Recommended Posts
teason 0
Just a few points.
1.) Inspection cycles were origionally determined by the material used in parachute construction and although materials have changed radically, cycles haven't.
2.)120 day Ispections to catch mistakes is a bit irrelivant seeing that as soon as you close the rig it becomes a Schrodinger's cat paradox! see uncertainty principle
3.)A lazy rigger who does a poor inspection on the first repack will probably be the same rigger on the next repack who will once again do a poor inspection. We seldom go from rigger to rigger and a poor inspection is almost as bad as pencil packing.
Just some thoughts
1.) Inspection cycles were origionally determined by the material used in parachute construction and although materials have changed radically, cycles haven't.
2.)120 day Ispections to catch mistakes is a bit irrelivant seeing that as soon as you close the rig it becomes a Schrodinger's cat paradox! see uncertainty principle
3.)A lazy rigger who does a poor inspection on the first repack will probably be the same rigger on the next repack who will once again do a poor inspection. We seldom go from rigger to rigger and a poor inspection is almost as bad as pencil packing.
Just some thoughts
I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.
What is Schrodinger's Cat Paradox?
A theory of quantum mechanics called "indeterminacy" says that mathematically, a particle can be in two states at the same time. Schrodinger wanted to show that it was not true, so he came up with an illustration. This experiment is only hypothetical, and can't really be done.
Schrodinger said that if you put a cat in a box with a poison that might kill it, at the end of an hour the cat has a 50% chance of being alive, and a 50% chance of being dead. According to quantum mechanics, since we can't see in the box to know if the cat is alive or dead, the cat is both alive and dead. Of course, we know that this is not possible, nothing can be alive and dead at the same time. This is just what Schrodinger wanted to show.
Nah, I didn't know that, I just googled it!
A theory of quantum mechanics called "indeterminacy" says that mathematically, a particle can be in two states at the same time. Schrodinger wanted to show that it was not true, so he came up with an illustration. This experiment is only hypothetical, and can't really be done.
Schrodinger said that if you put a cat in a box with a poison that might kill it, at the end of an hour the cat has a 50% chance of being alive, and a 50% chance of being dead. According to quantum mechanics, since we can't see in the box to know if the cat is alive or dead, the cat is both alive and dead. Of course, we know that this is not possible, nothing can be alive and dead at the same time. This is just what Schrodinger wanted to show.
Nah, I didn't know that, I just googled it!
teason 0
The paradox is that you have no idea the state of the cat when it is in the box. Just as you have no idea of telling wether on not your reserve will work when it's packed up. You can unpack it to tell if it WOULD have worked but as soon as it's packed up again, you have the exacte problem you had before you unpacked it.
Therefore a new cat has been placed in the box, the box is closed and you have no idea of it's state.
I wasn't saying anything about superpositioning although the repack is in a state of superposition; it both works and does not work under Quantum law.
I think I just broke my brain on that one
Therefore a new cat has been placed in the box, the box is closed and you have no idea of it's state.
I wasn't saying anything about superpositioning although the repack is in a state of superposition; it both works and does not work under Quantum law.
I think I just broke my brain on that one
I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.
sundevil777 102
the principle as applied to reserves (or at least how I think of it):
It is more likely to work if you are there to watch it get repacked and you like the way the rigger does it!
It is more likely to work if you are there to watch it get repacked and you like the way the rigger does it!
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
Quote1.) Inspection cycles were origionally determined by the material used in parachute construction and although materials have changed radically, cycles haven't.
My point on this is there was a problem with 6-12 month repack cycle then it should show up in the stats of the places that have that cycle. Does anyone anywhere know of a death or injury do to the reserve being packed 6 months or 12 months instead of 4????
billvon 2,989
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>If this is a silly argument then why did the industry reject it when you
> presented it in the past?
I have never formally presented it to anyone. The people in industry I've talked to generally support longer repack cycles.
>Do you really think that you are smarter than the industry as a whole?
The skydiving industry has changed dramatically and rapidly in the past few decades. Sometimes there is inertia to new ideas (i.e. square reserves, throwouts for students) but they eventually become commonplace.
>The same could be said about bicycles, cars, boats, planes, trains
>etc.
That is correct. There should be no laws that say your bicycle should have to be inspected every 120 days, even if some people die due to failing brakes on bicycles. There should be no law that says I cannot design even an unsafe bike and ride it in the canyon near here. However, it _does_ make sense to inspect cars periodically since failing brakes on a car can kill many other people, not just the driver.
>Using that analogy why don’t we just do away with all of the laws and
> rules and do nothing to protect the consumer.
We should enforce any laws that protect others from the actions of a few. (i.e. there should be no-smoking areas.) We should not enforce laws to save people from themselves (i.e. smoking itself should not be illegal.)
>Are you saying that if Javelin went to a 180 day repack cycle it would
> be a “piece of shit”?
Not at all. Heck, the Javelin could have the 180 day repack cycle and the other rig could have the 120 day repack cycle. People would still buy the Javelin, because most people care far more about safety and a proven track record than they do about convenience.
The claim "people will buy any POS that has a long repack cycle because of convenience" is nonsense when you look at how many people are willing to pay top dollar and wait six months for the rig of their choice. Skydivers in general place safety, reliability, durability and style far above convenience or price.
> presented it in the past?
I have never formally presented it to anyone. The people in industry I've talked to generally support longer repack cycles.
>Do you really think that you are smarter than the industry as a whole?
The skydiving industry has changed dramatically and rapidly in the past few decades. Sometimes there is inertia to new ideas (i.e. square reserves, throwouts for students) but they eventually become commonplace.
>The same could be said about bicycles, cars, boats, planes, trains
>etc.
That is correct. There should be no laws that say your bicycle should have to be inspected every 120 days, even if some people die due to failing brakes on bicycles. There should be no law that says I cannot design even an unsafe bike and ride it in the canyon near here. However, it _does_ make sense to inspect cars periodically since failing brakes on a car can kill many other people, not just the driver.
>Using that analogy why don’t we just do away with all of the laws and
> rules and do nothing to protect the consumer.
We should enforce any laws that protect others from the actions of a few. (i.e. there should be no-smoking areas.) We should not enforce laws to save people from themselves (i.e. smoking itself should not be illegal.)
>Are you saying that if Javelin went to a 180 day repack cycle it would
> be a “piece of shit”?
Not at all. Heck, the Javelin could have the 180 day repack cycle and the other rig could have the 120 day repack cycle. People would still buy the Javelin, because most people care far more about safety and a proven track record than they do about convenience.
The claim "people will buy any POS that has a long repack cycle because of convenience" is nonsense when you look at how many people are willing to pay top dollar and wait six months for the rig of their choice. Skydivers in general place safety, reliability, durability and style far above convenience or price.
billvon 2,989
>Are you denying that -some- people would think that way?
Not at all; some people might. In my experience they are very much in the minority.
Not at all; some people might. In my experience they are very much in the minority.
Quote>If this is a silly argument then why did the industry reject it when you presented it in the past?
I have never formally presented it to anyone. The people in industry I've talked to generally support longer repack cycles.
Formally vs. informally is merely semantics. There is a big difference between your sentence above supporting a longer repack cycle across the board ie. 180 days (which I agree with) vs. your statement that your think it should be left up to the individual manufactures, which is what I responded to.
QuoteThe claim "people will buy any POS that has a long repack cycle because of convenience" is nonsense when you look at how many people are willing to pay top dollar and wait six months for the rig of their choice.
It is not “nonsense”, it is fact. There will always be people that will buy because of “convenience” regardless of the quality.
obelixtim 150
As a rigger who has packed a few thousand reserves over 25 years since 1978, we were doing 120 day cycles till about 1986/87 when we changed to 180 day cycles....
I only once ever saw a reserve where the pack cycle made a difference, where a guy packed his reserve under poor supervision, and left a pin in place. We found it on a gear check when he lent his rig to a mate who got it checked on our DZ because he was a visitor.....It had done 60 jumps in 3 months........luckily no mals or chops from CRW wraps.....Scary shit.....he would have had another 90 days of jumping one canopy....certain reserve total mal....
Shows that riggers can make mistakes, but it could be a good idea to get a comprensive gear check from a different rigger every now and then.......outside the reserve cycle.....
180 days is not a problem unless climate factors are considered (hot, dusty..)extreme.....
I often repacked glider rigs and found a lot with melted rubber stow bands..glueing the lines together....the dumbshits used to leave them in their cockpits with the canopy closed in the burning hot sun....no matter how many times I told them specifically not to.....always had this vision of a newspaper headline "Parahute fails....after glider bailout"......
The "supervisor" lost his rating within moments of the discovery.....
I only once ever saw a reserve where the pack cycle made a difference, where a guy packed his reserve under poor supervision, and left a pin in place. We found it on a gear check when he lent his rig to a mate who got it checked on our DZ because he was a visitor.....It had done 60 jumps in 3 months........luckily no mals or chops from CRW wraps.....Scary shit.....he would have had another 90 days of jumping one canopy....certain reserve total mal....
Shows that riggers can make mistakes, but it could be a good idea to get a comprensive gear check from a different rigger every now and then.......outside the reserve cycle.....
180 days is not a problem unless climate factors are considered (hot, dusty..)extreme.....
I often repacked glider rigs and found a lot with melted rubber stow bands..glueing the lines together....the dumbshits used to leave them in their cockpits with the canopy closed in the burning hot sun....no matter how many times I told them specifically not to.....always had this vision of a newspaper headline "Parahute fails....after glider bailout"......
The "supervisor" lost his rating within moments of the discovery.....
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....
billvon 2,989
>It is not “nonsense”, it is fact.
If it were true, the Dolphin and the Genera would be the biggest sellers out there. They are in fact not a popular product, and the more expensive rigs are the more popular ones. Hence the vast majority of skydivers care less about cost and convenience than about other aspects of the gear (safety, durability etc.)
>There will always be people that will buy because of “convenience”
>regardless of the quality.
I agree that you will always find some people who do that. They, not you, should decide what level of safety they are comfortable with.
If it were true, the Dolphin and the Genera would be the biggest sellers out there. They are in fact not a popular product, and the more expensive rigs are the more popular ones. Hence the vast majority of skydivers care less about cost and convenience than about other aspects of the gear (safety, durability etc.)
>There will always be people that will buy because of “convenience”
>regardless of the quality.
I agree that you will always find some people who do that. They, not you, should decide what level of safety they are comfortable with.
Quote>It is not “nonsense”, it is fact.
If it were true, the Dolphin and the Genera would be the biggest sellers out there. They are in fact not a popular product, and the more expensive rigs are the more popular ones. Hence the vast majority of skydivers care less about cost and convenience than about other aspects of the gear (safety, durability etc.)
A “fact” is truth. The numbers who buy are irrelevant to my statement since I did not address that, but nice try. My statement was “There will always be people that will buy because of “convenience” regardless of the quality.”
Quote>There will always be people that will buy because of “convenience” regardless of the quality.
I agree that you will always find some people who do that. They, not you, should decide what level of safety they are comfortable with.
I am not, however the FAA, USPA, industry and the skydiving public as a whole have. And yes I believe the FAA, USPA, industry and the skydiving public have worked hard to have safety standards that protect everyone since every skydive has the potential to effect someone else. To think otherwise is arrogant and irresponsible. I am complying with the rules, the question is since you oppose that, since that is what I believe, what are you doing? And I suppose that if “they” want to jump a rig without a reserve because that is what their “level of safety they are comfortable with” that “they” should be allowed to?
Remember that it was you that said “Personally I'd like to see the period fixed by either the gear manufacturers (who know better than the FAA what sort of maintenance their gear needs) or have it left up to the owners, with the exception of rental, student and tandem rigs.” This is one of the reasons that we have the rules and laws to protect everyone in general. Being a good skydiver does not make you a good rigger. Remember that every skydive has the potential of effecting someone else!
billvon 2,989
> I am complying with the rules, the question is since you oppose
>that, since that is what I believe, what are you doing?
Discussing potential changes to the rules.
> And I suppose that if “they” want to jump a rig without a reserve
> because that is what their “level of safety they are comfortable with”
> that “they” should be allowed to?
Absolutely! BASE jumping should not be illegal. By the same token, of course, a DZO would be completely within his right to require reserves on all jumpers.
>Remember that it was you that said “Personally I'd like to see the
>period fixed by either the gear manufacturers (who know better than
> the FAA what sort of maintenance their gear needs) or have it left
>up to the owners, with the exception of rental, student and tandem
> rigs.” This is one of the reasons that we have the rules and laws to
> protect everyone in general.
I disagree with laws that protect you from yourself.
>Being a good skydiver does not make you a good rigger.
Then why do we allow people to pack their own mains? People die due to main parachute mals. Fewer people would die if riggers packed all mains.
Heck, why do we allow packers to assemble and pack mains and do basic maintenance of their gear, actions contrary to a strict interpretation of FAA rules? (i.e. only a rigger or the person to next use the rig may pack, maintain or alter a main) Why do we look the other way when a rigger packs a reserve without a table that is at least 3 feet by 40 feet long?
Because we realize that many of the FAR's are old and outdated, and need to be updated from time to time. This may well be one of those times.
>that, since that is what I believe, what are you doing?
Discussing potential changes to the rules.
> And I suppose that if “they” want to jump a rig without a reserve
> because that is what their “level of safety they are comfortable with”
> that “they” should be allowed to?
Absolutely! BASE jumping should not be illegal. By the same token, of course, a DZO would be completely within his right to require reserves on all jumpers.
>Remember that it was you that said “Personally I'd like to see the
>period fixed by either the gear manufacturers (who know better than
> the FAA what sort of maintenance their gear needs) or have it left
>up to the owners, with the exception of rental, student and tandem
> rigs.” This is one of the reasons that we have the rules and laws to
> protect everyone in general.
I disagree with laws that protect you from yourself.
>Being a good skydiver does not make you a good rigger.
Then why do we allow people to pack their own mains? People die due to main parachute mals. Fewer people would die if riggers packed all mains.
Heck, why do we allow packers to assemble and pack mains and do basic maintenance of their gear, actions contrary to a strict interpretation of FAA rules? (i.e. only a rigger or the person to next use the rig may pack, maintain or alter a main) Why do we look the other way when a rigger packs a reserve without a table that is at least 3 feet by 40 feet long?
Because we realize that many of the FAR's are old and outdated, and need to be updated from time to time. This may well be one of those times.
Quote> And I suppose that if “they” want to jump a rig without a reserve because that is what their “level of safety they are comfortable with” that “they” should be allowed to?
Absolutely! BASE jumping should not be illegal. By the same token, of course, a DZO would be completely within his right to require reserves on all jumpers.
What the heck does BASE jumping have to do with skydiving and this thread "6 month plus reserve repack cycles"? Again, nice try but different subject.
But like I have said before, since every skydive has the potential to effect someone else it is not about protecting you from yourself it is about protecting everyone.QuoteI disagree with laws that protect you from yourself.
Quote>Being a good skydiver does not make you a good rigger.
Then why do we allow people to pack their own mains? People die due to main parachute mals. Fewer people would die if riggers packed all mains.
If that is the case then why would you want to make the law less restrictive thereby increasing the likelihood of more malfunctions?
QuoteHeck, why do we allow packers to assemble and pack mains and do basic maintenance of their gear, actions contrary to a strict interpretation of FAA rules? (i.e. only a rigger or the person to next use the rig may pack, maintain or alter a main)
Who is “we”? You may do this, I don't. Everyone at my business that operates in that capacity is a certified rigger.
Again who is "we"? I have a 40' table. But there is no requirement that I have to use it. The regulations (section 65.127) states that it only has to be "available" and yes I do use it all of the time when I pack rounds.QuoteWhy do we look the other way when a rigger packs a reserve without a table that is at least 3 feet by 40 feet long?
billvon 2,989
>What the heck does BASE jumping have to do with skydiving . . .
After a six second delay off an overhanging object, the physics and reality of skydiving vs BASE jumping are essentially identical. "You will be killed if you jump with a single canopy system!" is easily refuted by examining the success of single canopy rigs used in BASE.
But you're right, it has nothing to do with six month repack cycles. I was just answering your question concerning whether it should be OK to jump without a reserve. It should be, and in some places it is.
>But like I have said before, since every skydive has the potential to
>effect someone else . . .
In what way? If I go in at Perris in the dirt, who else have I injured?
>If that is the case then why would you want to make the law less
>restrictive thereby increasing the likelihood of more malfunctions?
Repacking a main more often will not make it more reliable; indeed, it will cause it to fail sooner. Same thing with a reserve. A well-maintained reserve repacked every 180 days will be safer for a longer period than a well-maintained reserve packed every 120 days. Repacks wear out reserves.
>Who is “we”?
We are skydivers. You patronize DZ's where people other than the person using the main parachute pack the main. You accept that. That's fine; it's just an example of where we have decided that we have better knowledge today than is embodied in a 40 year old section of the FAR.
>You may do this, I don't.
I do indeed do this. I teach people how to pack, which neccessitates me doing many of the steps initially. That results in better and safer skydivers; I wouldn't stop teaching people how to pack for fear of violating an FAR that is commonly ignored.
>Again who is "we"?
Skydivers again, riggers specifically. Most riggers that I know do not have a 40 foot long table in the area they repack reserves.
After a six second delay off an overhanging object, the physics and reality of skydiving vs BASE jumping are essentially identical. "You will be killed if you jump with a single canopy system!" is easily refuted by examining the success of single canopy rigs used in BASE.
But you're right, it has nothing to do with six month repack cycles. I was just answering your question concerning whether it should be OK to jump without a reserve. It should be, and in some places it is.
>But like I have said before, since every skydive has the potential to
>effect someone else . . .
In what way? If I go in at Perris in the dirt, who else have I injured?
>If that is the case then why would you want to make the law less
>restrictive thereby increasing the likelihood of more malfunctions?
Repacking a main more often will not make it more reliable; indeed, it will cause it to fail sooner. Same thing with a reserve. A well-maintained reserve repacked every 180 days will be safer for a longer period than a well-maintained reserve packed every 120 days. Repacks wear out reserves.
>Who is “we”?
We are skydivers. You patronize DZ's where people other than the person using the main parachute pack the main. You accept that. That's fine; it's just an example of where we have decided that we have better knowledge today than is embodied in a 40 year old section of the FAR.
>You may do this, I don't.
I do indeed do this. I teach people how to pack, which neccessitates me doing many of the steps initially. That results in better and safer skydivers; I wouldn't stop teaching people how to pack for fear of violating an FAR that is commonly ignored.
>Again who is "we"?
Skydivers again, riggers specifically. Most riggers that I know do not have a 40 foot long table in the area they repack reserves.
Quote>What the heck does BASE jumping have to do with skydiving . . .
But you're right, it has nothing to do with six month repack cycles. I was just answering your question concerning whether it should be OK to jump without a reserve. It should be, and in some places it is.
You are quoting me wrong again, I said skydive not jump, there is a difference by both definition and by law.
Quote>But like I have said before, since every skydive has the potential to effect someone else . . .
In what way? If I go in at Perris in the dirt, who else have I injured?
And what if you don’t hit the dirt and hit someone else and kill them? Look up the word “potential” in the dictionary and quit trying to put a spin on the question.
Quote>If that is the case then why would you want to make the law less restrictive thereby increasing the likelihood of more malfunctions?
Repacking a main more often will not make it more reliable; indeed, it will cause it to fail sooner. Same thing with a reserve. A well-maintained reserve repacked every 180 days will be safer for a longer period than a well-maintained reserve packed every 120 days. Repacks wear out reserves.
Again your answer had nothing to do with my response as I was not addressing the time issue.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites