pchapman

So an incident report from the DZ is on http://www.pia.com/TechnicalSpecialPage.htm under "Texas USA 2.11". At least the loop length appears to be more or less to spec. I had a closer look at the photos in that report. Is it just me, or is the configuration of the loop bizarre? It looks like the top end of the loop isn't free, but that it is still captured by the cutter. And that it was dragged through the cutter (leaving it fuzzy), since the cutter is shown at the very top of the loop, not at the cut location. Very odd. Then think about the Mirage configuration, after the cutter relocation mod. There's the pilot chute, then the cutter above, then the last 4 flaps (bottom, sides, top). How do the photos make sense if the pin stayed in? Or what am I misinterpreting from the photos? Too late at night for me to try to figure it out now. But have a look and think about it. And Eric Butts who co-authored the report, is he on DZ? I know his name, but can't recall his screen name.

I'll post a reply over in the thread on the actual incident. (USPA Newsletter report of Texas Argus event) Edit: Well, I didn't actually address your devil's advocate thoughts much, but it got me thinking. The loop was at least about the right length. But when I looked at the photos of the loop... the situation got more confusing. Interesting. Another edit: Hey Shaun, maybe Argus' web designer also designs cutters in his spare time and is busy.

OK to repeat, though some of us remember it. Airtec took a long time (and one death) to finally admit that somebody some day might dive fast enough to set one off under canopy. Still, that was a change in one aspect of the sport of skydiving that caught up with what had been a perfectly reasonable design for years. But the Argus is today's issue. I'm kind of surprised nobody has a web page where they've taken the time to summarize all the AAD failures and rumours over the years, and how the companies responded. It would take some work! Things fade from memory and one doesn't always remember the details. And there are always incidents one hasn't heard of, that seemingly haven't been investigated in detail, like in another post just made here: (What year was that? Not one of the early prototypes presumably, gbstuar ?)

Here's a decent analysis. I got it off dz.com recently but with all the Argus threads, and URL's not perhaps searching fully, I can't find it again. Wasn't even showing up in web searchs. MJOSparky or someone posted a bunch of links to all sorts of Argus reports & bulletins. The Polish report into the Polish fatality also has some close up pics of the inside of the cutter.

He means "fourth knee injury", in case anyone is wondering! Beatniks post about a collapsing dactyl fixing his old leg injury is certainly a "your mileage might vary" story...

Some opinions: Although I'm not happy with how slowly Aviacom has appreciated the Argus cutter issues and dealt with them, the way things get banned these days I wonder about the philosophy of doing so. The Argus clearly has a problem cutting loops in some conditions. I can see rig companies wishing to be dissociated with a "loser", but some companies sure react fast and strongly once the word gets passed around, to ban the Argus in their rigs. I bet the US FAA rules on manufacturer approval for AAD installations is driving this process, that rig manufacturer don't want to be linked officially to a product with a problem, that's physically installed inside their rigs. Wusses. They don't ban other potentially dangerous things that people might jump with. Unless manufacturers have a specific rig configuration that changes the odds of something going wrong, then if there's an industry wide warning they don't really have to jump on the band wagon with their own specific rules. The idea of banning an AAD temporarily also depends on one's philosophy on AADs. For students and tandems, there's pretty much agreement that they should be protected with a decent AAD. But for experienced jumpers, the situation is different. The Argus isn't much danger to others on the plane or the sky, as it isn't firing inadvertently. It would only be a problem if one smoked it low, had the loop not cut properly, and go up again without checking one's AAD. That could be dealt with largely by bulletins about increased inspections, just as is done with aircraft part problems while waiting for a long term solution. The Argus also creates little increased risk to the jumper if they behave properly. An Argus can only impede a manual reserve pull if you pull your reserve a lot lower than you should, if one has a certain cutter location and the Argus happens to cut the loop poorly just before you get the reserve extracted. If someone's philosophy is that AAD's should be mandatory, then the Argus is doing a lousy job and perhaps rigs and jumpers should be grounded. But if one's philosophy is that AAD's are an optional safety device, then Argus' are still useful. If you lose altitude awareness or are knocked silly in freefall, it quite easily still has a 90+% chance to save your life. That may be a good tradeoff against a chance of jamming up (depending on the rig) if you pull your reserve below 1000'. (My biases: I'm in the group who believes that AAD's should be optional once off student status. And I've got a Cypres 2.) As much as Argus' cutters and their response to the problem sucks, I'm not sure Argus' should all be grounded.

Very brief summary of article: Repeat "not yet" to the student during the last 100 ft, then do a 3-stage flare. More could have been said to discuss the points made and alternatives, so it isn't the final word. But the general ideas have merit even if other DZ's would implement the specifics differently. DZ's do have success with a multi stage flare. And there is value to talking to the student shortly before the flare command, so that they aren't just listening to static and wondering if you see them or the radio is out, while they get more nervous with the ground approaching.

Bulletin summary: Remove that Argus piece of @#$#@ from our rigs, now. (Slightly paraphrased. Any errors in interpretation are mine.) EDIT: Disclaimer: Not trying to be too mean to Argus, every manufacturer has had problems. But at the moment, they're the ones taking the heat.

Yeah. One aspect of that is it is easy to instruct poorly because even when part of what the instructor does or says is 100% accurate, another part of what they are doing is inaccurate. The instructor knows what part is accurate, and thinks his teaching is being transmitted effectively, since he knows what part not to pay attention to. But the student doesn't, and picks up the wrong cues. For example, the instructor is describing something about body position, and does some sort of arm waving demonstration, or a quick casual demo on a creeper. But he's not demonstrating the position exactly. So he's showing a proper upper body twist for a turn, for a box man position, but casually leaves his arms low while standing and demonstrating, hands near his shoulders instead of up high by his head. The instructor thinks, "Well of course you have to have your arms up towards your head in the air -- I reinforced that lesson two jumps ago." But the student may not remember that when he sees the instructor always demonstrating freefall position with hands by the shoulders, and pick up cues from that. So either be just talking about something, or when demonstrating, do it entirely correctly. It's so easy to get into casual half assed demonstrations and arm waving, where the student gets the wrong ideas because all sorts of conflicting things going on, even when the instructor has been giving out absolutely correct information as well. (If the position on the ground or training devices don't allow doing it quite the same as in the air, point out the differences. Also, one can demonstrate only particular aspects as long as it is made clear. E.g., "OK, focus on my legs -- ignore my arms for now -- we'll just work on the leg position for this practice.") Just my opinion.

+1 for JackC1, for the idea that "muscle memory" is sometimes used for too broad a range of things, including the decision making process. The term gets used a lot, with skydivers not being clear what is meant by it.

Thank you aliencico, I'll try that. I've been to those web sites but didn't realize the D-6 had been used by any English speaking country.

I was wondering about that. Presumably they have some good confidentiality protections because they are the government. Is there anything in the FAA / NASA ASRS rules prohibiting skydivers from flooding their system with malfunction reports etc? Would they deep six the reports or be obligated to catalogue them? After all, skydivers are users of the airspace, have to follow FAA rules and use TSO'd equipment. It probably wouldn't do much to make the FAA move beyond its usual glacial pace when it comes to skydiving, but it is a kind of fun thought to swamp them with reports and try to get official protection of a confidential reporting system for skydiving.

Ok, so according to Strong it was a terrible evil illegal despicable immoral thing to put an Icarus in a Strong yesterday.... but tomorrow it's a great thing. Uh huh. Don't you love that B.S. about always having to follow manufacturer's instructions in the USA? (Presumably they will of course do some official compatibility testing.)

Generally quite true and useful for students to understand. I'll expand on that to add some "fine print": Nevertheless, one does want to know how to properly get out of the airplane, whether it is a C-182 or Caravan. Improper exits can lead to bruises, getting skinned, losing teeth, breaking bones. So there are a few things to be learned about making sure one gets clear of the airplane instead of smacking into it on the way out.

-- Get more practice on the ground. Make sure you're getting detailed info about where to put hands and feet, where to shift one's weight, that sort of thing. Being properly positioned can make it a lot easier. E.g., when climbing out, having a good hold on the strut is useful. But some can't get to the strut easily because they haven't placed their first foot on the step properly, which they can't do because they're back too far from the door while trying to climb out. If you are in the right place after one step of the process, it makes the next step a lot easier. -- Even the lightest girls with big heavy student gear can move out on the step against the wind. One does have to recalibrate one's mind to use extra muscle force to move one's limbs to their intended destinations though! -- Make sure your instructors know you find the exit a bit intimidating, so they start the climb out early, reducing the time pressure so it doesn't become a big rush. -- Make sure you and your instructors have an exit count set up, so that after the complex climb out, you can take a couple moments to relax and focus on the actual jump off the plane and the rest of the freefall, before you actually do the count and jump. Students can get so wound up by the climbout that they then flop or throw themselves off the plane in relief, in a bad body position, mind blank, and waste some of their precious freefall time before getting their mind back in the game.

Chord of a parachute from front to back, not cord.

Re: Niki1's description of his cutaways. Bob Nixon's (Niki1) Relative Workshop cutaway shot was a classic photo to me when I was just starting jumping. It was a particularly dynamic shot seen in a few back issue Parachutist magazines I bought to see what skydiving was about. So for the record: Attached is the full RWS ad talking about their meshless reserve pilot chute (Parachutist Nov. '89), and a closeup of the cutaway photo itself. Also in the same issue, as part of the reserve buyer's guide article, was a pic of the bridle tests. So maybe Bob can do a writeup on that in a new thread sometime. Photo also attached. What kind of canopy setup did you have for your tersh, Bob?

Having a fan is worth repeating. Being able to blow air on the rig speeds up the drying process a lot. None of those damp nooks & crannies 3 days later.

I was thinking pretty much the same. From the time that a problem started to appear, Amanda got back into the cockpit extremely quickly. It seemed a well practiced move. Not sure there was time for a seatbelt though, even if they had a faster than normal method rigged up. The big biplane sure lost energy quickly, even coming out of a descending maneuver. Enough to turn a little away from obstacles (the pyro setup apparently), but nothing left for a flare. Looked like he took it in with quite a bit of descent rate. A tough situation to be faced with.

Yeah, like world champion Rob Harris when he died in 1995 with that kind of setup. Edit: Oops I missed the earlier reference to Rob that was already posted, so I'll revise this post to add some helpful detail and be less sarcastic. Joe Jennings describes the rig: Rob pulled the regular cutaway handle instead of the one for the 3rd canopy he was under, thus pulling the risers of the regular main partially out of the pack. He then chopped the 3rd canopy properly, and struggled to get the reserve out. That may have been due to his costume getting in the way, so it is a different factor, even if the wrong handle choice set events in motion. He did get the reserve out, but late, hitting at line stretch. Witnesses suggest the flapping main risers had entangled with the reserve bridle for anything from a moment to a couple seconds. Rob had not deployed the cut away main canopy still in its pack. So even if in general the risks may be considered manageable with that sort of 3-canopy system, there are some hazards that can be avoided by completely separating the 1st and 2nd main canopy systems. When Joe Jennings reported on when he watched Rob fall to his death, Joe admitted he himself had also pulled the wrong cutaway handle once a few days before with the same system.

As rhys said, companies can't be entirely blind to the canopy brand shopping that goes on. I'm sort of joking, but if companies really wanted to stop others' canopies from being used, why not go after the big fish, the suppliers, instead of hassling the users? The suppliers are clearly the ones conspiring to get their canopies in others' rigs. So let's see Strong and UPT putting their money where their mouth is, and suing the shit out of Icarus and Precision. Instead of worrying about outsiders suing them, let them beat each other up and hurt the industry that way.

Or if your car is a Ford, you were prohibited from ever putting any non-Ford parts on it, whether as direct replacements or upgrades. Will all those parts be of equal quality to original Ford parts? Maybe not. (Mind you, with the Cessna / Hartzell issue, only certain props are certified with certain aircraft & engine combinations. Still, the overall point is valid.)

Sure sounds like a skydiver to me. So does getting told on dz.com to not get overexcited and take things easier.

Cool. Then there were also those US smoke jumpers from the Bureau of Land Management who have (had?) a belly mount square, a 270 MT-1S. They use some sort of droop risers so they are suspended from a higher point under reserve. Edit: Their reserves appear to hook on to risers built into the main harness, using lockable climbing carabiners. So there's no worry about accidentally knocking a snap open. So what kind of reserve hookup was used on that UPT cutaway rig? Regular snaps, or something that could be locked?

I can see how a no refund policy will confuse the person coming in off the street. I wouldn't want to go to an electronics store, pay for a TV, have a clerk go back to the stock room and come back to say, "Sorry, out of stock, it says no refunds, sucker." The no refund policy has been an issue at one DZ I'm at too. We can understand some reasons for avoiding refunds or 100% refunds in most cases -- you don't want no-shows at the DZ after the staff have been arranged, and people have to expect to drive back again if the weather didn't work out. The DZO will sometimes relent after enough complaining in certain cases. Or instructors have to catch the tandem students in time to tell them to specifically ask about a potential refund or not having their card charged until the jump. What else is someone supposed to do if they are a tourist or exchange student, and flying home to another country next week?