pchapman

Incidents thread started today on the same incident: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4442054

Clearly the jumper caused a lot of the problem himself. Less discussed so far is the role of the gear. The FAA report shows the gear was inspected by Allen Silver, a very well known rigger in the emergency parachute market for pilots. I'm not sure if he's at all involved in skydiving now, but apparently he has 3200+ jumps. [Edit: removed question about source of FAA report. There's a link in the news article I now see.] I guess Allen has very high standards. One wonders what he'd think of a lot of older student & rental gear out there! On the video it appears the gear is an Eclipse, so it will be an older set of gear. (In his published documents, he believes all reserve parachutes should not be packed beyond 20 years of age ... at least when talking about rounds for pilots.) The report says the container was worn "beyond serviceable limits". Same for the harness. Those are fairly major accusations. Maybe the DZ could have maintained the gear better, but the accusation is absolute. The report is so short and without graphics that we unfortunately don't have any evidence to help us understand Allen's criticism. The description of the worn velcro on the main flap is a little vague. The Eclipse uses tuck tabs on the main pin cover flap, but there is velcro on the bottom flap apparently tucked under the right flap, to help secure the bridle on its way to the BOC. Maybe it was this velcro that was worn out. But then no mention is made of the BOC condition, although it acknowledges that there was inconclusive evidence about the packing and placement of the PC in its pouch. The report also notes that lines were "tied (knotted) in place on cells 4 and 5". Interesting indeed, although not further explained?! The jumper was faced with a premature opening after only brief non-belly exposure, something that shouldn't happen even if it was inadvertent loss of stability. (Even non freefly friendly gear for novices isn't supposed to do that.) Unfortunately we don't know to what degree it really was gear condition vs. pilot chute packing related etc. The jumper may well have been faced with an emergency that was not his fault, even if he made poor decisions before, during and after the flight. As for going unconscious: I think new jumpers don't always get taught about how to make leg straps comfortable, as it is second nature to experienced jumpers. For students the emphasis tends to be on not having straps too loose, even if we might say to have them "tight but not so tight that they are cutting off circulation". That being said one doesn't know exactly why he lost consciousness. Maybe I missed seeing an edit, but he opened at about 38s on the video, and his hand with the gopro dropped down at around 1:24 (very roughly). This might just be a convenient, unexplained edit point by the news station, but if it does represent him losing consciousness, that's only 45 or so seconds after opening. Then he'd be screwed even if he pulled at a normal altitude.

Next gun question: So if one is an armed citizen, when is it legal to start firing back at police? Probably not a good idea, because you see how many shots they take even at unarmed people. But one does wonder about the legalities. How about in a Stand Your Ground state?

I think the 4 toggles thing sounds more like a thought experiment, as a last ditch thing before hitting the ground. It still seems better to try to turn one canopy sharply to break the downplane towards a side by side.

I couldn't find a thread on the Chris Dorner killings but it looks like this is it. Below is the best comment I have seen on a news site about the murder spree, in which a number of police have been shot at, at least one wounded, and at least one killed: More guns, the solution to everything! (P.S. - I realize that fewer guns isn't the solution to everything either.)

ParaFlite sewed a lot of stuff without bartacks. Line attachment tapes with tight 'box-X' stitching for example, even if line junctions had some sort of bartack or zigzag. I don't know the answer but I vaguely recall leading edge junctions with straight stitches in them...

I've only seen a little info on Cypres ESD testing. That was in their report for the PIA's TS-120. I think the name of the doc out there may be TS120cV3b.pdf. Attached is a screen shot of the section, since the pdf is protected from copying. They mention Mil Std 331B, 25 kV, etc, stuff I can't comment on.

Yes indeed, that's why my last line mentioned how the safety of one person's rig can affect everyone aboard.

In fairness to the guy, he was kneeling facing forward, away from the guy with the hanging PC and had no view him until the last moment before exit, when he turned his head more towards the exiting jumpers. Whether or not a gopro is a distraction, he was legitimately preparing his own gear on jumprun. As for the pair who exited, looking at it more closely I get the feel that it was more of a coach + novice interaction. It wasn't "let's do a 2 way dude" but was "I'll set up on the camera step, filming with my gopro, while you show me a dive exit". Despite the non-customized RW suits, the cam step jumper had a moderate sized rig and the diver a big fat rig. A coach with a licenced jumper won't be as responsible for the other's safety as an instructor with a student, but it would set a much better example to give a damn about the other person you are jumping with...especially when the safety of one person's rig can affect the safety of everyone else.

As I recall units stayed in service and Airtec sent out silver sleeves free, luckily a relatively simple interim fix although still annoying, until units were updated at the factory when they went in for regular servicing. A few incidents did show that occasionally their RF / ESD limits were exceeded, and that started the process of AAD manufacturers realizing that the standards had to be extremely high to prevent the occasional problem. (Even so, that learning took time, When Vigil came on the market later, they still had ESD problems. It doesn't seem the easiest problem to solve.)

Dan Poynter recently made his first post, after having signed up in 2002. Guess that guy has nothing to say about skydiving.

Risers vs toggles, me vs. popsjumper: I'll agree that the evidence isn't there to conclude that one method is correct, and the other utter crap -- even if we disagree on the degree to which one might be better than the other. I'll now reply to a popsjumper post in the Incidents thread which he deleted. There was some messiness there because the moderator's thread split wasn't done precisely: Good catch -- I only noticed the parts saying to use toggles. I mentioned how the Dual Square Report didn't mention unstowing toggles, which I considered a problem. Pops wrote: Indeed, but the point I was making is whether one SHOULD unstow them or not. It isn't uncommon for someone with a two out (especially back when pulling sliders down wasn't as common) to pop brakes before realizing they have a two out. Once that happens, the clear tendency is to steer with toggles. The way the Dual Square report referred to toggles, it was almost as if they assumed one popped toggles on one canopy, rather than having it as something to be investigated. I meant the information I had already mentioned, that were created later than Dual Square. Such as lecture notes from Leblanc or Cowan, whether or not they were 'published' in a form accessible to all. That could indeed need more investigation, and clearly depends on the canopies. I'm not sure there'll be much of a problem with stalling with most canopies in brakes set -- although I could see for example questions about landing a two out of low wing loading in turbulent, high wind weather, whether more speed would be nice. The Dual Square Report doesn't explicitly mention how to use toggle control when say flying a side by side, whether to use full flight when not steering (which is normal in canopy flight) or not. I think that's a glaring omission in their rules of how to fly although you might say that it's natural to use brakes to get the canopies to fly together as best as possible. Both viewpoints could be correct. And yes, it is worth noting that if there is a canopy mismatch that might cause a problem with toggles set, popping a set of toggles might help to add extra control. Newer publications such as the CSPA PIM, do specifically note to use brakes to match canopy flight, if the brakes have been released on one canopy. I have no special insight in this whole topic but am trying to hash out details...

At least in that shot, the back end kind of looks like a Transformers face logo... Sorry.

When discussing these things, it is important to at least distinguish full stowless from semi-stowless. One is a much bigger step than the other. (Just saying, not implying anything about any particular design of either.)

So there's a new Cypres 2 manual out for units built or serviced in 2013, showing the details of the user selectable activation altitude. Full manual: http://www.cypres-usa.com/userguide/CYPRES_2_users_guide_English_01-2013.pdf Update info only: http://www.cypres-usa.com/userguide/CYPRES-2_Update_info_2013_01_e.pdf Other changes: - changes to selecting landing zone altitude offset - Speed Cypres activation speed is slightly higher now (46 not 43 m/s)

We're probably in reasonable agreement overall. I thought the context of sufficient altitude was obvious, while you wanted it to be explicitly clarified -- because that's important given that many two outs are the result of snivelling into normal AAD firing range. (You just took a shot at Skymonkey's advice without being detailed either, so I took a shot at that!)

Yeah... That just killed someone in Australia. Unless you know more about the accident than has been presented on this site, that's a very misleading attribution of blame and useless critique of Skymonkey's method. Your statement is like saying that "Cut away when you have a malfunction" is wrong, because it is wrong at 200 feet. The APF Statement of Facts says about the accident in Australia on 18 Dec 2012 says, "At approx 500-700ft his reserve deployed, the opening of which had been initiated by an AAD activation. The canopies then went into a side by side formation and shortly after, it appeared that the deceased had separated the canopies, which then in turn at approx 200ft went into a down plane. The deceased’s right hand was observed to be in the vicinity of his chest area, at which time he impacted the ground. " Sounds like there wasn't any issue about which riser to grab, nor any problem with cleanly separating canopies for a cutaway. It sounds like the problem was all about the altitude at which this occurred, not the technique in general. Let's keep things in context.

The only ones I've seen are ones that look appropriate for hooking on a typical belly mount reserve with snaps, the 101407's. But given their small size and more importantly shape with sharp corners, one wouldn't put a cutaway canopy on them with 3 rings. (Right?) For that one needs the rare RW-6s. Maybe one could use a separable link (MS22002-1) to hook through a webbing loop sewn on a harness and have a short webbing link from that to a non-separable base 3-ring? Not sure if the size of the slot in the link will be big enough, depending on where it is hooked into a harness, but it may work.

Welcome aboard Dan, with your first post. (Even if registered a while already.) P.S., you owe beer.

Oh yeah, just noticed -- I have the 2nd harness risers connected INSIDE my regular harness. Seems to be more natural. See attached picture of a buddy hamming it up, wearing my cutaway harness and a regular rig before his first intentional. The 2nd harness cutaway is a white loop thats hard to see against his jumpsuit (photo bit blurry too). The risers down to the belly container can be tucked away a little behind velcro wraps on the 2nd harness MLW's, instead of leaving them free. But I'm usually just doing short delays on my back so it isn't an issue. The "belly" container hangs pretty low, but that's OK as then one's regular handles aren't impeded. One could do nicer attachment method, but I just tie one side on to my harness at 2 points on one side, put everything on, and get someone to help me by tying the other side on. No load on the container anyway. Because the belly container uses 3 flaps from the old main container, it automatically has a left pull BOC! The top corner edges of the belly container velcro shut, so the risers can pull out between the top and side flaps. My belly container has fit everything from a 210 to a 37 to a round to a triangular.

I'm guessing that due to the nature of the fault, if the Cypres fails, it'll do so on the carpet when exposed to static but is unlikely to in the airplane after your final check. It'll lock up or fire on the carpet, not after. So the failure won't be completely random in time and location. Not a big consolation but it is something.

Note Chris that's ONLY for "real demos", the ones over or into a city or crowd, where an EJR is needed. That's in the section on SFOC's for demos, airshows, etc, I think. Not required for any other jumping.(I think tandem demos are now legal in canada, but I haven't checked the wording -- it may be a hard to find CAR Exemption that allows dual harnesses.) The Canadian air regs say very little about how you jump out of planes. It is more about airspace rules. (One thing I'm not sure about is whether a DZ might have to get an SFOC due to the airspace they are in, and thus have to comply with the stuff you mentioned. It gets tricky. Not sure if dz's just have Memorandums of Understanding with local ATC, which I've seen, or if they ever actually need an SFOC.) BASE gear with one canopy, no TSO, from a plane, is legal in Canada (although not by CSPA rules at places or events under their jurisdiction).

Just briefly for now: - I use the 2nd harness method. I saved parts of the old main container to help create the belly container that is just tied on, with a loop design that makes it easier to change loop lengths a lot. The new cutaway handle for canopy #3, I made that a big and distinctive loop in a different colour than usual! - I like the idea of a container for the canopy. Some DZ's are cool, but especially at DZ's with low tail aircraft, DZOs may not want you stepping out with a bag in your hands... - If using 2 harnesses, watch for stunts that have 2 canopies out and pulling in opposite directions - that has choked someone unconscious - Two mini rings in the normal big main ring - used by the Strong Tridem - a few small pics on dz.com. (Not sure if some of the big military main rings are any larger at all than our usual main rings. Marginally or not at all?) - One thing that has been done is main risers that have a set of rings off of them. Golden Knights have used that, in addition to modified container. But then one gets more into issues of having to deploy one canopy before the other and possibly having to chop in a particular sequence. (Rob Harris accident for example). - How to hang extra big rings off a harness? We used to just put them over the MLW's and accept stripping handles etc if the tersh were used. But even CSPA rules don't allow that now. There are separable rings for clipping belly mounts on. As for actual main rings for 3 ring risers, for that one needs the rare RW-6's. I'm hanging onto my 2 sets! - Could use a separable link behind the harness ring, with webbing to a 3 ring coming forward out the slot in the harness ring. May be tight depending on webbing used, but I've got pics of that sort of thing. (Jerry Baumchen and "Slots" have posted variations on that theme) I do like this idea but haven't tried it. - Supposedly one might get a separable main ring in the same harness loop as the normal main ring, but usually the loop on the harness is too tight for that?? It would work if one had a custom harness. - There is the occasional CRW harness etc that has an extra loop for a separable ring at the bottom of the heavy MLW junction for the harness 3ring. So there's a loop at each end of the confluence wrap. I have that on some BASE gear too, for attaching a belly mount when going from a plane. But this doesn't work for normal unmodified gear. That's a bunch of quick ideas. But I don't have a handle on how good or common each of the approaches is. Yay Canada, no TSO rules, more shit to jump!

For recent units only: A modified component from a supplier may rarely cause an unexpected lockup even when showing zero. May happen in high static electricity conditions. Therefore check before each jump is required, by pressing the button to confirm the LED flashes. [Very inconvenient!] The bulletin does confirm that one packing mat Cypres fire did occur. Cypres maintenance and production were held up recently while Airtec hunted down the problem, I was told by SSK. [Explaining why my unit isn't back from maintenance yet.] Perhaps unusually, there is no actual recall of the units, and no indication of how the issue would be fixed if the unit is sent back outside of normal maintenance.

Serving in combat roles makes total sense. What physical standards to pick for infantry though, that's a tougher issue. We're still talking equality of opportunity here, not Affirmative Action. It would sure be easier if everyone came in similar sizes -- whether 135 lb or 200 lbs. Within each group, they would be able to drag each other to safety better. Those who actually know about these things will have a better handle on what kinds of loads can be carried by different sized people of different types. Other countries where males are on average smaller have to get by with all their soldiers being smaller. (Studying that, one would have to get into issues of variable vs. fixed equipment weight, absolute strength, and strength vs. weight. It reminds me of the old WWII Jap thoughts about compact, powerful Japs vs. gangly Americans.) If all you had were 135 lb females, you could cram more of them into a combat vehicle than all those 200 lb males... (although with equipment the differential will be less). And as with any job, the question is what standards are appropriate for the job overall -- and physical standards can't help but be more important for infantry.