councilman24

A washer. Seriously Look at your main loop. A washer. Same thing. I actually started using Pop Rivet backer washers. Washer shaped but thicker so won't bend. On either washers or backer plates I use something to take any burr off the inside edge. What's handy is the tail end of the file in my rigging case. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

We had our safety day this last weekend. I provide the cutaway trainer. A major point is to see how far the handles move from wearing to under canopy and to point out that unlike the trainer (that they are still hanging in) the handles will be somewhere lower and may be shifted around torso after a cutaway due to main being empty and instability. Answer, look for the damn things and make sure of what you pulling on. Even in the trainer some people were pulling on the wrong thing. Extra: this year I hung the trainer from a rock climbing/rescue swivel so they could be spinning (upright not swung out) at upwards of 60 rpm (if I really wanted to mess with them). Help enforce needing to focus on harness and handles even with the world around you spins. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

If you have an AAD learn how to operate it, when to turn it on and off and to adjust the settings as needed. Then forget you have it. It is meant to perhaps save your life or your corpse in the last seconds (literally) if you haven't opened a parachute. RSL's and MARD's are of more use in many/most cutaway situations. Understand how they work, how to choose one, when you might want to unhook it. Then forget you have it. Again, it is meant to help when you fail to function as you should. There is a recent thread on here with a youtube video of a guy testing a base canopy. Plays with it too long. Puts one hand on each cutaway and reserve RC. Pulls cutaway and hand leaves RC for several seconds as he 'swims' unstable. He does pull before AAD fire. Generally advice above. Okay to ask about misleading ad. Fastest in test refers to 'lock time' in gun vernacular. Claim is that from deciding to activate to firing it is fastest. Not necessarily that it is going to fire sooner after a cutaway than any other. You still have to accelerate to firing speed, be below the firing altitude and NOT be below the deactivation altitude. Understandable confusion with combination of "fastest" text and photo of cutaway main. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_odkw=pfaff+238&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR9.TRC2.A0.H0.Xsinger+20u&_nkw=singer+20u&_sacat=0 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bernina-950-Zig-Zag-Freehand-Embroidery-Industrial-Sewing-Machine-Excellent-Con-/271443121385?pt=UK_CraftsCollect_SewingMachines_RL&hash=item3f334554e9 I don't know if you mean new to you or brand new. I wouldn't buy a brand new 20U. Quality suffers on Chinese made white ones. The link above is to an older blue one. All parts readily available. Compared to other prices on ebay uk looks like reasonable. Bernina 950 is a commercial type machine well thought of by some outside rigging and I believe will do your button holes. Pfaff 238 or Bernina 217 for used zig zag but none on ebay uk. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Thanks, I haven't had a chance to digest both previous posts but 'always be 150' ABOVE GROUND' is misleading. The deactivation ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE will always.be the same.as.equivalent to 150' above the ground level.zero. If you land 400' above the ground level.zero, where you turned on the Vigil, the deactivation altitude is 250' below ground level. That's why the manual tells you to turn off the Vigil right away. In a situation like this the Vigil is still in the higher sampling rate airborne mode. I said I wasn't going to talk about this but above ground, instead of above ground level zero is very different. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

When you've been around for awhile you collected plenty when SSK gives them away at PIA symposiums and other places. Not much need for new ones. Take one out put one back. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I've asked for a call back to help me understand. I still don't get it. If deactivation doesn't change and you increase 400' altitude offset then will it never deactivate? (shaking head confused) I've been told Vigil has said that using the offset is appropriate for changing activation altitude. If so I've missed it. I need to know to advise my customers but until I figure it out I'm done talking about Vigils. Edit I only repeated what someone else told me about the deactivation alt. didn't change with a PLUS change. I don't know. Second edit. Okay. I have been told by someone associated with Vigil America that the 150' deactivation altitude does not change/move with a positive/plus altitude correction. This is not in the current manual. It is part of the reason the manual stresses turning off the Vigil if you do a correction and land at a higher LZ. The unit remains in airborne mode, with higher sampling rate and activation enabled. I've learned something today, apologized to Vigil for my misunderstanding and can better serve my customers. Look to Vigil for more information. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Hey Pat, can have some of what your on? Or was it a flashback? Good to see someone with creativity on here. Keep it up! I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I've been contacted by someone associated with Vigil America and told that the deactivation altitude does not change when adding a plus altitude correction. I still haven't found anything in the manual that says this. Since all the references to altitude correction are up and down I assumed the deactivation altitude must be moving. I sincerely apologize if I have misunderstood the manual and given wrong information here. We all keep learning. For now please consider anything I've said about how the Vigil operates as wrong. Until I get clarification about the deactivation altitude I don't understand. Again, my apologies to Vigil and everyone else for any incorrect statements. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

As posted above the deactivation altitude DOES change on a vigil when using the field elevation correction. It took me a long time to find it but it is in the manual. These adjustments again are not intended to adjust activation altitude while jumping at one dropzone. They may have that effect but they have other unintended effects also. And not the same as having the factory default at 1050 or so. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Altitude corrections for landing field elevation different from take off elevation is NOT what we are discussing. These corrections on both the Vigil and the Cypres (which has had it from day 1) change not only firing altitude but deactivation altitude and should NOT be used if you want to change the firing altitude ABOVE GROUND LEVEL. These corrections are to be used when the landing at a site with a different GROUND elevation than the take off airfield and hence the automatic zero calibration is not ground level where landing. From the vigil II manual "An “altitude correction” mode allows you to introduce a positive or negative altitude difference between the departure and landing levels (from +6000ft to -6000 ft or from +2000m to -2000m) in steps of 150ft or 50 m. " emphasis added From the 2012 Cypres II manual, before addition of the firing altitude adjustment added. "You must change the altitude reference whenever the airfield and the dropzone where you intend to land are at different elevations. CYPRES allows for adjustments of up to plus/ minus 3000 feet, or plus/minus 1000 meters." We all make mistakes but for the benefit of those less knowledgeable, I believe we all need to be more careful in the future. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

What we (PIA Risk Management Committee) asked USPA to do is to change the altitude level action description from 'pack opening' to 'fully open and functioning parachute' which is defined in the TSO. This would still have allowed near 2000' exits with fast opening canopies. USPA chose to move the levels. Why did PIA ask this? Because no matter what the cause of the incidents where AAD's fire and reserves don't open in time skydiving has changed. Airtec determined it's 750' firing altitude in the early 90's when there was no freeflying, no tracking dives, no speed skydiving and when containers were less 'boxed' in, when riser covers were simpler and didn't cover as much of the reserve container, when reserves weren't being designed to open at the slow end of the allowed time and when canopies opened in 200-400 ft instead of 800-1000 ft. We belly flew with Vector II's, Northern Lites, Racers, Centarus's and Talons. We jumped F-111 or early zp canopies that we tried to slow down. Skydiving and it's equipment has changed from 1991 and we believed the AAD activation altitudes needed to also. In order to convince manufacturer's to do that we needed to have canopies open before 1200-1400 ft resulting from 2000' pack opening and new canopy designs. And one AAD manufacturer HAS responded. For several years Airtec would increase your Cypres' firing altitude by 100 or 200'. It was a one time, factory adjustment and could not be changed in the field. Their answer last year was to make it user adjustable up to 1650'. So it has happened. I hope that the two other current electronic manufacturers will follow suit. And Airtec did it in such a way to maintain the belief of the owner but give the individual the choice. Another part of PIA (technical committee) is trying to learn why this is happening. PIA along with USPA asked for some data from the field and received essentially none. Studies have been done by both individual manufacturers and PIA committees trying to gather data to IDENTIFY problems, not opinions. I have opinions, you have opinions but before a trade organization takes any action affecting it's members it needs to have more than opinions. PIA, as a group of VOLUNTEERS from various manufactures as well as independent folks like me, has no regulatory power or even any ability to call out any manufacturer. BTW not all container manufacturers, or other manufacturers, are members of PIA. The list is available in the PIA yellow pages on the website. I'll let you figure out who is missing. PIA as an organization of competitors goes out of it's way not to comment on the quality of ANY product. Even when many manufactures were 'banning' the Argus from their rigs PIA was careful to not take a position because it is NOT PIA's BUSINESS TO COMMENT ON QUALITY OR FUNCTION OF ANY PRODUCT. To do so, especially of a non member's product could, lead to civil liability and perhaps criminal liability under anti trust laws. And even though we were very careful NOT to discuss the suitability of the Argus in PIA meetings PIA is still being sued by the owner of Argus. PIA did and continues to post service and other bulletins from those in the industry. There is no grand conspiracy. All PIA meetings with the exception of the discussion and vote for new member applications are open to the public, including executive committee meetings. Anybody is able, invited, and welcome to attend. Did PIA advocate for 18? Yes. Why? Because of incidents like the one in Oklahoma with the injured 16 year old who went through S/L training and then said she thought she was doing a tandem. Many, many lawsuits naming gear manufacturers, DZ's and others have been dismissed or never filed because of effective waivers. In this country, a wavier is meaningless for anyone under the age of majority, mostly 18 but higher in some places. We know how several manufacturers have been affected by lawsuits. When the subject becomes a child and it gets to a jury all bets are off. Even when the product didn't have a chance of working, with the loop not through the cutter, the lawsuit is continuing against Airtec. We already all pay higher gear prices because of frivolous liability claims. It won't take much for other manufacturers to go the way of ParaFlite, Security and SSE and either become a military contractor only, not do business in the U.S. or go out of business entirely. In order to skydive we have to have gear. The next PIA business meetings are in Denver in August. Anybody and everybody is invited to attend, offer comments if you'd like and even become a member. There have been very few applications ever turned down and I'm more than glad to be a sponsor and help anybody get another sponsor. Application is here.http://www.pia.com/NEWS/MembershipAppInstFix.pdf I don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't build gear, I don't sell gear (with the exception of an occasional pilot rig), I don't own a DZ, I don't even work at a DZ anymore. I do some jumping (not as much as I'd like), I do some rigging, do some rigger training and testing, I try to help with rigger education and try to be an independent voice in PIA to help the sport. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Does anybody have or know of a pic or vid online of a two out with the reserve through the main where if cutaway the main would choke off the reserve? Like to have it to explain situation. Thanks. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I have a rig here a newbie bought. We're retiring a similar main but the H/C and reserve were fine. For some reason the ebay link didn't work but I wouldn't suggest ebay as a source for used gear. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I was never much for doing crew or down planes but for the guys that did them they were.landing manuvers. If you were good you turned it so you landed by.the.peas and the other guy landed in the corn. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

The Fury was a good canopy. But an old one is not a good choice for first rig these days. It's likely wore out and won't fly.or.flare like your next canopy and maybe not like your student canopies. I don't recommend old non zp canopies to newbies. They may be airworthy but to many better canopies available unless you've been there, done that in the past and know what your getting. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I've never seen that video before. Too cool. Makes me want to go out and jump a round. Time to go pack one. And lose about 40 lbs. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Sounds like a good idea doesn't it. But practical, legal and other issues get in the way. First the gear is usually impounded.by the police. In my area IF the FAA shows up at all its days later and usually just to look at the packing data card. Maybe they bring a rigger maybe not. The gear may be held for a long time but when it is released its often now potential evidence in a lawsuit. At least some lawyer will be looking for one. Often the gear manufacturer can't get a look at it. To PIA testing it. Sometimes I don't think people realize what PIA is. PIA has no staff other than one part time nontechnical assistant. Committees are made up of volunteers from member organizations, often competing manufacturers. EVEN IF PIA had access to the gear who would anyone trust to do such a test? The lawyer will want their own hired gun to do it, the manufacturer will want to do it but they're likely trying to avoid or defend a lawsuit, many riggers are dealers or have affiliations with manufacturers, etc. For instance the material chair of the rigging committee works for Sandy Reid at USAPR. The chair of technical committee did work for sunpath and now owns his own rig company. There are a few members like me that are independent. I don't make my living from skydiving, I'm not a sport gear dealer or have any other relationship with manufacturers other than being a dealer for softie. I used to be a dealer for Strong for a couple years but only dealt with PEPs. But even I.have my own biases. So who would everyone trust? That's not.to.say I wouldn't trust the folks I've mentioned but.not everyone would. And a lot of folks wouldn't want to do it anyway with gear that has become a biohazard. And I'm not sure it would prove much. Each rigger is unique in their packing, often part of the gear is damaged. Any test pack would not duplicate the previous one. And then the person who did it would be subject to being called as a witness by either side in a lawsuit. In other countries where the APF, BPA and others have been given authority by the government or where the government has taken more authority like France it might be easier. Could someone have done this in Poland with the gear from the fatality that involved an Argus? Yes, maybe someone, maybe PIA should do this but it just becomes hard to overcome all these issues. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

I knew that. Oops I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

You already have seen mandatory AAD's, for tandems. When an supposedly uneducated member of the public is involved in the US the FAA has already decided that they should be mandatory. So far it hasn't reached to individual decisions of skydivers. I think that's an easy step for the FAA to take. Except for the fact they are so backed up and skydiving is to low on the priority list an emergency regulation correction took 8 years. The FAA has already said that no new little reserves will be certified with the latest TSO. I happen to agree with that decision. And the current ones were done under an exemption. As to the new norm. There have always been AAD's available but few experienced people used them until Helmut invented a reliable, modern, small and easily adaptable AAD in 1991. I'd really like to see what would happen in the US if all AAD manufacturers refused to sell to civilians. See my post above, it is not an impossible situation. I like AAD's I've owned several and still own one. Of course I also own 4 'modern' rigs. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

We could ask not "will they be mandatory?" but will they be available? We may be one lawsuit, or maybe one verdict, away from one AAD manufacturer abandoning the US market. Helmut, founder of Airtec GmbH, is baffled why he is spending 10's of thousand of dollars defending a lawsuit where the rigger didn't put the loop through the cutter. The rest of the world and the US military may just be a large enough market if it means avoiding lawsuits like this. It's happened before when Steve Snyder stopped selling a previous popular AAD because of lawsuits. I wonder how many jumpers would quit jumping if AAD's were not available? Or cost $10,000 in order to pay for lawsuits? Gear already costs more because of liability exposure in the US. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

First thought. What happens when you have to cutaway after a collision? I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

Yes, when we think that can help. Issues? I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE

As you well know MEL the PIA has no power and little influence on any individual manufacturer's actions. We also move at a glacial pace. And 'we' includes you since your a member also. What would you do with three reports? Certainly isn't enough data for anything even if they were the same rig. Not sure which committee you want to have different members but for the most part anybody that's a member and wants to show up at the business meetings can be on most any committee they want. How the committees are run are a function of the results of the elections for chairmen by members. If anybody wants it different they have to show up to vote. Jo Oosterveer from Belgium is coming to business meetings so NOBODY has an excuse. BTW good having dinner with you in Chattanooga. Glad you recognized yourself.

Yeah, but what is it so we can tell you it's wrong? I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE