pchapman

Do you trust your reserve to open? Heck, someone is always wanting to inspect it every 180 days (or maybe some other number where you live). Must be something dangerous with it?? You may argue engineering quality if you want, but I think the 4 year Cypres cutter requirement is clearly based on their inspection philosophy rather than engineering issues. Cypres cutters have clearly been the most trouble free. (Although one can, say, crack the hard plastic where the wires lead in to Cypres 2 cutters) Also, the design philosophy of their one blade cutter seems superior when explained, compared to the two blade (circular blade) that others have had to go with due to the patents Airtec uses.

This is turning into an old time rigging stories diversion. But going along with that, when I started rigging in 1991, with 31 jumps, of my first reserve packs in that year (excluding pilot rigs), 15 were round, and 4 were square (Safety Flyer, Cricket, Raven, X-210). (Caveat: Ratios also depend on how many people spend money on nearly new gear vs. having old stuff. This was in Ontario, while in a big market like Florida perhaps more newer gear got sold.)

I can't know what your agreements with Paul were, such as whether there was an expectation of a non-Strong canopy inside. I won't get directly involved with whatever business dealings you had. I know he is somewhere on dropzone. I can at least give you some background on the gear you have: Does the packing card list the types of canopy correctly? An owner should be somewhat familiar with the packing card in order to confirm repack dates. Are the "contents as advertised" and "as packed"? Manufacturers sometimes disallow certain mixing of canopies and rigs. Sometimes this could be for very good reasons, sometimes it is just uncertainty about compatibility for something they haven't tested themselves, and sometimes for simple competitive reasons (they prefer to sell all their own stuff). Riggers in the US are allowed the freedom to determine compatibility, and combine different components from different companies. (In any given case, riggers will of course have different opinions on what is or is not compatible and completely safe.) I'd have to let an expert on the issue weigh in though, as arguing about air regulations can get messy. National's canopies are allowed to be packed past the 20 year point. National nowadays says they may not, and many riggers may choose to follow the manufacturer's advice as a sort of "best practice". The FAA however has stated that unless the canopy was certified with an age limit, or the manufacturer gets the FAA to issue an Airworthiness Directive {edit: corrected from my typing 'Bulletin' instead}, a canopy sold without an age limit does not have to comply with a limit set later. (The FAA's guidance is arguably unclear whether the limit does exist if they added it to a manual that came with the parachute when it was first sold. I can't recall when National first started putting it in manuals.) It is not uncommon for skydiving gear to be over 20 years of age, although it is also common for riggers to prefer gear of lower age (especially for round reserves). A rigger determines airworthiness and each rigger may choose to pack what he thinks appropriate. The age of the reserve should have been mentioned as it would be part of any discussion about what you were getting and at what price. There are always compromises, but the user should be informed. In conclusion: - What you have is in my belief entirely legal in the US even if Strong and National might frown on the combination (and wish you'd buy new stuff of theirs) - Whether what you have is what you understood you were purchasing, I don't know.

Also incorrect. So much incorrect from people with so many jumps :( This is a very interesting point. To which there is no quick answer. I believe you are incorrect lyosha, but for totally understandable reasons. You are totally right based on the Cypres manual alone, but there's more. As for what's true or not, this is what I've been able to figure out: The idea of the burble affecting a Cypres has been around a long long time. (eg, at least 2003 on dz.com. I haven't checked rec.skydiving archives though.) And it seems to be largely accepted. However, perhaps you are thinking of the manual: The Cypres manuals (Cypres 1 or 2) say nothing at all about any burble. All they mention for the regular Cypres is 750 ft. That's it. Nothing about body position or burble etc. (Correct me if someone finds something.) So where did that thinking about the Cypres come from? Cypres & SSK never really tried to dissuade people from thinking the burble would cause a higher activation in other body positions, nor that their algorithm was somehow superior in that regard specifically. There is a Cypres Testing Report out there, for PIA's TS-120 AAD testing standard. There they mention how their algorithm takes care of pressure fluctuations.There is also a chart showing recorded pressure (with spikes up and down as the jumper does maneuvers, along with a smooth 'derived altitude'.) Nevertheless, the impression one gets is that they are care of short term body position related changes, and it is unclear how the system really works or what the 'regular' body position of the jumper was. An instructive document is one that used to be on the SSK page but is now gone from their new site; I had to retrieve it from archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20050911063002/http://www.sskinc.com/cyp13.htm The relevant bit: EMPHASIS IS MINE. Very very interesting, and not a document many will have read lately. So they are both saying that the Cypres accounts for the burble with good algorithms.... but also admits that it can still be fooled sometimes! The difference suggested in the 1992 document is up to 300 ft.(Cypres and Airtec just have different estimates of what a normal burble is; without real data I wouldn't say either is better or worse for estimating 260 vs. 300 ft.) But in typical cards-close-to-the-chest, we-know-what's-best-for-you Airtec fashion, nothing about burbles or any error in activation height is mentioned in the manuals, whether 20 years back or today! My Conclusion: According to the manual, a regular Cypres fires only at 750 ft (maximum). However Helmut Cloth admitted in 1992 that other body positions may make it fire higher, probably up to 300'. There is no indication that I know of that the Cypres 2 is any different than the Cypres 1 in that regard. Thus the burble and body position effect does exist for the Cypres, relative to the normal 750 ft for 'normal' belly to earth (no matter how good its algorithm may be at filtering out short term fluctuations and jumps in pressure, that do not correspond to sudden altitude changes) Both the Cypres and Vigil firing altitudes are affected by burbles in a similar way.

To add to what Peek said, old AAD's typically had sensors outside the pack and not as susceptible to the burble effect between belly to earth and other attitudes. So for them, presumably the variation in firing altitudes wouldn't have been as much. (Although one can always come up with better or worse body positions.) FXC sensed from the front of shoulder; for the Sentinel, the box was often placed around the hip / lateral junction I think?

To add to that for the thread, for a skinny person, main lift webs are more straight up and down the body. Hanging in the harness or not, the dimensions stay closer to the same. For a more stocky or well-rounded individual, the MLW's are wrapping more diagonally, especially from the lateral junction, around the sides of the body, up to the chest strap more to the front of the body. The more "diagonalness" means that under vertical load, they tend to straighten out, more movement is going to happen, seemingly 'stretching' the harness up relative to the jumper. I'm skinny but one learns when gearing up students... so they don't get chest strap in the throat. (Highly obese tandems are the worst -- even uncomfortably tight leg straps sink deep into fat on opening.) Snugging things up again before jumprun can be important. Either for old student gear where adapters might slip more. Or if you need the leg straps extra tight and they'd be very uncomfortable in the plane. Tight enough in the plane for an emergency bailout though.

Yeah. @Atrus: Adjusted the photo gamma to see it better. Something sure isn't snugged up right or is creeping looser between gearing up and opening. The leg straps should also tighten around your legs before the main lift webs are tightened. Do you bend over forward when tightening things up on the ground? That can help take some of the rig weight away from the force to tighten main lift webs, and one scrunches up a little when bent over -- making it easier to tighten straps against the resistance of one's own body. Plus one is in a similar hip position when hanging in the harness. (However it is possible to overtighten and not be able to arch right when you straighten up.) If there are lateral adjustments on that rig (pack to main lift web), snug them up too and don't just let the container hang down your ass. Helps keep the jumper from moving around within the harness (and the rig in the right place in freefall).

My take on line checks is that normally one doesn't have to get into detailed measurements. Besides, in this sport (unlike paragliding) there are in general no firm go / no go requirements. For a quick check just lay the canopy over your shoulder for propacking, and see whether the outer lines are shortened a lot compared to the inner. For thin white Spectra lines, one inch difference will happen pretty quickly, two inches might be typical of a well used but not too old line set, and three inches is a lot. But that's off the top of my head and one could argue about the numbers. Any numbers are also only a guide -- a lot of line shrinkage may be an issue if the canopy isn't flying right, but not be considered an issue if the canopy is still opening / flying / flaring / front-risering / etc well.

Can I dig them all out of all the Vigil related pdf's on my hard drive? It's so hard to remember them all. So let's list 'em since we want to be diligent little riggers: =================== (SB-1 2004 not cutter related - early electronics boards & static electricity) SB-2 2006 Beware of plastic inserts cracking, can wear loop, replace if there's damage. 2006: Also published a pdf showing photos of cutter plastic issues, to show what damage was acceptable and what was not. PSB-3 2007 New naming scheme -- but one could use SB and PSB interchangeably. If early cutters with the plastic are damaged, replace. PSB-4 2007 Type 2 cutters produced in March 2007 may have sharp steel edges, has caused loops to break. Stop using the cutter if damage found. 2008: Information bulletin showing and describing the 3 cutter types. Type 1 has plastic insert that sticks out and is easily crackeed - only built thru July 2006. Type 2 built only Aug 2006 to Mar 2007 Type 3 after that. All Vigil 2's supplied with the Type 3 Note that while this is not a bulletin, it has new, mandatory information, not seen in bulletins! - Type 2 must all be replaced - Type 1 ok if not cracked, except must be replaced if above pilot chute (Not from Vigil: In 2008, the French government grounded Vigils built before Aug 2006, and all cutters without the vinyl interior sleeve. That may by type 1 and 2, not sure off hand.) PSB-5 2009 Type 3 cutters produced Dec 2007 recalled. One cutter failed to work, breaking apart due to a bad crimp. (Supplementary pdf's were produced showing lists of Vigils with those cutters) PSB-6 2011 issued, superseded by #7 PSB-7 2011 issued, superseded by #8 PSB-8 2011 Missing cutter - no-pull skydiver died. All Oct 2007 (10-07) cutters must be replaced. Test all cutters earlier than Jun 2008 (06-08) with a magnet & mark data card. Technically according to the SB, all Vigils with later cutters also need to have the card marked so one knows without checking. But in practice I don't think anyone bothers nowadays if they encounter a brand new Vigil. (2011: Not cutter related. Correspondence supposedly between Vigil and APF surfaced on dz.com. Vigil 1's with serial numbers below #6600 -- made before Aug 2006 --have a slightly higher risk of activation by static electricity. Later ones have s/w and h/w improvements.) (Information bulletin 2012 LCD v2.20 may freeze or lock. Replace if that happens.) (PSB-9 2013 Not cutter related. The 'waterproof' Vigil II must be returned for inspection if it gets wet.) (PSB-10 2013 Not cutter related - about turning off Vigils at end of day, but v.2.50 onwards has auto switch off) PSB 01-2015 A new numbering scheme so we aren't reminded of them all? The new bulletin. Cutters Mar-July 2015 may have sharp edges, has cut a loop. Recalled for inspection, before next pack job or next jump depending on location above or below PC. ====================== I only count 6 cutter Service Bulletins, not counting the superseded ones that were all part of the same incident, nor that Information Bulletin pdf that adds further info on what is and isn't grounded, nor whatever particular countries (ie, France) may choose to do on their own. Thanks Deyan for the inspiration to count.

A fun little mystery. Well, maybe not quite as much fun for you

But what's the solution I wonder? Is there anything other than making sure that things don't dangle or fall off when they shouldn't? Testing and checking that weights don't snap light or poorly tied lines, or that makeshift containers don't blow open in freefall? Recovery parachutes are a whole other issue. So it seems a bit of a quandry. If you have something heavy and/or dangerous (eg, pyro) and/or dangly, the options aren't great. If it falls off, or you cut it off, it is dangerous below. If it dangles around or is otherwise causing you problems, it is dangerous to you. If you don't cut it away, and impact the crowd or local neighbourhood with little out, well it isn't all that good a day for anyone either. But certainly you don't want sloppy, untested rigging to endanger you or allow you to dump the problem on others, literally and figuratively.

My choice of the most relevant bits: Where "on top" is the circular end of the cutter. [edit to add compliance dates] Personal thoughts: Oh FFS. For a long time things were so nice with Vigil ... once we got past that era where you had to check "everything" -- iffy controllers, playing with magnets, and various cutter bulletins of different date ranges. (Of course technically you want to check for missed SB's but in the past few years things have been much easier.) As a rigger I don't normally keep track of customers' cutter info, but I guess I can check who has a new Vigil with a date of March onwards and see if I can inform them. [Edit: and if anyone replaced a fired cutter recently...]

I'll throw in my guess. Who knows, there might be an issue similar to those suggested, with things like uneven riser cover release combined with low tension from a non-elastic line stowage method. But to me it is that opening just looks funky. The sides of the canopy aren't opening evenly. The slider stays part way up, the corners of the canopy are still pulled inwards, and are staying collapsed and not popping out immediately due to crossport pressure or air entering the inlets. If that unevenness lasted only a fraction of a second, maybe it would be a canopy that "usually gives you a 90" but nothing more. But here, the slowness of the sequence might be what sends the canopy off heading suddenly enough to snap you into line twists. Admittedly, whatever the canopy is doing at the very start of the opening sequence is not seen, and that's likely the crucial part. It can be tricky to interpret what happens without a lot of staring at video, but it looks like the canopy whips left and then quickly returns a bit right, and that's what snaps the jumper into line twists -- thrown left, lower g load, can't catch up to sudden right turn, lines cross and so he keeps rotating and spins up. I'm just thinking that the way that canopy opens, if it is anything like typical, is likely a big part of the issue.

.. etc etc.... Indeed. Which is why the pilot should have a couple extra hundred feet in the bank, so that jumpers can actually get to jump at the altitude they paid for on average. Although there may be some compromise for aircraft performance, it shouldn't be the pilot just hitting 12500' or whatever for a split second before the door opens, or only the first one out of the plane getting what he paid for. (Obviously if the jumpers don't like it the DZO can change the quoted altitude down a bit or adjust up the price and give full altitude. But don't blatantly lie to all the sport jumpers. If DZOs do that to tandems, well that's another story...)

Some canopies of course could be different. I seem to recall that Pilot canopies have relatively shallow brake settings. I think it was a 136 or something I jumped; quite dull when I manually popped one toggle after opening. A good canopy for newbies (or working instructors who don't want drama). My Sabre 1 135 though (also at about 1.33 load) gets a nice rapid spiral going, which I think I can slow but not stop with aggressive harness turn input. EDIT: I guess, dthames, you were using the canopy on your profile, as Pilot 210 at slightly under 1.0 load?

I've seen a similar hazard with someone jumping a superman costume. Looked cool on video, but boy that cape sure flew about and wrapped itself up. Then it alternated between being a distorted 'flag' and a 'snake' whipping around. Perhaps it was not long enough to be too much of a main deployment hazard, and a reserve fired past it on a total mal would most likely clear, but it wasn't great to have that whipping around in the burble over their back.

+1 Yeah that's a valuable canopy practice to do! I find it much freakier to be taken for a ride like that, than simply doing planned controlled spirals -- even if the control inputs to the canopy are the same. And I'm saying that as someone who does like screwing around under canopy, doing stalls, intentional cutaways, etc. There is something of a startle factor when the canopy whips you around without your own active control input.

I have no convenient pics at the moment, but have included a sketch. Type 1 is the pillow against the the reserve tray idea. The flap is sewn to the backpad and near the top of the reserve tray (missing the AAD pouch). As drawn, the flap is divided into two sections to allow for the closing loop from the backpad or reserve tray. I also added small patches of velcro so when the foam is pulled out from under the flaps, the flaps stick down in place. This system works for my main rig so I can use a rig designed for a 150 with something as small as a non-crossbraced 75. I have used different foams. One doesn't want something as stiff and brittle as styrofoam or insulation board foam, nor as squishy or heavy as some mattress foam. I've used layers of thick camping mat foam glued together, or somewhat stiff yet still flexible foam as seen in an attached pic, that is similar to what is used for packing some electronics equipment. Had to go to a foam supplier for that. Sewing through old rigs backpads is easy because of little padding. With newer rigs and thick padding it becomes messier -- one might need to unstitch a large part of the backpad. Otherwise one will have to hand tack the pillow into place. Modern or small rigs are stiffer, making it tougher to get the rig onto a sewing machine. In my diagram, Type 2 shows a pillow for the whole backpad area. Ive only done this for 1" thick pillows; it would get a little messier the thicker the pillow. Can be made by wrapping the foam on top and bottom with one piece of material, fiddling the sides and corners, rather than trying to build sides separate from the top with proper corners. At the end that faces the bottom of the rig, I would leave an overlap of material unsewn (except at the ends) -- that leaves room to flex the overlap open and slide the pillow in and out. Seams would be left sticking out at the sides of the pillow, or add tapes there for increased strength. That provides some width to sew or tack the pillow to the main tray. If one is tacking, one wants to do enough tacking points that risers or lines don't accidentally tuck underneath the pillow or catch under a corner. As to who is allowed to do what rigging mods in your particular country, that's another matter! [inline rig-pillow-designs-sketch-PChapman.jpg] [inline foam_sample_as_for_rig_pillows.jpg]

This sounds like a troll but probably isn't?? You're talking about canopies that may have a volume of 880 cu. in. versus 450 cu. in., or something in that range, a two to one volume range. That's not just a case of adjusting the closing loop a little. Even for a rig with a long loop starting from the backpad or reserve container wall, that sounds a bit extreme. You might build pillows into a large d-bag (that will fit the container) to hold the small canopy. As long as you aren't worried about a little extra drag from a bulky d-bag under canopy. Or install a removable pillow in the rig's main tray (and get a bag for the Sabre that will fit the new wide but thin shape). Different designs are possible, where a firm foam pillow can be removed. It can involve a pouch filling the area against the reserve tray, or one mainly along the backpad. I've done both. In any case if one is jumping something for "regular jumping" and not just occasional solos, one wants the container to be well filled with a tight loop and filling the corners so that there are no issues with tightness of the BOC bridle stowage. I know that for a small rig one can build a velcro-on main container to take a larger canopy, that fits over the empty regular main container. That's been done with a regular rig to hold an accuracy canopy. But I've never seen anyone do the reverse, build a small container to attach over top of a big container. That would be messier, hiding something big behind something small.

That's factually incorrect. I'm a little rusty on my orbital mechanics. But what's wrong with it? In the middle of the night (in a general sense) with a perfectly full moon, the moon will be at its highest, directly opposite the sun. The moon is "full" when we on earth are aligned between it and the sun, so can see the full illuminated side. (Not absolutely perfectly aligned due to small differences in the plane of the moon's orbit, as then it's a rare lunar eclipse.) With the sun and moon opposite, when the sun is going down, the full moon is opposite and thus rising near sunset. The exact timing varies as depending on our latitude and season, when our sunrise and sunset aren't right around 6pm and 6am. Also depending on latitude and season, just like the sun, the moon may not get "directly overhead" in the sense of being 90 degrees from the horizon. In my brief comment, it may have been unclear that I wasn't suggesting the moon does get "directly" overhead every night in the middle of the night. That's a valid critique of my brief statement. I should have clarified that "fully overhead" was meant to be "as high as the moon goes", which may well not be anywhere near directly overhead. The full moon is highest during the middle of the night, when the moon, you, and the sun are all aligned as much as possible. The point was that if the moon has risen recently, then it must be closer to the horizon and can act as an easy heading reference on a night jump. And if it is one's summer (where we tend to skydive), then with the earth tilted towards the sun for lots of sunshine, then the earth is tilted away from the moon and so summer moons never get that high in the sky in the mid latitudes. So then it will be a good heading reference for any night jump at any time of summer night when at typical USA latitudes. But basically the full moon rises around when it gets dark, and is visible all night, and reaches its highest point in the middle of the night. However, I'll note and grant you that as soon as you move a few days off the perfect full moon, the timing shifts quickly. This is a factor in night jumps as we typically pick the weekend closest to the full moon. After all, if the moon's orbit is 28 days-ish, that's 13 degrees change a day vs. the earth, and 15 degrees is an hour's worth of earth rotation. So times do change by towards an hour a day. Eg -- Picking a place at a medium US latitude, Fayetteville NC: Full moon was on the 27th of October. Sunset 6:27, moon rises very close to that 6:56, sunrise 7:33am next day, moonset 8:38am. Moon reaches its peak at 12:47 am, roughly middle of the night. But if you did your night jumps on Fri 30th instead, sunset is at 6:23, and moon rises at 9:28 -- changing 2 1/2 hrs in 3 days -- so one might not want to jump say 1 hour after sunset. An important point for night jump planning is if one wants the moon rising earlier in the evening, schedule the weekend slightly BEFORE the full moon rather than slightly AFTER. This makes sure the moon will already have risen at sunset, leaving you without a moonless gap early in the evening. Of course this varies with the season and your daylight hours -- if sunset is late then maybe a late moonrise isn't a problem. I hope this clarifies my admittedly unclear short sentence about the position of the moon during night jumps.

Joking around might usually be off-topic but the way the conversation has been going this seems relevant: Monty Python:

Yikes! Short version: What Rob said about multiple landmarks. The penalty for missing the DZ can be high on night jumps. You should be able to get an idea if you have general night vision issues just by walking around the DZ in the dark with friends, seeing if you see what they see. Or by driving at night. Some people really dislike night driving away from lights... because they have vision issues such as with acuity or glare. (Of course check with a medical professional for any subtler issues.) Landing references: If you have few references, you want to be pretty sure of your orientation. Stay on aircraft heading in freefall rather than playing around, if just doing a lower night jump? No identifiable towns on the horizon? DZ's can be out in the boonies with few clear references at night. Keep track of where the jump run is in relation to the DZ. Possibly trickier at night where low winds might have jumpers dropping both before and past directly overhead the LZ. But even then there's some reference: Although you might not know the direction of the DZ, if the drops are roughly overhead, then the DZ will be in moderately angled cone below you. If you are doing night jumps, it is probably planned with a moon out, a nearly full moon, and if it isn't yet the middle of the night, the moon won't be fully overhead (ie, opposite to the sun). So the moon should often be a heading reference. Check the spot as you climb out; don't rely just on a guy pointing out the DZ as you turned towards jump run. At some DZ's, if someone is newer to night jumping or of less experience, they do a hop and pop the first time, or do a solo freefall instead of complicating things with RW, helping to reduce orientation issues. You did what you could but like with a lot of things in skydiving, extra planning before the jump could reduce the risk. Use every possible source of heading and location info. It isn't quite the same but it reminds me of jumps through clouds (on a non GPS aircraft), where someone spots a ground landmark for a moment in a gap and people soon jump. Lessons from night jumps and cloud jumps may apply to each other. For such cloud jumps, do you know where the aircraft really is, and what heading? Did you maintain knowledge of your own heading using the aircraft / sun / cloud features? Was the correct ground feature spotted? One difference with clouds is that they don't normally go down to the ground when jumping, unlike darkness!

I could have missed something, but it seems that inline photos don't work in the Incidents forum. I guess that avoids spammy joke photos and using up extra screen space. (Can't recall if certain other forums restrict inline photos.) While I might not agree with that policy, be that as it may. What is annoying is that Inline photos do work during the Preview when crafting a post to the Incidents forum. It is bothersome to craft a post with inline photos, and then when it is Posted, find that one has to rewrite it to more clearly refer to the attached photos and not ones Inline. So I'd ask for a reconsideration of the policy, or the code for the Preview, or at least a warning during a Preview for Incidents, that Inline photos won't actually show up despite the Preview showing them.

Some of us don't really care which party it was, that did something wrong or did something we didn't like or just had bad things happen. Some may still obsess about how the Democrats supposedly "lost China", for all I know. Who knows, maybe I might agree with you about some aspect of how the Gulf of Tonkin was a combination of jitters, overreaction, and looking for a reason to escalate a fight -- whether the latter is judged good or bad. But I don't see it as a Democratic party characteristic. If Nixon did something bad, I can see when blame it on Nixon's own personality, within the context of the era, and not as a character trait of all Republicans.

Yeah I had one like that. Some places are worse than others. As a good example for the OP, I just saw this on a skydiving gear facebook site, posted by a friend about his chopped canopy: "Last seen in a thermal over Perris heading SE at 8k in 30mi/hr winds probably never to be seen again. White with blue centre cell, red and blue ribs attached to Vector 306 free bag (skyhook equipped) with stowless vector bag, vector risers etc etc. " This was after chopping at 2,000 ft. Ouch.