Hooknswoop

AS8015 should be in the front of Vol II. AS8015B is available here: http://www.sae.org/servlets/productDetail?PROD_TYP=STD&PROD_CD=AS8015B Derek

Good, keep thinking that. Assume your RSL is not going to work, which in a total mal situation I gurantee it won't, anything else is not a good idea. Derek

Isn't this the same DZ that wanted to know: "Anyone know how to rescend a Regional Director? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1482831;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;? So let me get this right. You get caught using BASE rigs out of the jump plane, get mad that the RD investigates and now are mad that they aren't doing something about getting the DZ re-opened? If I was her, I wouldn't want to help get the DZ that caused me so many headaches back open. Like JP, if the DZ is meeting the airport's requirements, then there should be no problem opening the DZ. Do you want the RD to meet the airport's requirements for you? Derek

Would not. I didn't want to die because my Cypres fired thinking it was saving me. My neck was already on the line. I wanted to know just how far my neck was out. I did read the manual, which states that small canopies won't fire a Cypres. When questioned, Airtec didn't want to stand behind that statement because they know it was not longer true, in 2001. Clearly it doesn't take a very small canopy to fire a Cypres. A Cypres may misfire at any time, that is accepted. But if someone is generating the speeds for the time necessary to make it fire, that is not a misfire or malfunction. How is a jumper supposed to now that they could cause the Cypres to fire? Especially when the manual says they can’t? Then they should have said, “We don’t know. It may fire or it may not. Use at your own risk.” They did exactly that with this statement:” Our previous statement that "it is not possible to safely perform such radical maneuvers below 750 feet and activate CYPRES, as even if a jumper reaches 78 mph vertical speed for a brief amount of time, it will not activate" has been super ceded by new techniques involving a small handful of the best of the best canopy pilots. For them it is now possible to sustain vertical speed in excess of 78 mph for an extended period of time, and land safely.” That statement should have come out a long time ago, not a couple of days after not the first incident, but after the first fatality. They should investigate further and come up with a guide as to who is at risk and who isn’t. The consumer needs that information to make an educated decision about whether or not they can have a Cypres in their reserve container. Derek

Sure they are, they didn't know if I could fire it or not. They suspected I could, but seemd afraid to say so. The conversation was very odd and they clearly didn't want to discuss it at all. I couldn't even get them to answer, "Could I possibly fire it during a landing?" I asked if I could jump a data logger so that I could find out for sure, but they weren't interested, they wanted to charge me to use it. Basically, I couldn't get any answers out of them, so I got rid of the Cypres. They knew in 2001 that small canopies could cause a Cypres to fire. Everyone has seen the trend of more people jumper smaller and smaller canopies. It was a matter of time before they started to fire. I felt that I was better off without the Cypres because of the risk it may fire from the small canopy was greater than the risk of actually needing the Cypres. I went against what the manual said. If the harness has some serious wear that made it a possibility that it may fail on a hard reserve deployment, then it was a real possibility. Especially if I was aware of a similar incident. If the harness is good, then I would tell them, the odds are almost zero because the reserve will come apart before the harness, and if it doesn't,t hen you'll come apart and it won't matter. If I knew that that particular harness and reserve combination could cause the harness to fail, I would tell them so. Derek

Even with extreme maneuvers during exit and in freefall, CYPRES will cope with it. Whatever you can think of under canopy like stalls, spiral turns, down planes, hookturns with the smallest canopies as well as any CRW, CYPRES will analyze these movements without problems. It won't interfere with any normal activities while skydiving. People say RTFM. Well the manual says you can't fire a Cypres with a small canopy. So if you RTFM, you think you are OK. So now RTFM isn't enough, you have to know more than the manufacturer apparently. Now that we know it can prove to be a problem? Airtec knew in 2001. It was a matter of time before it caused a fatality. If Airtec had changed the maual and release a statement along the lines of small canopies may cause the Cypres to fire during high perfomrance manuevers and is not recommended to be used during such manuevers, I would agree that they would be blameless. But, they knew it could be an issue in 2001 when I talked to them. Derek

I was well aware of the parameters Airtec says will cause the Cypres to fire. Even Airtec could not tell me if it would fire at my WL and under my VX. If the manufacturer can't tell me, how am I supposed to figure it out from RTFM? People keep saying all you have to do is RTFM, but that is no help. If it was, then Airtec could answer if a certain canopy at a certain WL, landing at a certain elevation at a certain density altitude could fire the Cypres. They can't. How is a jmper supposed to be able to decide if they are at risk of firing their Cypres then? No, remove or amend the statement that hook turns under small canopes will not fire the Cypres. Because, clearly, that is no longer true. So RTFM will set the jumper up for failure. Airtec knew this issue was coming for a long time. Derek

Right, but Wingloading and manuevers play a role. You can't simply say a VX-46 will cause it to fire and a VX-60 won't. It isn't that simple. For example, even after these tests, Airtec could not tell me if my Cypres would fire or not. Derek

They cpouldn't tell me my Cypres wouldn't fire with my VX-60 at the 2001 PIA Symposium, so I removed it. I couldn't get any sort of solid information out of them. They acted like they either didn't know or didn't want to make a definate statement because of liability reasons. I asked to jump a data logger to find out, but they wanted to charge me to jump it. I just removed and sold the Cypres and was done with it. Derek

"the operations agreement they held with the city was terminated June 6 when Williams and Fortner were unable to produce proof of liability insurance as was required in the agreement" Sounds like it is because of the insurance and failing to have it per the agreement before. If they have the insurance now, then they should be good to go. Facility Name: BRUSH MUNI City Name: BRUSH County: MORGAN State abbrev: CO State Name: COLORADO Ownership: PUBLICLY OWNED Use: OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Owner's Name: CITY OF BRUSH Address: PO BOX 363 BRUSH, CO 80723 Owner's Phone: 970-842-5001 Manager's Name: CITY OF BRUSH/JEFF GATES Address: PO BOX 363 BRUSH, CO 80723 Phone: 970-842-5001 Aircraft Data Operations (reported) Yearly Avg. Daily General Aviation transient: 200 1 General Aviation Local: 900 2 Federal Status Airport Certification: Facility Not Certificated. Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting Index: None Airport of Entry: No Custom Landing Rights: No Joint Civil/Military: No Military Landing rights: No Derek

http://dayton.craigslist.org/bik/ That is just for Dayton, but you can search surrounding areas too. Or just get one of these:http://www.intelligent-energy.com/index_article.asp?secID=15&secondlevel=796&artID=3709 Derek

Yep, because it could have been caught by the jumper reaching back and checking. Derek

Only things that the jumper could not have found with a gear check of their own gear on the ground or by checking their gear in the airplane. So, basically the problem must have happened after they put their rig on and would have been unable to then find the problem themselves while still wearing the gear. The reserve pin being OK on the ground, then being found not seated during a pin check is a perfect example. A tucked under cutaway handle could be found by the jumper so would not count. Basically I'm looking for things that only a pin check would have found, i.e. couldn't have been foound any other way. Derek

Yes, since the pin wasn't partially extracted when he checked it on the ground and he couldn't have caught it with the rig on his back. A pin checkis the only way it would have been found. Derek

The last poll got screwed up. I'm looking for just things the jumper wearing the gear could not have caught/found themselves. Derek

All of those could have been caught by the jumper. I'm looking for things that only could have been caught by a pin check. Derek

You are probably right. Well, not probably, you are right. Derek

One word: tuffet. Derek

Yep, that's all. Got another? It's all good

Yes, it is. I clarified later to not include things the jumper themselves could not have caught on the ground or doing a gear check themselves in the plane. Things like a tucked under cutaway handle are very easy for the jumper to catch. I'm looking for things only a pin check from someone else could catch. Derek

I was discussing it with several people. I felt like I had to repeat myself because people kept trying to make it about something else. Derek

It's my fault if people read things that aren't there? Derek

mis-interpreted. If I didn't say it, I didn't say it. If I did, show me. If you can;t, then stick to what I am talking about: The rules should be changed to require a stand up landing for the run to count. Derek

Show me where I said that. Then why abuse them? Why not take that element out? It wouldn't hurt anything. Wouldn't you rather have been jumping today? Isn't already been said it would improve the image of swooping and help advance the sport? Why not require stand up landings. You have tried to make this about you, me, MH, the swoopers, highjumpers, tandems, and whatever else. That isn't what I am talking about. Only about stand up landings. Give one good reason not to require a stand up landing for the run to count. I have given several why it would be a good change. And quit taking this so personal. Derek

Which could have been caught on the ground. Derek