davelepka

Airtec has taken the only step it can, and that is include the step of routuing the loop through the cutter in the instruction manual. You keep missing the obvious point that there is a way to check if the loop is through the cutter, and that's the rigger looking at the loop during the pack job. Routing the loop through the cutter is the riggers job, not Airtecs. Every country has a regulatory body that certifies riggers, and as such these devices are only intented to be set-up by qualified professionals. The Cypres's design as a lopp-cutting AAD is not new in the marketplace, nor is the design unique. A Cypres, in terms of installation and set-up is not a 'consumer' product in that it's not intended for use by the 'public at large'. It's use in that capacity is limited to rated, qualified professionals, and as such, including the step of routing the loop through the cutter in the manual is sufficient notice to the installers that this obvious step must be performed.

Pull it down further and for longer. It may even take two hands, and you want to grab the riser near the top (in the dive loop if equipped) and pull down until your hands are in the neighborhood of your nipple. Keep your hands close to your body for increased leverage and honk down on that thing. WL and canopy size will effect the responsiveness of the risers. A bigger canopy at a lower WL will need a lot of input for a little output. Also, your brake lines are not a factor. Short brake lines can effect risers turns, but for the worse, not better. Riser turns get the canopy diving and increasing speed, and short brake lines will have you applying brakes at the same time you're pulling the riser. It gets very confusing for the canopy, and causes it to buck. About your steering lines, have them adjusted before your next jump. It only takes 5 or 10 min for a rigger to adjust the lowers. Have 2 inches taken out, and see where the stall it. Ideally, you're looking for a stall after holding the toggles at full arms extension for a few seconds (2 or 3). If it stalls higher than that, or quicker than that, have an inch added back to the brake lines. if it still won't stall, take out another 2 inches, and repeat the process until it's right. If you can't stall the canopy, you're giving up bottom end on landing. Might not make a difference if there's a little wind or lower temps, but when it gets hot and the air stands still, you want every ounce of 'slow' you can get. Worst case scenario, you need to 'panic flare', or try to reduce the force of an impact, again, you'll want everything the canopy has to offer. Who knows, your next jump might be the 'worst case', get it fixed. Never be willig to accept parachute equipment that is not maintained, assembled and set-up 100% correctly.

I don't know one way or another what any of the AADs do with their info, I was just tryning to help clarify what Vladi said - The point of the inquiry was to question if the pressure readout that the Vigil can present is a valid form of 'user test' to see if the sensor is working properly. That is the notion that was put forth by the pro-Vigil crowd, and it was proposed a point in their favor over the Cypres, which they claim only test the sensor once every 4 years. My only point is that as Vladi indicated, the Vigils baseline pressure reading is not based on it's accuracy against an outside barometer, but based on it's own baseline obtained at start up. If, for example, a sensor in a Vigil (or Cypres for that matter) was to read a full point different than what the weather service is reporting, it's irrelevant as long as the sensor is able to read the pressure accurately with regards to the baseline reading obtained at start up. The end result of that is that using that reading as an indicator of sensor accuracy is not effective unless you chart the sensors reading in comparison to the weather services report over a period of several days, and then note the difference between the two. You can then calculate if the difference is of the correct value on a given day. Anything short of that is a shot in the dark as to the accuracy of the sensor, and even if should chart the pressure difference across several days and make the comparison, that reading says nothing to the sensors ability to read the changes accurately. The ability of the sensor to read the pressure changes as the jumpers go up and down is left to the invisible and unknown (to the jumper) self-test in both the Vigil and the Cypres. Yes, the Vigil can provide a single point of data, that can be employed (with significant effort) to determine the sensors ability to measure a static barometric pressure, and the Cypres can not. Of course, the Cypres can tell when you open the door of an airplane, and knows not to fire, where the Vigil cannot always make that claim. Take your pick.

And just like the court will see, there are two ways to look at the situation. Your way implies that Airtec has some responsibility toward ensuring that the loop is routed through the cutter. The flip side of that is that the instructions are very clear that the loop needs to routed through the cutter, and that's as far as Airtec can be held responsible for. It truth, the federal government, more specifically the FAA, should be held responsible becasue they are ones who certified the rigger in question as being capable of maintaining parachute equipment in accordance with the FARs, which state that all equipment must be assembled and maintainted to the standard set forth by the manufacturer. Airtec set an acceptable standard, and the FAA certified rigger failed to maintain the rig in question to that standard.

It was answered, the problem is that some of the info is this thread is misleading, so you were expecting something else. The idea is that the unit 're-zeros' itself at start up to 'set' the ground elevation. Just like you do with your wrist mount alti, and just like a Cypres, Argus, ProTrack or any other audible does. What the Vigil offers is a readout of what pressure it reads, but that's not always going to be related to what the weather service says. If the Vigil thinks the pressure on the ground is 29.75, and the weather service says it's 30.10, it's irrelevant because the Vigil will fire at what it thinks is ground level plus 750 (or 790, or whatever). This thread has lead you to believe that you can use that to check the accuracy of the sensor, but that's not entirely true. If you kept a log of what the Vigil displays and what the weather service reports, you would have an on-going idea of the offest between Vigil-pressure and 'real' pressure, and in that sense you could track the offset and check that it's consistant. On a one-time basis, however, looking at Vigil-pressure and 'real' pressure will tell you nothing about the accuracy of the Vigil. It's a feature that's being pushed as one thing, when it's really no better or worse than the Cypres (in that respect). Both units conduct a self check on start-up, and neither will 'power up' if anything fails the check. If the unit reads everything as OK, it will 'power up' and indicate for normal operation. Beyond that, the Vigil offers you the ability to check the 'Vigil pressure' but if that was reached by a faulty sensor that could pass the self check (like the Cypres), you will jump with a faulty sensor. The reporting of the arbitrary pressure the Vigil measures is of questionable use in the real world. There are other, much more significant issues between the two that should guide a decision to purchase in either direction.

If this was a crimnal case, that would be a factor, however in a civil case, no actual law needs to be broken for the courts to find against you. All they have to prove is that your actions damaged persons or property, and you're 'guilty'. As it pretains to this case, the BSRs are tantamount to law, as they represent the 'standard industry practice', and in the absence of an actual law governing the actions of person or business, the 'standard industry practice' can be used to determine negilence or liability. It's one of the reasons that a BSR is such a bitch to create. The USPA knows that once they create one, every DZO (in the US) will essentially be bound to it, or risk losing the effectivness of their waiver should an incident occur. That's why so many new things are intruduced as 'reccomendations', because it gives the DZOs more lattitude in following, possibly bending, or straight up shit-canning the reccomendation.

This is similar to the case in Ca where the mother has sued Airtec over the death of her daughter where the Cypre fired but the jumper still impacted without a reserve deployed. It's similar in that the cases are based on the premise that the Cypres will deploy a canopy, which is not the case, the Cypres only cuts the loop which is no guarantee of a reserve deployment. The end result is that Airtec cannot be held responsible for the non-deployment of a reserve when they're not in the reserve deployment business. If the case was that the Cypres somehow intervened and prevented a reserve deployment (ala Argus), then they might have a point, but as it sits, they have none. It's a matter of throwing out the biggest net they can, and seeing what they can catch. I'm surprised they haven't also included the rig manufacturer, canopy manufacturer, jumpmaster, etc.

I don't know what the hell that is. That's not Archway Skydiving, it's Aerohio. I'm not a facebooker, but I'm pretty sure Aerohio has a facebook page that's a 'real' facebook page, only adding to the confusion about that link.

Technically you need a drivers license to get to the DZ, but if you can get a ride you don't even need that. In the US, there is no license or rating. If you jump at a USPA DZ, you'll need an A license just to be 'legal'. Non-USPA DZs, anything goes.

The answers to your questions will vary from DZ to DZ, and from day to day. Different DZs use different planes, and the wind conditions for the day will dictate how from we might from the DZ. A safe estimate would be to stay outside of a 2 mile radius from the DZ, and to stay out for 10 min after the 'jumpers away' call. Both of those figures are generous, with a nice margin of safety built in. That's in relation to parachutes, mind you. The jump plane itself may cut a wider path through the sky than a 2 mile radius on descent, but that's what radios and ATC are for.

Sure. It belongs to him and he can do with it as he pleases. What nbblood said was right, the coupons are almost always for 'whatever' off retail, and most dealers charge something significantly less than retail. The buyer of such a coupon needs to shop around for the best price on the container in question and see if it's more or less than 50% off retail plus $300 to get the coupon. You can save money buying discount coupons, but it's rarely more than a couple hundred bucks, and that's only if you buy the coupon for no more than a couple hundred bucks. In terms of who buys the coupon, who cares if it's a new jumper buying their first rig or an old timer buying their tenth rig? If the buyer happens to be about to order that exact container, and comes up with the cash for the coupon, it's theirs. You realize that were not feeding hungry children here. Any jumper, old or new, looking to buy new gear isn't a charity case who deserves a 'hand out'. You're talking about a person with the good fortune to be able to spend many thousands of dollars on new gear, not someone looking for a 'leg up' in life. If someone can't afford new gear, there are dozens of rigs for sale for less than half the price of new. The manufacturer is looking for some publicity, and to pick up a new customer. Even at half off, I'm sure they make a couple bucks, plus future sales, plus exposure on the DZ, plus the jumper telling everyone about the great discount they got, plus freebag and PC sales after cutaways, the list goes on forever. They don't care who that new customer is, and if they did, all they have to do is print 'non-transferable' on the coupon. No 'non-transferable' means the coupon is fair game on the open market. Caveat emptor.

Just to be clear, the Cypres also does a self check at every start up, and will display an error code if there is a problem. It also displays the current battery voltage at the end of the self check. In terms of the servicing, I don't think that four years is an unreasonable time frame for an electronic instrument that spends a portion of it's time taking severe abuse (opening shock), and that literally is poised to sever your reserve closing loop in short order. To me, that seems like an area where a degree of reliability is called for, and sending a unit for a check every four years doesn't seem like overkill (keep in mind that 4 years could equal upwards of 2000 jumps for some folks). As far as the service life goes, who knows? The Vigil hasn't even been on the market for 12 years (released in 2003) so the jury is still out in terms of AAD service life. My guess would be that 12 years is a conservative estimate on the part of Airtec, with the idea being to get the units out of the field before there is a failure. With that in mind, we won't really know how the Vigil stacks up against the Cypres in this area until 2017, when the first Vigils out there have surpassed the 12 year mark, and made it a few more years in the field. Let's remember that the Cypres 12 year life limit was introduced long after the Cypres itself. Early on, there was no life limit, and everyone thought they would last forever. With less than 10 years in the market, there's nothing to say that the Vigil won't also sprout a life limit at some point in the future. Who knows what time in the field will reveal about the Vigil after 10, 12 or 14 years.

Maybe I should have put a smiley on my post. I meant it as I did trust him yesterday, but only lost that trust based on you telling me not to. I'll take the word of a current GK with regards to current GK activites anyday. The swoop is still fucked up, and as Martin poitned out, there might be other regulatory issues with the jump as well. Does anyone have any real info with regards to this? Is there a DZ in WV now? I know someone was trying to set one up near the New River, is that where the jump originated from? Do they have a waiver to make off DZ tandem jumps?

I don't know about that. It plausable, but it could also just be the pressure from the relative wind holding it up, and the span of the slider physically restraining the canopy from opening. You could also look to the increased surface area of a domed slider, and thus the increased PSI of pressure from the relative wind holding the slider up.

I made the mistake of trusting him yesterday, glad you came along to help out. I really do buy that this wasn't an official GK event, but the news reported it as such, and I think the pax even mentioned the Gks at some point either on camera or in print. So if one of the guys was a former GK, they're wearing GK suits, and the pax and media are reporting it as GKs, maybe the real GKs should be concerned. This didn't appear to be a regualr DZ, so it looks like former team members are doing publicity jumps, off of a DZ, and possibly representing themselves as GKs. Might be something to look into, that's all. And the swoop was still a bonehead move.

Negative ghostrider. Ideally, the slider and the canopy leave the bag in a Mexican standoff. Neither has an adantage over the other, and everything stays put. At this point the slider is all the way, and the canopy is snivelling. Your airspeed begins to decay from the slider/canopy in the airstream, and as it does, so does the pressure on the slider. Now the canopy begins to develop an advantage over the slider, and starts to push it downward. As the slider comes down, the canopy spreads, further slowing the jumper, further reducing the airspeed and pressure on the slider, further increasing the advantage of the canopy over the slider. This operation contunues until the slider is down to the links. If your slider is not in position when it comes out of the bag, that's an instant advanatge to the canopy. it begins to inflate, and only further increases it's advanatge (and how hard it's going to open). You have to remember that you're throwing a canopy out in to 120 mph airstream, so if you give it an inch, it will take a mile and ruin your day. Ever try to handle a canopy on a windy day? Ever have a hard time handling a canopy on a windy day (or seen someone else struggle)? That's on the ground with winds under 25mph. Translate that to 120mph winds at deployment, and you can see that forces a canopy can exert are huge. The slider is your one shot to tame those forces. If they make it too big, the canopy might not open at all, so it has to be just big enough to slow the opening, but not too big. There's a youtube video of a guy having an 8000ft snivel on a test jump for a new canopy. The slider was just too big, but if you look at the video, you can't visually see that the slider is any larger than normal. It's a very fine line between too big and just right. What that means to you is that the slider being all the way up, against the stops, is the key to avoiding hard openings. The majority of hard openings are due to the slider coming off the stops during the pack job, usually during the folding/bagging. There are some other causes, but that's the big daddy of them all. You can even overcome higher deployment speeds with properly placed slider.

I'll make two points in reference to this - First, what's to say that I (or anyone) doesn't hold themselves to that standard? Not that we achieve it, but that we don't work towards it every day and struggle with our own shortcomings when they arise? Second, the way that everyone learns from these incidents is if you go trough, point by point, and high light every mistake that was made (or even possibly made) and show how it contributed to the end result. To do any less would be assuming that everyone reading could easily see and understand the situation, and how it came to be, and for my money that's a piss poor assumption, and a sure way to waste a learning opportunity and do nothing to prevent it from happening again.

I concur with your assesment of the jumpers affiliation (or lack of) with the GKs. Edit to add - According to this article, this was indeed the GKs http://www.dailymail.com/ap/ApTopStories/201106150381 I tend to doubt the accuracy of the media, so I'm still open to the idea it wasn't them.

I stand by what I said. Take it or leave it, I don't really care. It's an internet message board, not the supreme court. What I say here, or you say here has very little bearing on the real world. If you aren't ready to hear the good, the bad and the ugly, then don't post your shit (videos, pictures, or opinions) online for the entire world (literally) to see. I stated several times that sometimes there is a difference between sticking to the 'letter of the law', and doing what just makes sense. Just because you can read the regs in such a way that it appears to endorse one course of action doesn't mean that course of action is always going to be the right one. While you do have to stick to the regs in terms of how permissive you can be, nothing states that you cannot impose your own, more conservative, guidelines if they appear to be prudent. If you think an SL I with no freefall instructional experience, or a coach with 102 jumps is a good fit for a recertification jump, get video.

The gear does not look GK spec, but that would be the easist thing on the team to replace. The jumpers, their jumpsuits, and the media presence certainly lead one to believe it's an 'official' GK jump. In my opinion, that would be reason enough to conduct yourself like a GK. That aside, it was a bad move on the part of the TI. I don't buy into the idea that it was a tight approach, and a toggle swoop over the pond was the only way in.

Maybe I jumped to that conclusion because the thread was entitled 'Golden Knight tandem swoop', and then I recognized some of the Knights in the video, and a bunch of guys wearing the Knights black jumpsuits with the two gold stripes. I also noticed another video in that set where the local Fox affiliate interviewed the coach before the jump. Like I said, high profile.

I couldn't disagree more. If you look at the video of the 'swoop' it appears that the beach continues on to the left of the screen more than far enough to allow for a 'dry' landing. It also appears that the TI intentionally swings wide out over the water in order to come back into shore from out there. Also, if the LZ was so tight, why fly a high speed approach? Why not fly a standard, straight in approach where you would have much more control over things? Even a stall/surge if you wanted extra speed for landing, but over sand, why bother? I'll add that that don't let just anyone do tandems for the GKs. You have to be the best of the best to get a slot as a TI with the GKs, certainly good enough to be able to put down a tandem anywhere you wanted. It seems that the pax was the head football coach for WVU. Like I said, high profile.

Yeah, you send them home if you don't have an instructor capable of doing the job. Skydiving is a privlege, not a right, and you lose that privilge when you let your currency lapse. It's not the DZs job to staff instructors for you to get your currency back. How the jumper learned in the first place is irrelevant. They need to demonstrate currency in whatever it is they intend to do. If they want to make extended freefall jumps from full altitude, then that's what they need to demonstrate. If that's the case, a freefall rated instructor is the one you go with. So the jump in question used an 'appropriately rated' instructor as per the books. As per reality, the instructor could not 'handle the load'.

Would you clear him to self-supervise? That's what coaches are intended for, jumpers who have been cleared to self-supervise, and that's why they are not taught to catch, stabilize or pull for students. It's not part of their job, and they are not qualified to do so. If he was cleared to self-supervise, and chose to jump with a coach on his own, then fine. If the instructor on the first jump wasn't preparred to clear the student to self-supervise, then the student should not have been passed to a coach trained only to jump with students cleared to self supervise. For the record, I make this point more for the benefit of others, and not as a 'dig' to your DZ or staff. We all know that anything can happen at any time, and even will all other things pointing in one direction, any jumper can quickly veer off course in the other direction. However, in hindsight, it's clear that this was a mis-appropriation of a coach, and the way we avoid future instances is by pointing it out and explaing the problem to make sure that people are mindful of the coach, their level of training, and how they should be used at the DZ.

It's Olav-envy. Like it or not, the guy is recognized as the 'inventor' of freeflying, and in comparison to what was happening at the time, freeflying was a significant shift from what was the status quo, and that's why it got a name and was recognized as it's own discipline. Atmo-whatever isn't far enough from freefying to be it's own thing. It's just a few degrees off from head down, and almost identical to an old-fashioned flocking dive. It's just like 'New Coke' if anyone remembers that. The product itself was all that different from 'old Coke' and it was largely a marketing ploy, and in the end, largely a failure. 'New' Coke faded away, and we just back to 'old' Coke. Sorry Europe, time to take a hint from the Coke camp. Now let's try to refrain from making cocaine jokes,