My Mirage G3 looks like crap after the service bulletin?

[Supergeil 0]

Is it just on my rig or are there others, whit a big gap between the flaps?
It looks like shit!
And is far from the perfect MIRAGE picture I have in my mind.

Did they do that service bulletin, with their head under the arm and not thinking it the all way trough?

[GeeeeeeFly 0]

Yep we have a jumper in San Diego going through the same problems...

It does look like crap and its also a potential hazard with the back flap sticking out as it does...

~G~

"The edge ... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who know where it is are those that have gone over"

[Kris 0]

Yeah, that's why I'm not doing it to my Mirage. That, and I think Mirage has jumped the gun and hasn't done enough research after what happened in Russia.

It's still just an SB. Until it's an AD from the FAA, Mirage can call it mandatory all they want but it isn't and I won't be doing it to my G3.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[Supergeil 0]

Nice to now that my rig isn't the only one!

I live in Denmark so I don't now about the FAA rules, will check it tomorrow.
But if I can jump it like it used to be I would highly prefer that.

[F16Driver 0]

Pics

"I promise, I will never die."

[teason 0]

I've seen it on a Vector as well. The vector I with a mesh pilotchute has to have the cutter on the #3 flap. Don't know why, don't the RWS knows why, it's just what cypres says. Makes the vector look bad too.

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[firstime 0]

I had Mark Kruse (crosskeys) do my rig and it looks
as good as the day I bought it. I might be wrong but
I was under the impression that a master rigger could not repack your reserve without doing the SB??

[linestretch 0]

Quote

I had Mark Kruse (crosskeys) do my rig and it looks
as good as the day I bought it. I might be wrong but
I was under the impression that a master rigger could not repack your reserve without doing the SB??

???

For those of you that may opt to NOT do the SB, you may end up at a DZ where they won't allow you to jump there without the SB done.....

my pics & stuff!

[larsrulz 0]

Quote

???

For those of you that may opt to NOT do the SB, you may end up at a DZ where they won't allow you to jump there without the SB done.....

More specifically have trouble finding a rigger to close your rig up.

Mine looked bad the first go around, my rigger, being the good rigger he is, took it back and repacked it. He ended up needing to lengthen the closing loop about 1/4" I believe. Talk to your rigger about this...he shouldn't be packing it to look excessively poorly and if he is then maybe find a new rigger. Especially when the reserve flap is popped out a bit and is dangerous. (this was my problem caused by too short a reserve closing loop. The flap did not pop out until I actually put the rig on and tightened it up.)

I got it back after the re-repack, and I can't tell the difference between his M2 when it had the same canopies with the old cutter location and my M2 with the same canopies and new cutter location. It isn't that it can't be done...riggers are used to needing a certain length closing loop or putting the bulk in certain locations....changing the cutter location means riggers have to relearn their tricks. I'm sure the old dogs can learn new tricks.

I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF

[Kris 0]

Quote

For those of you that may opt to NOT do the SB, you may end up at a DZ where they won't allow you to jump there without the SB done.....

I don't see why, as it's not a truly mandatory modification. If it becomes an issue at other DZ's my G3 will end up in the garbage and I'll put my canopies into an Infinity or Wings instead as I've had it with Mirage after this and past dealings with them.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

For those of you that may opt to NOT do the SB, you may end up at a DZ where they won't allow you to jump there without the SB done.....

I don't see why, as it's not a truly mandatory modification. If it becomes an issue at other DZ's my G3 will end up in the garbage and I'll put my canopies into an Infinity or Wings instead as I've had it with Mirage after this and past dealings with them.

Hey Kris if ya decide to throw the G3 into the garbage, send it to me
I've seen a couple of the Mirages with the SB and they looked fine

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[Kris 0]

Quote

Hey Kris if ya decide to throw the G3 into the garbage, send it to me
I've seen a couple of the Mirages with the SB and they looked fine

And I've seen a couple that looked like crap.

As for giving my rig away...well, I have a love/hate relationship with it. And when it gets replaced I'm probably going to be extracting my wrath upon it.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[freakyrat 1]

Mine is an MT with a PD126R and a 120 Stiletto.

It doesn't look to bad after the SB. Not as flat but still acceptable. I'll take a picture of it and post it later tonight.

Chris

[BIGUN 1,407]

Quote

Yeah, that's why I'm not doing it to my Mirage. That, and I think Mirage has jumped the gun and hasn't done enough research after what happened in Russia.

It's still just an SB. Until it's an AD from the FAA, Mirage can call it mandatory all they want but it isn't and I won't be doing it to my G3.

Hey Kris,

I was one of the strongest opponents of the Mirage SB. When it was first made public, and placed on DZ.com, I used a considerable amount of information in my opposition to it. Researched Airtec rigger manuals going back to 1992, was very vocal in my opposition regarding the incident that caused the SB, the manner in which it was deployed and the lack of communication, cost to the skydivers, etc.

My opposition was deeply rooted in the single instance that caused the SB, the "appearance" of a quick field-enginnered solution and in my opinion; the SB that should have been issued should have been directed more to riggers, rather than a functional design change and cost to skydivers.

First, while you are technically correct that it is an SB and not an AD, the FAA directs that FAA certificated riggers will follow the manufacturers packing instructions - otherwise they face not only losing their license, but should something catastrophic happen, could be held on criminal negligence. What this means for the skydiver is, a) they either have to get it done by a master rigger, or b) must jump without an AAD.

I was contacted by KellyF at Infinity who presented some information that was the most logical of any of the responses, so I asked if I could call him and did. In addition, I contacted Justin at Mirage and spoke with him for about an hour.

My biggest reason for listening was; while I disagreed with the SB, I cannot and will not sponsor the thought of telling folks its better to jump without an AAD. I've seen enough AAD saves to know that if you can afford to skydive, you can't afford not to have an AAD.

Kelly's discussion was logical as was Justin's. As it turns out, the incident that occurred took some time to replicate and was found predominately on those rigs which housed a 113 reserve and smaller main. And once replicated was found that the percentage of occurance was high enough to warrant the SB.

After testing the AAD functional design re-route, it was found that a rigger could make the same mistake as had occured in Russia, but the AAD would work properly with the re-route. Evidently, over the years, with rigs getting smaller and smaller and reserves not having much room, the less room for wiggle error on the riggers part which is how the Russian incident came to be.

Which begs the question asked of Mirage, "Well, why wasn't the SB issued for just those with 113 reserve and smaller mains.?" The answer was; one standard - all rigs. One standard which works on all rigs. Fair enough. I can see that.

After the barrage of heated discussions, I informed those local skydivers that needed the mod, that the best course of action would be to send their rigs to Chutingstar as Mike had gone to Mirage and assisted and worked with Mirage on the re-route (which is a design that was in the Airtec riggers manual in 1992).

When the rigs from Chutingstar started returning (which was a two-day turnaround), I inspected each one. I found the quality of craftsmanship no less than excellent and there were no cable bulges or extended flaps, etc. In fact, one could not tell the re-route had been done.

My opinion of how it was handled and that a riggers SB "may" have been a solution and that the re-route will take as much rigger education as the original riggers SB could have taken hasn't changed much.

But what you should know before you go tossing your rig away is that you can a) jump without the Cypres, 2) if you're going to get the mod done, send it to a master rigger with a lot of years and demonstrated proficiency in this area, but finally; you should also know that other rig manufacturers may be adopting the same design, but deploy it a little differently whereby they place the mod on their newer production lines.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[councilman24 37]

At this time the FAA will NO LONGER issue an AWD for a parachute. Even if the manufacuter wants it. As I understand it the FAA has decided that parachutes are not aircraft appliances and AWD's can only be issued for appliances. So for now you will NEVER see another AWD for a parachute.

Your going to be waiting a long time.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[GravityGirl 0]

Quote

I had Mark Kruse (crosskeys) do my rig and it looks
as good as the day I bought it. I might be wrong but
I was under the impression that a master rigger could not repack your reserve without doing the SB??

My rig looks hot! Looks the same as before the mod. I love my rigger! Clay Bonevito is da man!!!

If you are really dis-saticfied, may I be so bold as to recommend you get a second opinion from another qualified rigger?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[Icon134 0]

Quote

After the barrage of heated discussions, I informed those local skydivers that needed the mod, that the best course of action would be to send their rigs to Chutingstar as Mike had gone to Mirage and assisted and worked with Mirage on the re-route (which is a design that was in the Airtec riggers manual in 1992).

When the rigs from Chutingstar started returning (which was a two-day turnaround), I inspected each one. I found the quality of craftsmanship no less than excellent and there were no cable bulges or extended flaps, etc. In fact, one could not tell the re-route had been done.

I suppose that explains why my rig still looks great...

I don't know how I'll survive when I move out of GA this summer.

Scott

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

First, while you are technically correct that it is an SB and not an AD, the FAA directs that FAA certificated riggers will follow the manufacturers packing instructions - otherwise they face not only losing their license, but should something catastrophic happen, could be held on criminal negligence. What this means for the skydiver is, a) they either have to get it done by a master rigger, or b) must jump without an AAD.

SB's are not manufacturer's instructions, they are Service Bulletins. Pulling the fabric out of the PC spring is instructions, moving the cutter location is an alteration. Riggers must follow the manufacturer's instructions for packing and maintaining containers and reserves. They are not required to comply with SB's. If the manual says you have to use "E" thread, you have to use use "E" thread. Just like aircraft, SB's are not mandatory for A & P's. You can fly an aircraft all day long with SB's not complied with. Same thing for parachutes.

The FAA's unwillingness to issue AD's for parachutes is disturbing. They have issued them in the past and parachutes are not an appliance since they are TSO'd. I think if someone gets injured or dies because of a SB that wasn't complied with, the FAA could be in a bind. I understand the FAA has bigger fish to fry, but they work for us and have a responsibility to us. If they do not want to issue AD's, then they need to appoint another organization, like PIA, to do it. They should give PIA a budget and let them handle it.

Generally speaking, riggers treat SB's as mandatory, but they are not required to.

Part of the FAA’s responsibility is to determine if an SB or an incident warrants the issuing of an AD. This prevents manufacturer’s from issuing a SB grounding older equipment to reduce their liability or increase sales of new equipment. They are supposed to make sure an AD is issued if it is necessary and not issued if it is not. Without that system of checks and balances, skydiving will suffer.

Mirage did say that there could be some cosmetic problem with the SB, namely wrinkling of the reserve flaps. They said it is more pronounced on the smaller containers.

Derek

[Supergeil 0]

Yours and Icon's are both G4 I don't think it's quite the same flaps.
The bulletin should be easier to do on the G4!

[jdhill 0]

Both of mine look fine... the rigger that did the mod did have to re-close them a few time to get them to look right, ususally involving changing the length of the closing loop... one the right length was figured out, they looked and continue to look fine.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Pendejo 0]

I sent mine back to Mirage to have the mod done. It came back with no visible differences (to a non rigger like me).

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[GravityGirl 0]

>>Yours and Icon's are both G4 I don't think it's quite the same flaps.
The bulletin should be easier to do on the G4!
<<

My personal container is a G4. That is correct. My husbands rig, my demo rigs in my store AND those of many of my customers are G3. They all look fine. Flaps tuck fine.

I have noticed no difference in difficulty with the G3 and the G4.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[Supergeil 0]

So a G3 is still able to look fine after the bulletin thats nice to know.
Maybe my rigger haven't done the modification the same way?
Are there several ways to do it?

[johnny1488 1]

Quote

And I've seen a couple that looked like crap.

It takes more than a SB to make any rig look like crap! I have packed g3's and g4's both before and after the mods. You should not be able to tell if the rig has had a mod with all the flaps closed. You can tell by opening up the reserve tuck flap (like you would when you give a pin check) and look for the stiching and a small gap between the 2 side flaps and the flap underneath them.

If a rig looks like crap, the jumper should not except it. There is no reason a rigger should finish a rig if it "looks like crap". Personally I think it is very easy to get mirages to look good.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome