second picture, where the grommet is held against the back of the riser, was a lot closer. The "C" version specifically says you should apply some tension to get the thing to look right. Neither picture the OP posted really meets the criteria for inspection as put forth in the "C" version of the document. But that second picture comes quite close. So I wonder what it would have looked like if the required tension had been applied.

Some smart guy invented that & solved 2 problems: 1) Eliminated entanglement possibility inside the bag for those of us who cock the PC after we bag the canopy. Even those who cock the PC first no longer need to separate/dress the lanyard & kill-line inside the bag before cocking. 2) Eliminated the possibility of pinching/tearing the main top skin when the kill-line shrinks and draws the attachment point down tight against the grommet every time the PC is cocked. If the kill-line shrinks excessively, it can only reduce performance by not allowing PC to fully inflate. Wake-up call from slower deployments, but no damage to gear. But everything has good and bad points. I had one like this for a while, and, especially when new, it tried to un-cock itself. The crunched up tube between the canopy and the bag would try to act a bit like a spring. I could get it completely cocked again after bagging the canopy. Except when I had a really tight canopy/bag combination. Then it was harder to correct after bagging the canopy. But, as captain_stan said, it solves some other problems that are probably more serious then the things I mentioned here.

Now we're talking about very fine points indeed. Excess lanyard and kill line length to match just puts more stuff in the bag to catch on fabric and cause burns, so I try to avoid it. But sure, extra length on the kill line to match extra length on the lanyard will prevent the kill line from coming under tension when the bag is trailing behind the open parachute. We are in agreement that the lanyard must be at least the length of the apex lines, or there's no chance for a complete collapse. You didn't tell us how much is "a little longer than the apex lines". You think it should be 3 or 4 inches or more? Why, when you've already said that the retract stroke can't be longer than the apex lines? Do you think that 1 inch longer than the apex lines is too short? Why? You didn't said anything about the pilot chutes that I saw with damage in 50 to 100 jumps. I'd really like to hear more of what you think about that. Really. On the other hand, if you think this is beating a dead horse, you can let it drop. Still, your posts have made me think more about it, and result my changing some of how I think about it. That's a successful discussion in my book.

First off, thanks to hookit for the details of collapsing the pilot chute. I missed that one. you said I believe this wear is the result of kill-line abrasion across the bag attachment point during retraction, which coincidentally reaches a critical degree of damage about the same time the kill-line is worn-out and/or excessively shrunk in length. My own personal pilot chute has many times the number of jumps than the ones that had the unusual wear, and it shows no sign of this wear. The ones with what I consider unusual wear were nearly new, likely between 50 and 100 jumps. This is not the result of normal wear at this age. The gear in question had the lanyard several inches longer than the apex lines in the pilot chute, and the kill line was carrying all the load when the pilot chute was collapsed. The moment of retraction lasts a fraction of a second, whereas the pilot chute is dragged behind the main for several minutes on each jump. In addition, the moment of retraction will have everything basically stretched out in a line, so I think the side loading on the loops inside the bag will be minimal. So, I am afraid that in the cases to which I refer with wear to the point of failure in 100 jumps, I must conclude that dragging by the kill line is the problem. The kill line is thin and "sharp" when under tension. I still believe that this combination of tension and the random motions of the pilot chute behind the main canopy for several minutes is when the damage was done to the loops, not the moment of retraction. Now, you call for the lanyard to be "slightly longer than the apex lines", and this was certainly not the case in the gear I mention. The difference was more like 3 to 4 inches. So, clearly, the pilot chutes I am thinking of did not conform to what either of us consider correct configurations. At this point, the difference between our thinking seems to be whether the lanyard is "not longer than the apex lines" or "slightly longer than the apex lines". Maybe this is not to big a difference after all. Clearly we both agree that the lanyard that was 3 or 4 inches longer than the apes lines is not the way we think it should be. I still think that "not longer" is better because as you said, the lanyard sets the length of the collapsing stroke. If that stroke exceends the length of the apex lines, you will slam the inside of the apex into the pilot chute end of the bridle. Also, if the lanyard is not longer than the apex lines, it is easy to see how long the kill line must be in order to not cause problems after some shrink. Now, I just had a thought, and it might resolve all our differences. And maybe I will change my position. See if you agree with what I am thinking. At the pilot chute end of the bridle there are usually 2 loops formed from the two sides of the bridle. The pilot chute skirt and apex lines are attached to these loops. I had been thinking that the retraction stroke should be equal to the length of the apex lines so that they would be retracted to where they are attached to the loops at the end of the bridle. If the lanyard is longer than the apex lines, but only longer by an amount not to exceed the length of the loops at the pilot chute end of the bridle, then I guess I will agree with your method of configuring the length of the lanyard. This way, the kill line can ensure maximum retraction, while still not putting undue stresses on the components involved, because the loops at the pilot chute end of the bridle can squash a bit when the retraction stroke exceeds the length of the apex lines. So if the length of the loops is the limit to the "slightly longer", then I'm okay with that. Maybe you hadn't thought about what limits the "slightly longer than the apex lines" measurement. Or maybe you knew, but didn't state it in your discussion. Either way, it is a benefit to be able to write it down clearly for all to see. Thanks again for the opportunity to refine my thinking here.

We just test-jumped 2 PCs that I successfully altered/repaired because of this same problem. I first thought that these might be slightly non-symetrical/non-concentric, but it's really hard to measure that accurately. However, both of these were not quite fully retracting, so I corrected that issue first, and it did indeed solve the problem. With each of these I ended up replacing the kill-line and the lanyard that connects the bag-end of the bridle to the main canopy. This was necessary because the kill lines couldn't be shortened any farther without creating other problems. By first lengthening the bag-canopy lanyard, I increased the retract "stroke" of the entire assambly. Then I was able to make a new kill-line of the appropriate length (actually longer than original) to permit full inflation and full retraction. I suspect that the mfrs of these PCs failed to maintain good tollerance, hence the need for correcting these dimensions. Caution: The lengths of the kill line, the bag-canopy lanyard, and the apex pull-down line(s) all affect the PCs function. If you change the dimensions of any one of these, the dimensions of the others may require adjustment also. I have seen a number of instances recently where a too short kill line was taking the load when the pilot chute was collapsed, and this resulted in wear to the point of failure of the two "wings" of bridle material inside the bag that have the quick link through them to anchor the base of the outer bridle to the bag. (Recently, one of the manufacturers went back to putting kevlar loops in this area which do not seem to wear out.) Anyway, after much thought, I have come to some ideas regarding how a kill line pilot chute should be constructed. One thought is that the bag-canopy lanyard should be approximately the same length as the apex tapes inside the pilot chute. As you mentioned, the length of this lanyard determines the overall limit on the "stroke" of the collapsing operation. If the lanyard is appreciably longer than the apex tapes, then I can imagine the situation where the kill line shrinks and the kill line than takes the load instead of the lanyard. This can happen because the stroke of the collapse is going to be limited by the shorter of the lanyard length, and the length of the apex tapes. If the apes tapes are shorter than the lanyard, you will jam the inside of the apes into the end of the bridle, and if the kill line is short enough, it will begin taking the load instead of the lanyard. Of course, the previously mentioned kevlar loops might mitigate some of all of this problem. So I am wondering how you chose the length of the bag-canopy lanyard. The other thought, which follows from the first, is that the kill line should be long enough that it is never under tension once the pilot chute is collapsed. This can certainly lead to a partially collapsed pilot chute when taken to the extreme. So I am wondering how you determine what is a fully collapsed pilot chute as opposed to a partially collapsed pilot chute. Thanks very much for giving me the chance to discuss this! You seem to have thought about this more than most of the people I talk to.

FYI In a CYPRES (not CYPRES 2, where we never see the batteries anyway), the batteries can be stored after they are manufactured (up to 3 years, IIRC), and then the 2 year/500 jump life limit on the batteries starts when they are installed. As another poster said, the life limit on the AAD itself starts from the date of manufacture.

Oh God, not this debate again. Please. Doesn't really have to be that debate again. If using 45 degrees to either side of the wind as "into the wind", there's still 3 to 1 odds that you will not be "into the wind" if there's no control input, right? Couldn't that be the point of the statement "likely to be downwind"?

I never said we don't have to seal it. The regs are clear that we must seal it after we pack it. The question is if the regulations say the seal must be there to legally jump the rig. I just searched the whole AC65-5B for "seal", and I don't think anything I found clearly requires the seal at the time of the jump. About as close as it comes is that it says, "As long as the safety thread and seal remain intact, it is an indication to the user that the pack has not been opened since being inspected and packed by a certificated parachute rigger." I do find it interesting that they state that the seal is only an indication and not proof that the rig has not been opened.

wow i'm glad you pointed that out. At safety day this year many people were discussing if there was a requirement for you to keep the seal on once you got your rig back from the rigger and the general consensus was no and it was fine to jump without the seal in place if you felt it was a danger or were uncomfortable with it being there. The only requirement was that the rigger must seal it, what you do with it after is up to you. This is a tricky area of the law. On the one hand, the regulation does not clearly state that the rig must be sealed to be legal to jump. So go ahead, give it a try. One the other hand, the rewrite of FAR 105 made it clear that the FAA could act against pretty much anybody with an FAA rating who is nearby should the regulations be violated. Your DZO (if he holds a rating, which is likely), and the pilot and possibly other people nearby can be made immensely uncomfortable if the FAA is interested in charging someone with a violation. This makes it pretty reasonable that your DZ could refuse to let you jump if the seal is missing. Why would they take the risk? Okay, maybe they'd allow it if you are well known to them. But for Joe Random Skydiver coming to their dz for the first time? Maybe not.

A few of the strands of a new reserve closing loop might be broken when all is said and done. A picture would help us give you better feedback.

There's a download button on one of the FAA pages when you start to make searches of the database. I don't have a direct url. The formats are either comma separated values (CSV) or fixed-length space padded fields. As terry said, it includes all airmen, except those who opt not to allow their info to be published. Right now, the CSV file runs about 63 MB.

As I said, I meant that post to be a PM to hallux. We already know your answers to the questions, and I expect that your post is going to inhibit him from responding to my questions without getting more upset. So, please, let him answer my questions without all the shouting.

The shit is flying on the thread, so I will use a PM and hope for a less heated discussion. I have 2 main questions: 1) The newspaper article said that the DZ's website mentioned fundraising for the Humane Society. Is what the newspaper reported correct? 2) Was it a joke or was it a fundraiser? If the DZ used the Humane Society name without permission, then there is something wrong at the very start. It is not a question of thinking your joke is funny or not. It is not a joke to use the name of a group without their permission. If the report is correct, you are fortunate not to be at the focus of legal actions by the Humane Society for the improper use of their name. If this is the case, then a sincere public apology to the Humane Society would go a long way to clearing your names. If the newspaper reported incorrectly, then you have a beef with the newspaper. If this is the case, a retraction from the newspaper would go a long way to clearing your names. As a society, we have opted to take a dim view of jokes about fundraising for things like the Humane Society. There are plenty of warnings from law enforcement agencies about falling for scams related to claims of fundraising activities. That's just the way it is - people get scammed in the name of our charities. That in itself is a very sad thing. But that's what happens, and it causes a sensitivity to the issue. If it was joke, then many will find it in extremely poor taste for a variety of reasons. For me, I'd like to know the answers to the 2 questions I asked before I form any opinions.

Even without jumping, wouldn't the ferry pilot be at risk? So, weather forecast notwithstanding, and hoax or not, I hope they find the person who made the threat.

Its still a pipedream at the moment. he is about $15 million short of the sponsorship target he needs iirc. The main cost is building the huge ramp that he would need to match his glidepath and make the landing potentially surviveable. It 'may' be possible that he can pull this off, but then again, it may not.... If you search youtube there is an interview with him about it somewhere. Very early stages although he does have some respected names and companies onboard with the project. (Not arguing with humanflite here, just using his post as the jump off point.) I, for one, will not be greatly impressed if the feat of landing a wingsuit is accomplished by building a ramp to match his glideslope. There were cases in WWII where people survived expulsions from aircraft with no parachute at all when they landed on a snow covered mountainside. Given a properly constructed ramp, we can land without the wingsuit, so what's the point? When I think of "landing a wingsuit", I think of landing in a place where we would land a parachute or an airplane. Otherwise we are just comparing apples to oranges.

Yeah, but look at it this way, Argus the dog doesn't require expensive batteries to run on. Milk bones and Pup-er-onie's is all he needs! But you have to put in new batteries every day. And what becomes of the old batteries? We've heard of the occasional battery leakage damaging gear, but this takes it to a whole new level.

Aviacom is still doing business. Go to their website. Send them an email. I usually get responses in about a day, but we're literally on opposite sides of the world.

yes

Agreed. Mostly newbies, -and the snobs- feel that way. Look at all the post about this "brotherhood", "we have a special connection", etc. It's people. No more or less. It's as special as sharing bowling as a sport. We have a lot of egos in the sport, so this is a natural subgroup of the sport to try and rationalize themselvesm using skydiving, as better than the typical person. As for recruiting for the sport. If someone wants to, that is their personal choice. But I think any expectation of a jumper to just expect others to recruit is out of line unless posted as merely a request. Those businesses that operate at skydiving can recruit all they want as part of their marketing plan. If they want their customer base to recruit, then they should offer sufficient incentives in support of their business. pro-bono recruiting is the individual skydiver's choice only. It's a business and a sport, not a cult (no matter how many newbies act like that until they quit or get used to it). What's next, mandatory fundraisors for the DZ? government bailouts for the DZ? 1 - IMO, just about anyone can be trained and can do it 2 - I'm not egotistical to think that, just because I love the sport, that every other Tom, Dick and Harry will. Some people just aren't interested. That's especially hard for new skydivers to understand. 3 - I offer share it with some of my friends because I'd like to see if they'd like it too - but never more than once, and only if they act genuinely interested. But little more than that. Because then you become "that" skydiver to your non-jumping friends. So, why are there psych studies that say we are a tiny portion of the population that seeks whatever it is we get from skydiving? I don't disagree that almost anyone can be trained to do it. But the want or the need to do is still something out of the ordinary, which is to say, it sets us apart. There's no evidence that this makes us better, but it does make us different. The problem I have with "training almost anyone to do it" is that I have seen plenty of people who, training notwithstanding, don't seem to appreciate the dangers involved. They don't care to learn enough about their gear to take care of themselves. They don't care to spend enough time at the dz to really be current enough. Etc, etc. Of course, being a rigger, I have a particular interest in knowledge of gear. I feel that knowing one's gear is the only way to continue while presenting the least danger to oneself and others. Not knowing when your gear presents a danger, for instance, of a premature deployment means that you are relying on chance to get you through, be it the chance that someone else will notice it, or the chance that it just won't happen to you on this jump. So, while it is true that the general skills are easy to teach, maintaining the necessary level of interest is not at all guaranteed by that training. Most everybody who has the least need or interest drives a car. Some of those drivers have accidents of one sort or another all the time. Some of those drivers go for decades without a mishap. In driving, the price you pay for doing it poorly is usually higher insurance, or occasionally but really quite rarely, a serious injury or death to yourself or someone else. But in skydiving, the consequences get very serious very quickly. Some people appreciate that, and others do not. I'd really prefer that the ones who don't appreciate it stay on the ground. If that makes me a snob, so be it.

Thank you for posting. I've got a cypres to send in that never had it's 4yr. so im happy to know for sure i only have to pay the 8yr.

Good point. But if you sent it in too early for the 8 year, you should not be double charged because they would not do the 8 year. You would be charged for the 4 year. Yes, this would be an unhappy surprise, but you wouldn't be double charged. The only time you could be double charged would be if you were eligible for the 8 year, and they charged for both the 4 and the 8 year checks. And SSK says that they will not double charge in that case, and have not for more than 10 years. We still don't know what Airtec is doing for non-USA service. I have received a reply from Eric Campbell of SSK that Airtec does not double charge either.

Good point. But if you sent it in too early for the 8 year, you should not be double charged because they would not do the 8 year. You would be charged for the 4 year. Yes, this would be an unhappy surprise, but you wouldn't be double charged. The only time you could be double charged would be if you were eligible for the 8 year, and they charged for both the 4 and the 8 year checks. And SSK says that they will not double charge in that case, and have not for more than 10 years. We still don't know what Airtec is doing for non-USA service.

They have a clear policy on this. They will happily accept it and do both checks at the same time. Of course you will have to pay for both of them. I am not sure the value of the thing is worth doing them both. Hearing this, I sent an email to Eric Campbell at SSK, the USA service center for Airtec. He said that they do not double charge, and have not since 1997 or 1998. I've followed on to him with a question if Airtec might be doing things differently for their direct market. I'll post when I get a response. To the poster who said his friend had just recently been double charged, where was that service performed?

Okay, okay, I did get a sewing machine. But I never put a bobbin in it!

As long as we're on the subject, how and when do you measure the loop for a Javelin? The manual says: Suggested loop length for cypres closing after setting & stretching to be 2 1/8” Do you measure from the knot or from the disk? Or do you measure from the grommet after the loop is installed in the rig? When I record closing loop lengths in my log, I always measure from the disk. Different rigs may have different routing (for instance Vector with the 2 grommets), and I like to have a common technique for all. I measure from the disk so that when I am making a new loop, I can measure without having to go to the container to check. I'd love to see a common technique used by the different manufacturers so that there would be no ambiguity. It doesn't help much to have the mfg tell you the length if you don't know how they measured it.