skydiverek

CYPRES firing parameters are and were known. What can you expect if you use your safety device outside the operating window? Darwin award, maybe... Until the accident, Cypres had advertised that it was imposible to meet these parameters under an open canopy, no matter how it is flown. Look for the old ads... Adrian trusted that, I quess... Airtec even responded to the jumper who was able to fire the off-set Cypres up high. The response was that it was impossible to do such maneuvers low and still land safely.

Vigil cutter also cuts in two places, yet we do not see the problems with it.

I don't think so. This is what I found: The Airtec Cypres2 and the Argus cutters are not the same, they are very different! However, the cutters from AAD Vigil2 and the Argus are similar... The Airtec cutter is a wedge-shaped knife and the one from Argus is a cylindrical bullet-type knife. The Airtec cutter is made by Dynamic-Nobel (Germany). Argus is using the Nobel Energetics Metron, from Scotland. As for AAD Vigil, I believe, their cutter comes from Richard Stresau Laboratory, Inc. What is similar with both, the Cypres and the Argus, the cutter is treaded, but the Vigil is made by crimpling. The cutters of Cypres and Argus are not identical. The most obvious difference is the design of the blade. Beyond that there are some "secrets" in the design of the Cypres cutter, which are patented by Airtec. So the other manufacturers have to order cutters to their own specifications, including their own "secrets".

For a refresh - here is my translation of the key points from the preliminary report on the Polish fatality with Argus in 2009: (The final report is completed, and is being officially translated into English now). http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3817893#3817893

Here's a decent analysis. I got it off dz.com recently but with all the Argus threads, and URL's not perhaps searching fully, I can't find it again. Wasn't even showing up in web searchs. MJOSparky or someone posted a bunch of links to all sorts of Argus reports & bulletins. The Polish report into the Polish fatality also has some close up pics of the inside of the cutter. Here are the attachments (bottom of this page): http://www.pia.com/TechnicalSpecialPage.htm

He is talking about the COUNTRY-specific groundings from a year or so ago. Not manufacturer-specific.

I clear them right after opening. That way, I do not travel thru all the air mass (= to the ground), before clearing them.

Check these six threads on the same topic: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=bent+pin+-Re%3A&search_type=AND&search_fields=s&search_time=&search_user_username=&sb=score&mh=6

How to wash a container, by UPT: http://www.unitedparachutetechnologies.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

I would quess 'Optimum' from PD, or 'Speed 2000' from Paratec - both made from low bulk material.

Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ3I0v9OWK0

From BILL BOOTH (the inventor of 3-ring release): "Reversed risers are 3 ring risers where the riser rings face the jumpers body, instead of facing away as they do on normal risers. In a misguided attempt to make type 17 (mini) 3 ring risers stronger, the French eliminated the grommet that passes through the riser, thinking this was a weak point. They then put the "0" grommet for the closing loop to go through on a floppy 1" tab. Then, so that the 3-ring housings wouldn't have to come around to the front, flipped the riser over so that the riser rings faced the jumper's shoulders There are three problems with this approach. 1. Risers don't break at the grommet. They break where they go around the harness ring. 2. The closing loop on reversed risers does not make the 180 degree direction change it does on properly built risers, so the release force is doubled, and the "suck through" or "jamming" force is cut in half. 3. For a 3 rings to release, they must flip through each other. Since a bag lock might not stand you up enough to pull the risers away from your body, reversed risers might not release in that situation, because your body blocks the flip through motion. ------------------------------------------- I don't know about you, but I want my 3-rings to work EVERY time, in ANY malfunction situation. "Most of the time" just doesn't cut it. Reversed risers, soft housings, and all other "improvements" to the 3-ring lower reliability. Emergency systems are simply no place to cut corners. I cry every time I see a poorly made 3-ring, but there is nothing I can do about it, but tell you again, "There is one best way to make a 3-ring release system, and it doesn't cost a dime more to do it right. The plans are available from the Relative Workshop." How much is your life worth? ------------------------------------------- On reversed (Integrity) risers...The scariest stories I've heard about them happen in two canopy out situations. Often, the main risers are held back across the shoulders, preventing the unfortunate jumper from cutting the main away in a "personal downplane" situation. Reversed risers offer no advantages, have lower mechanical advantage, have no published construction or inspection specifications (so you can't tell if they are going to work in a high "G" situation), and can kill you in the above situation (and others). They should be replaced, and you should get very mad at anyone who sold them to you. The same is true for most "soft housing" 3-ring release systems.

http://www.phoenix-fly.com/products/wingsuits/venom_wingsuit___phoenix_fly

Anw what would this accomplish, besides wearing out the velcro...?

Pause at 1:18 and you can see that Skyhook disconnected (the reserve PC and bridle are NOT being pulled by the main, which is like 50 feet away). "Clear of your main"? How can you entange in it? I do not understand. In you exapmle, since Skyhook did not do its job, so you were way clear of the main!

All I can see is the fire ball...

Aren't you referring to this DIFFERENT accident?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCyt-sIMym0&fmt=18

All I know: Crash of Comp Air 7, CC-PJE. August 18, 2007, Eulogio Sanchez Airport SCTB Santiago.

I could not find it posted earlier...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmTa2ogcgbo

I was using the non-disposable (non-foam) ear plugs in the airplane, but I was taking them out for freefall. Was worried about equalisation, since they were made from solid material (with no vent-hole in it). I will give these new one a try!

Great! Thanks for that, that helps a lot. Two more questions: 1. Can you hear people talking to you when the airplane is OFF? 2. Can you hear people talking to you when the airplane is ON?

Frankly, I do not remember the details... Here is the original thread - the first post is from the inventor of RAX: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3397264;page=1;mh=-1;;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC

http://www.moldex.com/hearing-protection/foam-earplugs/sparkplugs.php Thanks! Do you wear them while in freefall? If so, did you notice any change when it comes to pressure equalisation?

RAX disconnects with zero force, not 15 or so punds needed in case of Skyhook. Check the scene starting at 0:44: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqxjHOSKTT0 I played with RAX, and it is literally zero pounds of force needed for disconnection. Yet, it stays connected when needed. And the cost of parts to manufacture one is like $15.

And there is also 'Interlock' MARD, designed by... Eric Fradet! It is using magnets and is used on Para Flite military equipment: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090127395