davelepka

Are you buying a Cypres? They don't hold their value at all. Ever since SSK put the value calculator on their website, the depreciation is fixed, and they lose value everyday. Back before the 12 year life limit was introduced, they did hold their value pretty well. Once the 12 year deal was introduced, the values took a hit, but used prices were still all over the place. You could find some cheapo deals from people looking for a quick sale or who just didn't care about the money. Now hat SSK as the value calculator (which is just a depreciation calculator because people are too lazy to do the math themselves) and you combine that with the 12 year life, it's a fixed price market. They're worth what they're worth, and you can get the 'market value' for a used one in less than a day on DZ.com classifieds, or on most DZs across the country. Jumpers are always looking for an AAD with a low acquisition price because that leaves more money for jumps. All that said, Cypres is still my choice. Cost of ownership is about $150/year including maintenance, and that seems like a fair price for a proven product with a solid safety record. If I'm going to wrap a cutter around my reserve closing loop, and then skydive and ride in planes with my friends and other jumpers, I need to know that it's not going to fire unless it's really time to fire.

Indeed, but the price of fueling, insuring and operating an aircraft fast enough to do the drops has gone up beyond the rate of inflation. Also, that figure is for the AC time only, and does not include the salaries of all involved in the drops. 100 drops has to take at least 25 working days to achieve, and a handful of employees (beyond the pilots) to accomplish. Does is add up to $600,00, or whatever was claimed in the first post? I don't know, but at that sime time I'm sure getting a TSO isn't cheap.

Do you reach up to grab your risers during the opening? If so, check your arm position on your next jump once the canopy is fully opened. Grab the risers the same way you do during opening, and see where the bruised part of your arm falls. I'm betting the large ring on the harness, or the MLW just below it is going to be right in that area. As mentioned before, that's a pretty 'stout' area, and if your arm got in the way of the side-to-side motion of the harness as the canopy opens, it might leave a mark. All it takes is one good shot to cause the bruising, so that might explain why you don't get bruised every time. Additionally, if that jump wasn't your last, the lighter impacts from later jumps would only serve to make the bruising seem worse. Overall, suck it up cupcake.

I don't think anyone is concerned about what Joe Blow does with his tandem rig in his own backyard, or even at a DZ with other experienced jumpers. The problem is if the rig is being jumped with paying customers, customers who are expecting trained, professional instructors but are getting someones girlfriend who was told 'would be fine'. The question as to who was the passenger, and how they came to be the passenger has been asked serveral times, with no reply thus far.

He might have meant that you couldn't check it at that time, with your level of experience. The reality is that you can open the riser cover over the shoulder and the reserve pin cover falp, and you should be able to see 90% of the RSL on just about every rig out there (every rig with an outward facing reserve pin, Racers and the like are different). The exact routing and stowage varies from rig to rig, but it's easy to learn how it should look (ask a rigger or instructor) and check that it is routed correctly. I had a good friend killed (and his tandem passenger) when he jumped with a misrouted RSl that prevented him from cutting away a malfunctioning main or pulling the reserve ripcord. It was a Racer tandem, so the exact details are not important as that system is unique to itself, but the general idea that the RSL can and should be checked is valid.

Smart ass answer, use the time to learn how to spell 'snivel'. Serious answer, you're talking about an extra 2 to 4 seconds over the opening time of a Nav. Just do what you always did, pay attention to the opening, and be ready for something weird to happen.

It looks to me as if the RSL was routed improperly such that when the main risers lifted up during deployment, they took the slack out of the RSL and pulled the reserve pin. It appears that he tried to cutaway the main, and some part of it snagged the reserve slider, and pulled the slider up, choking off the reserve in the process. Both errors were on the part of the jumper. The misrouted RSL should have been caught in a pre-jump gear check. Not every 'buddy check' on the flight line or in the plane will include checking the RSl routing, but a complete inspection should be done before donning a rig, especially when it's rental rig that's been handled by others. The other error was cutting away the main it a two out, in any case besides a downplane. Any configuratuion besides a downplane will have the two canopies next to each other, the possibility for the main to snag the reserve (or any part of the resevre) on the way out exists, thus you don't cutaway a biplane or side by side. A downplane will have the canopies on either side of you, and flying straight at the ground. Cutting away the main can be done without the risk of an entaglement because of the physical seperation of the canopies. It's also a requirement due to the high descent rate.

Does it include nylon screws or some other type of release mechanism? The last ringsite I used was mounted to the flat front of a Hanson Helmet (similar to FTP), and I used gaffers tape to hold it in place. Worked great, would have let go easily in the case of a snag. This was before the days of commercially available mounts.

It's funny how the Skyraider has visible damage, yet still has a pilot in the cockpit, while the Mustang appears intact, yet it's pilot is back flying 100 ft above it. Good save for the rigger in any case.

Even if the DZo flew to Airtec HQ with the unit in-hand, that doesn't mean that Airtec was responsible for the accident or will have any answers as to who was. As I mentioned in post #8 of this thread, not every incident in this sport will have a clear root casue. The nature of an accident is that things don't go according to plan, and as such, you won't always be able to figure out what actually happened in the afternath. Why do you think the NTSB takes a year or better to release a 'final' accident report? The reason is that it takes that long to come up with the best answer they can, and sometimes that answer is 'pilot error' or 'unexplained mechanical failure'. You cannot look at a single incident as proof that there is a 'problem' with a piece of gear or system. There will be incidents with all types of gear on all types of jumps that will be unrelated to the gear being used. Even if the manufacturer cannot provide a satisfactory explanation, that doesn't mean their product was to blame. It's when a string of incidents occur, with the common factor being that one peice of gear that the onus shifts to the manufacturer to come up with some answers. No answers = no more jumping with that gear.

That's funny. I'm not old, but I remember the days before cell phones. I remember the days before home phones all had call waiting. Sometimes you would call someone, and just get a busy signal, end of story. You move on with your life, and the person you were calling moves on with theirs. The horror!!! If you're happy with facebook, more power to you, I'm not trying to abolish it, I just think it's a little much. Anyone I know well enough to give my phone number to can reach me 24/7 three different ways, call text or email. I'm not sure what could be so important that a cell phone isn't good enough. Pics of family? How about seeing them in person when you actually visit and see your family? Family lives out of town? Pics can also be sent via text or email. You have your view, I have mine. To me, it's just watering down everyones relationships by trying to do too much with too many people. I'm far from a luddite, like I said, people who matter can get me 24/7, and that's enough for me. If you're not in my phonebook, I don't want to know that much about you, nor want you knowing that much about me. Good fences make for good neighbors.

Paying customer up front?

Links. Don't forget the links. Main and reserve include the links or slinks. For the love of god, do not remove the canopy from the links. Daisey chain the lines before disconnecting anything, then remove the links one at a time, and affix them to a card of some sort. PD makes a nice one if you have it around, but it not, take a piece of cardboard about 5" x 7", and punch 4 holes in it, two on one side, and two on the other. Each hole is for a link, and keep the left and right lines groups on seperate sides of the card. There are better ways, more complex ways, ways that would take forever to explain in a post, but the above is a 'good' way, and will save the new owner (or their rigger) a ton of work trying to sort out a tangled canopy.

Fuck facebook. You got email, and a cell phone with unlimited minutes, long distance and texts? You can keep in touch with anyone worth keeping in touch with. All facebook will do is get you to reduce the amount of time you spend in contact with important people because you'll be too busy with all the 'noise' from everyone on facebook who's a friend of the guy you friended because he knows a guy you know, and he has a funny picture of said guy. Quality, not quantity.

I didn't say that instructors shouldn't shoot POV video, what I said was that a top mounted GoPro is the wrong choice for the jump. Where I jump, every student jump has video, either outside or instructor. The DZ provides cameras and helmets for the instructors for this very purpose. For years it was PC 5 or 9s in a box on a Bonehead helmet. Both the supply and condition of the PC cameras have been suffering for a couple years, but without a suitable replacement, it's what we used. Even though the GoPro has been around for awhile, the format of the camera didn't fit the job. This winter we upgraded to the Drift cameras. Same idea as the GoPro, no tape, high def, lightweight, etc, but the format of the camera lends itself to side mounting which is a far better option for an instructor than a top mount. I do agree with your point that the instructor was in the wrong place. Once the student has their hand on the PC, the main side should be holding the harness grip at arms length, to prevent just such an occurance. This also helps to get some clean air above the student for the initial toss, and then the main side should depart fully in order to allow for a clean deployment. The instructor in the photo is maintaining a grip even though the student has thrown the PC. I am 100% sure that the main side has no idea the bridle is stuck on his GoPro at the time of the photo. Poor equipment choice and poor technique.

Why are you using for front risers to land if you're not a very experienced canopy pilot and not quite sure about a lot of things? Front riser truns are cool for all jumpers up above the landing pattern, but they shouldn't be used for landing unless you have the training and education to do so. Your problem is most likely too short steering lines, and yes, you are pulling the canopy down in the front and back, and the canopy doesn't like it. Again, this is basic canopy set-up information, and something that would have been covered in any high-performance canopy piloting course becasue, as you can see, proper canopy set-up is essential for any high performance piloting.

Discuss what? A picture is worth a thousand words. Just for fun, I'll type out a couple of them... Why is the AFF I wearing a GoPro when there's outside video on the jump? Video is a great tool for training/debrief, and I'm not opposed to instructors wearing a camera if there isn't outside video, but when there is, what's the point? Did anyone even look at that helmet before he jumped it? Does that look like a good 'working' camera helmet, it in that it can be used on a working jump without interference? How did the instructor intend to get in tight if need be? How did he intend to dig his head into the student's ribs on exit if need be? I'm not opposed to instructor-based POV video, but the first rule of ANY video, be it outside or inside, is to 'do no harm'. There is no video shot worth adding danger to the skydive, and this is what the instructor has done here. As for the notion that outside video is a distraction on AFF jumps, and should be frowned upon, like many other things, it all depends on the camera flyer. A good camera flyer is following the dive flow, evaluating the student's body position, watching for hand signals, and judging the student's overall mental state. You then use that information to deciede how and when to introduce yourself to the student's field of view. You're only a distraction if the student can see you, so stay 'out of sight, out of mind' when it's called for, and get up in there when that's the right thing to do.

The real Casey Anthony? No sir. Even if she didn't kill her kid, she did wrap the body up in a plastic bag and left it in the trunk of her car before eventually dumping it in the woods. That's a deal breaker for me. An actual 'human' who looks just like her? Yep.

And to fly in his slot. And get is hands out of the shot. And get some wings so he doesn't go low when things get slow. Truthfully, I would rate the student's performance as better than the camera guy. It looks like he planned the dive and dove the plan. I don't think the camera guy had a plan.

We all want that. A misfire interferes with your operation of the rig, not the operation of the rig. The rig itself is still able to operate and achieve it's function of deploying a canopy. A rig that has the reserve container locked shut interferes with both your ability to operate the rig, and rigs ability to operate at all. There's a huge difference between the two. The one unwanted action, the misfire, results in a reserve deployment. Now it might not happen when you want it to, but it will happen. The other unwated action, locking the reserve shut, results in you going in. If my choices are a 'surprise' reserve deployment or just going in, I'll take my chances with the surprise reserve deployment. Another thing to remember, when making the comparison between the Argus ban, and the treatment of other AAD manufacturers, is that the other manufacturers have historicaly taken responsibility for confirmed 'problems' with the product. Vigil responded to it's misfires by saying that the AADs worked as designed. If you don't like it, don't jump a Vigil, but at least you know the deal beforehand. I referenced this before, when Cypres had the misfire problems due to radio waves, they investigated, issued a fix, and updated the design to eliminate the problem in future units. In both cases, the manufacturers response was timely, and good enough to satisfy the community at large. If Aviacom could have met that standard after the second or thrid incident, this ban might have never happened, In reference to the one incident that everyone seems to be hanging their 'I hate Airtec' hat on, the tandem incident from NZ, every peice of gear under the sun has killed or injured people. None are perfect, and none will ever be. You cannot look to single occurance events in order to establish grounds for a ban. There are too many factors present to pinpoint one casue, and then use that one incident as a reason to ban anything. When there are a string of incidents that all have the same type of failure in common with the same component, then that component becomes suspect.

It's entirely possible. A new cutter would also solve the problem. Truth is, every instance where there has been a cutter problem has involved the AAD rightfully firing at (I assume) the correct altitude. Along those same lines, I don't recall the Argus has having a problem with mis-firing at all. So a revised cutter install to keep it properly alaigned, or even a new cutter, one of the two might just solve the whole thing. So wheres Aviacom with the info?

I have a feeling the reason for the sling was discussed long before the student made a jump. Chances are the sling was not due to a current injury, but due to a long term (permanent) injury or paralysis. I don't think any TI would jump with a clearly injured student. A student who has lost the use of the arm with no hope of recovery is another story. I have seen a few students like this over the years, and the procedure is generally to 'secure' the arm to prevent it from moving around in freefall. Duct tape seems to be a popular choice, just being sure to keep it off the skin and on the sling or shirt sleeve.

What information was there to know? PIA made it's move after the 3rd or 4th instance of a problem with an Argus cutter. Did Aviacom explain the problem after the first, second or thrid occurance? No, they pointed the finger at other factors, none of which were conclusive, but people gave them the benefit of the doubt, and continued to use the AADs. How many instances of unexplained partially cut loops and locked containers do you need before you just put on the brakes and take another look at the problem? I give this advice to new jumpers when they get their own rig - if something goes wrong once, like a brake fire, shit happens. Inspect your toggles and brake setting, and double check them when you pack. If it happens again, it's a problem with the rig. Consult a rigger before jumping it again. If you apply that same thinking to the AAD situation, they're past the point of standing down to consult a rigger. They're on the 4th unexplained partially cut loop, and that means it's really time to stand down and figure out the problem before it happens again. At least one of the occurances (Poland, right?) involved a fatality, add that to the three others, and you have the PIA making the right move, and stopping the ride until we figure out what's wrong. Riggers, rig manufacturers and a good number of skydivers are smart, scientific people. All Aviacom has to do is present credible and convincing evidence as to the nature of the problem, the involvment of the AAD, and how to prevent it from happening again. If the AAD is not to blame, just point out what it. If the AAD is to blame, just solve that problem. Either course of action would satisfy the manufacturers and PIA. Meanwhile, Aviacom has done neither.

Other AAD manufacturers explain the problems encountered with their units. Even in the case of the Vigil misfires, the response was, 'That's how they work, and they might fire in those situations'. While that explantation doesn't solve the problem, it does identify the problem, and let's the user choose to jump that AAD or not. Aviacom hasn't responded to anyone's satisfaction, which is why the ban is in place. Incident after indicent was blamed on outside factors, and like I mentioned eariler, that ploy only works once or twice at best. Sooner or later the only thing connecting the various incidents is the AAD itself. So when the AAD is a prime subject of the investigation, and other incidents (with other outlying circumstances) occur with the same AAD and the same (or very similar) failure, that's enough to put the burden of proof on the AAD manufacturer. Come up with some concrete evidence in each instance (or even most of them) that clears your unit, or the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that it is the AAD, and not the other factors they keep pointing to. Airtec (Cypres) has also had it's problems, like the radio frequency interference issue from back in the mid-90s. Airtec identified the problem, and issued sleeves for the control units to shield them from the errant radio waves. It seemed to work as the unexplained firings went away, and then Airtec began installing internal shielding on the assembly line from that point forward. AAD manufacturers are allowed to make mistakes. In that case, they need to address them, identify the error, and either offer a solution, or at the very minimum, inform the public of the nature of the problem so they can make an informed decision. What they can't do is yell 'conspiracy' and then disappear from the face of the earth. Look, even if there is an industry wide-conspiracy against Aviacom, that wouldn't prevent them from investigating and indentifying the problem, and possibly issuing a solution. Conspiracy or not, they could do the work and clear their name. To date they have not, and their lack of communication only leads one to believe that they have not because they cannot.

That's a negative ghostrider. I have several thousand jumps pulling the slider past stowed toggles with no problems. I have maybe a dozen jumps where I had a brake fire (not related to the slider) where I countered by unstowing the other brake. Pulling the slider down on those jumps was a chore, and took easily twice a long as when the brakes are stowed. The problem with unstowed brakes is that the toggle is free to hang as it sees fit, and if that's not inline with the riser, you need two hands to thread the loose toggle through the grommet as you pull the slider down. Repeat for the other side. When the barkes are stowed, everything is secure and inline with the riser. The trick I use to to put my first and middle fingers on top of the grommet, and use my thumb to hold the top of the toggle in place. I pull the grommet down until my thumb is partway through the grommet, then remove my thumb and finish the job. There are some caveats, not to the stowed/unstowed argument, but to the pull the slider down at all argument. One of them is that the jumper is experienced enough and has the judgement and presence of mind to do the job correctly, and not just blindly yank down on the slider. The other caveat is that the risers/toggles need to be properly maintained and properly packed. Any lacking in either area will add additional risk to pulling the slider down. Again, these are all reasons that unless the slider will limit the movement of your risers while swooping, there is no reason to pull it past the links. All of the concerns voiced in this thread disappear 100% if you install bumers and leave it up there. Those same concerns return in full force if you jump without bumpers or intended to pull the slider down, there is no middle ground or halfway solution, it's either all or nothing. If you choose 'all', make sure you have a good reason for adding a dozen (or more) potential problems to your canopy ride and landing. Looking cool is not a good reason.