pchapman

Would have been Glide Path at the time. Flight Concepts hadn't been invented yet as the successor to Glide Path. That didn't happen until years later. ('94??)

It is true that the reaction to most malfunctions is to get rid of the parachute, as others have said. Playing around with a real malfunction is an advanced topic and not recommended at lower experience levels. At the same time. there are a broader range of what can be considered malfunctions, which may require different emergency procedures, even for novices. Part of the problem is that there's ambiguity in the word malfunction, whether it includes more minor, fixable issues, or just 'classic, real malfunctions of a deployed main parachute'. And whether the word is used to describe other unusual or emergency situations. Responses to a malfunction / unusual situation will differ between each of the following: a hard pull on the pilot chute, a pilot chute in tow, a pilot chute wrapped on your foot, a line twist, closed end cells, a line over, and a popped toggle, two-out side by side, and a hung slider. This is true even for novices. The responses one takes will likely become more sophisticated between jump 1, jump 20, and jump 500. All of these are malfunctions of a sort even if most are not a classic 'real' malfunction of a deployed main parachute.

=== Reviving a year old thread ==== I came across an interesting post on an aviation news site that talks about the degree to which an aircraft manufacturer can change maintenance rules. For a regular FAA certified aircraft you must follow the original manual that came with the product, plus any Airworthiness Directives. Other instructions and bulletins and updated manuals from the manufacturer may be useful but not mandatory. I haven't verified what the guy says but he seems to know what he's talking about. It supports what I think most of us understand about the FAA clarification letter about skydiving gear (even though the letter was a little ambiguous.) It seems to show a consistent line of thinking in the FAA about what manufacturers are allowed to demand retroactively of customers, whether for certified airplanes or parachutes. A company can't add new restrictions unless the FAA formally agrees through the AD process! [Ref: Larry Stencel, 3 April 2016, user comment on AvWeb.com]

I found one rare case. The NAA Eagle reserve manual says nothing about it, but when I contacted the company, a rep for them said soft links are not approved TSO approved for the Eagle and I was requested not to use them. Not that they think there's some special incompatibility, just that they never tested with them so don't approve them. (As for arguing about grey areas with TSOs, component compatibility, and secret knowledge not in the manual, I won't try to figure that out.)

Ask away Hackish. Always good to get views from the manufacturers out into the community.

While soft links are most common these days, I'm curious what riggers' standards and procedures are for reserves with hard links, with Maillon Rapide links that is. Ideally they have bumpers installed, either a fabric cover or silicone tubing. Clear vinyl tubing covers are still seen on old rigs. One sometimes sees rigs with hard links with no bumpers. Sometimes the links are left as is, sometimes there's tacking in the riser to help reduce link rotation, and sometimes the lines are tied (tacked) together at the link to prevent them from sliding all over (including onto or over the link barrel). I kind of like to at least see some tacking, as it an easy upgrade without having to take links off to put bumpers on. Another issue is link orientation -- sometimes ones with no covers have the barrel to the outside, which isn't recommended due to possible slider damage but doesn't change things structurally for the parachute opening. Having links with no bumpers or tacking seems to be entirely legal although a little old school now. One still sees that shown in some modern manuals as acceptable. What do you all do? Often if the configuration is legal and safe I leave it, but sometimes I suggest the rig owners to upgrade a little. If tying lines together at the links, I've seen it done with supertack or with seal thread -- the latter possibly breaking easily but not strong enough to interfere with the way loads are applied to the lines on opening. Some simple ways of tying the lines together can let the tacking shift and not really restrain the lines at all.

In reference to Sunpath having gone bizarrely strict on RSL's: The Javelin was C23c Cat B for everything approximately before Oct. 2001, after which the design was recertified C23d. So the situation will be different than for Mirage's C23b.

Yes it's a 'sighting device'. Common on aerobatic aircraft. Especially useful for competition, where maneuvers in many of the programs are from a catalog and involve 45 degree, or 90 degree pitch attitudes, and any deviation from that gets penalized in the scoring.

Interesting point -- Vectran is often generally better than Spectra for lines, but I can see how you found it a problem on a Sabre 2, where the slider is known for coming down really softly. The extra friction of Vectran over Spectra is probably what then causes problems.

Attached are his instructions put together in one document. I think he once posted a series of photos on dz, something like that, but I don't recall. Note that it is an unverified technique -- He reverse engineered it from some canopy he found, possibly something from Europe and thought he'd share it. So although it looks clever, one would want to play with it and test it out. If it is any better or worse that a standard double no-sew fingertrap, I don't know.

To add to the list of interesting no-sew applications, I should also mention that Jerry Baumchen made a design for main soft links. They use the double no-sew traps to secure each end, and are of the 3-times-around soft link. Easy to make!

I see a few issues and questions about no-sew fingertraps, a couple of which have been brought up in recent posts. No-sew's get used but there's little good information written about them as far as I see. 1) Pulling the line through the core from the loop end vs. the other end farthest from the loop - does it matter? The original 2003 Jump Shack article, and the Sid's Rigging one, both mention pulling through the end of the line you're not working on. But as ChickenSwitch pointed out here, that's sometimes already attached to something. I just pull the fingertrapped end through itself in that case. It's stiffer and bulkier and you may be working with only an inch of eye past the pull-through point, but it can be done. Is this not equivalent to the other way? Isn't it topologically the same, just with the twist pointing the other direction along the line? I see the JumpShack manual mentions attaching toggles with a no-sew, so there one is pulling just the short piece of toggle eye through. It seems acceptable to them. 2) Pulling through once, vs. adding a 2nd pull through an inch back. The Jumpshack article mentions doing a 2nd pull-through for security, but isn't highly clear on why. They write: "It can also be used successfully to attach brake toggles. In this application though we recommend that the process be done twice, with the running end being pulled through the outer sheath and the core a second time, about 1” below the first insertion point. " But, aha, in their manual they mention doing it the 2nd time, "to assure engagement of the core line." RiggerRob also just mentioned repeating an inch or two lower down. How important do riggers find this method of having a 2nd pull-through? 3) It has been alleged that the weave of a line opens up too much over time if using around a brake eye? I saw a rigger mention that in a discussion on the facebook site RiggingForDummies. I can kind of see that happening from personal experience with 750 Vectran brake lines of my own but didn't see that a show stopper. Still, a bartack next to a brake eye loop has the advantage of stiffening the area for when trying to stuff a toggle through, and has the number of perforations between the line threads to really hold everything in place with nothing easily pulled free. 4) Paul Fries' alternative no-sew loop There's an alternative no-sew loop out there in a pdf document by Paul Fries. He doesn't claim to have invented the method. One starts but doesn't complete a pull-through before making any fingertrap, then starts another, which the bight of the first goes through, and then does a fingertrap with the bitter end. You have to see it to understand it. I haven't tried to work out the topology of the knotting of that one. I have the pdf but haven't checked where it might be on the web. Anyone use that method? 5) No-sew for full line attachment of canopies? It is said Jump Shack did no-sew for line attachments for entire canopies but later went back to standard methods. One tale was that the no sew junctions might take too much wear from the slider and fail earlier. To what degree is there any truth to any of that? Or what is JumpShack's real history with no-sew in a production situation? That being said, I have no info suggesting the no-sew is inherently weak, indeed the line will supposedly break in the non-fingertrapped area, says JumpShack. So whether the joint efficiency is one percentage or another, or stronger or weaker than a conventional knot, the loss is still in the doubled up finger trap area. (E.g, a knot efficiency might be 75%, but 2*75% is still 150% of the original line strength.)

Is this an old rig? Or some unusual more modern rig? Clear coating was seen in, I dunno, maybe the end of the 70's, early 80s, before the yellow Lolon became used. Here in Canada I've never heard anything about it being banned in any way, it's just inferior technology that nobody sees any more, that may have aged and deteriorated. You can jump a rig with Capewells and belly mount too if you want. If it seems flexible and not cracking the user can make a choice on using the old cable. On the other hand, since it is relatively easy to find a new handle, that would be the preferred option. (For those not clicking through, the link in the original post is to a discussion on cutaway cables arising after the accident where a Racer orange coated cable seemed to have failed last year.)

Your post is confusing GoldBug. Everyone in this thread is indeed talking about the "no-sew fingertrap", which is the one where the line wraps through itself to lock the fingertrap in place. And your post also talks about the very same thing, while also acting as if aghast at people on the thread might allow basic finger traps (with no other protection) to work loose. A no-sew fingertrap is not the same as a plain finger trap, that is not sewn. All of us riggers here already know that. (Even if there might be confusion for others.)

Thanks everyone. The rigger never actually packed anything the incorrect way, and just related the story to me as "I was told that....", so that's good. Hopefully the error cropped up for the reasons others suggested -- that one could change from half the lines in the diaper to all the lines in the diaper, but only in the context of switching between completely different type 2 and type 4 packing, where approved. As for my using the term "line equalization diaper", that's funny. A printed page in my original rigging course described that line equalization releases that sort of 2 grommet diaper so I happened to start using that term in my logbook to distinguish between diapers in a more descriptive fashion than type number or grommet numbers. You've got full stow in a couple orientations (with or without bottom flaps), and you've got line equalization. After that, the issue never came up that it was an informal description rather than an accepted term that anyone else uses...

I'd put the reply this way: AAD's are specially mentioned in the FAR's with their own rules, and are not subject to the same rules as other skydiving equipment that is TSO'd.

I have ended up only mostly using no-sew finger traps only for myself, unless it is in some nearly-unseen place (eg, kill line inside a pilot chute). They're just not very common or well recognized, especially by non-riggers, so I worry that they can be misinterpreted. ("OMG, the stitching is missing!") A toggle attached using a standard PD style knot, or a brake line that uses a bartack, that's easily understood as 'normal' technique.

Does that make any sense at all, packing a line equalization diaper with all lines inside the diaper? I heard a newer rigger say he had someone instruct him that one could or should do that. Sounded a little crazy. Never heard of anyone doing that and don't plan to do that, but curious what others know. The idea was that one couldn't have a failure of the diaper as could theoretically happen, if there was some entanglement with the half of the lines that went directly to the canopy (thus never tensioning the other set of lines that held the diaper closed). Say by an unstable pilot bailing out. But if both sets of lines went to the diaper, the elastics there would absolutely have to be set up to be really tight or something, so that they wouldn't pull out until all the lines pulled out of the pack tray elastics. If the diaper released early, it would be almost as if it were a non-diapered canopy, something diapered canopies were generally not designed for. It seemed like an idea not fully thought out, creating one large potential problem in place of an extremely rare problem. Or am I missing something?

I don't know nuttin about blowing stuff up, but tannerite on its own would likely be a lot better than combining it with the lawn mower. I will guess that it wasn't overpressure or anything from the tannerite, but chunks of lawnmower that messed up his legs. He might as well have added a bag of nails and ball bearings to the mower... From the article, the local Sheriff says:

That's Beatnik who has added John King's kindly donated stuff to his historical collection. He'll digitize them but he's pretty busy with work these days.

A decent article. I wouldn't call it a must read, but anyway.... Summary: A very very experienced TI missed a 3 ring flip through, and ended up having to land a tandem with a jammed and messed up 3 ring assembly. He didn't know if it would hold or break while under canopy. The moral of the story is 'it can happen to anyone'. He also lists a standard list of cognitive biases that people have, that apply to situations like that. One expects to see what one usually sees, one expects things to go smoothly as they usually do, etc.

A safety device will save both the stupid and the smart. Generally I wouldn't give up on saving decent people who got unlucky, just to have Darwin cut down the dumbasses. It's a tradeoff. I scoffed at the Cirrus airplane parachute too, and at some of its users, but the company has made it work for that size and class of airplane. It all reminds me of the story of how supposedly they didn't want to issue parachutes to military aviators in WWI because it would just encourage them to chicken out and bail out. Can't have a safety device because some might misuse it! (It was more complex than that of course.)

I thought you were going to bring up a commercial from some years ago, that was advertising winter tires & tuneups or something. The supposed Canadian police chase, if you don't have your winters on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfgonv2UvSs Or maybe the Mad Trapper of Rat River. Took a while, what with gun battles, winter chases in the arctic, dynamiting a cabin, and a final shootout, but the Mounties finally got their man in 1932.

I'm curious, was this about just finding out for the record when the AAD was made, or about figuring out whether to change batteries? Vigil manuals and Vigil statements online and dealer statements online differ. One of the questions is whether AAD manufacturers' statements are mandatory if not in the manual or a bulletin. I wrote a long dz.com post about it last year, but the answer tends to be that 10 years sounds like what Vigil really wants as a maximum but you can rules lawyer it to say that it isn't mandatory until the screen shows you need to replace the battery.