Recommended Posts
PhreeZone 20
Quote13. Report any cutaway.....
Stupid. Accidents/injuries, sure. But a random and routine chop?
Right now the only info they get back from the field is "Fatality" and then sometimes "Injury". I can see the desire to be able to present some hard facts when the FAA comes knocking asking for information other than "We had 2 fatalities last year."
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
peek 21
Quote13. Report any cutaway..... Stupid. Accidents/injuries, sure. But a random and routine chop?
Ron, do you recall that the tandem manufacturers don't consider reserve rides as "routine"?
Well maintained and properly packed parachutes malfunction so seldom that when it happens to a tandem, it is significant, and should be reported.
I have read in past newsletters from UPT and SE articles referring to tandem rig owners that have thousands of jumps on their rigs without a reserve ride.
Ron 10
QuoteRon, do you recall that the tandem manufacturers don't consider reserve rides as "routine"?
How many tandem reserve rides do you personally have? I have (I think) 4.
peek 21
Ron 10
QuoteZero reserve rides in about 1000 tandem jumps.
Impressive. My point is that a reserve ride is not really a gigantic deal. If it is more than that, I could understand... Like a drogue in tow. But (for me and to me), a tension knot that resulted in a perfect cutaway is not really a big deal.
But you are an evaluator and if you say it is a big deal, I guess it is. And the manufacturer has the right to ask for anything.... I *personally* think it is stupid and a bit much.
I have over 2000 Tandem Instruction jumps, and about 300 of those are on the front, only one reserve ride. I mentioned it on the phone, but never did fill out a report, it was a tension knot. So I see your point, but I see theirs too.
Matt
So, start being safe, first!!!
Para5-0 0
I spoke to an Icarus rep at PIA about this and the non chalant answer was, "they have been threatening that for years." Well that doesnt help much does it.
QuoteWhere I see a major problem is when the manufacturer requires that only his components be used to jump. For example the main must be a sigma for a UPT manufactured tandem. That will be a huge issue IMO. There are many many TI's using Icarus tandem canopies. I know for a fact this is on the horizon. The problem will be if something happens and you do not have their main, you and the DZ will be on the hook.
I spoke to an Icarus rep at PIA about this and the non chalant answer was, "they have been threatening that for years." Well that doesnt help much does it.
Bill's reasoning is he gets sued, but not the canopy company till later in the process (maybe), he spends more money than them.
He has no control over Production or Design of the components he does not make. But he gets hit with the responsibility for them.
Not defending him, but I understand him and I will try and support him till things change in all of Our favor.
Matt
So, start being safe, first!!!
Then there is there the politics side of the coin where some asshole will drop a dime on you for jumping non approved canopy to try to get your rating pulled.
IMHO this more about those companies sales numbers of there own products then is is about safety. After all now we see FCI, P.Aero, Jumpshack, Icarus in the market place, we know people are using them... Last time I checked, FCI & P.Aero or Icarus didn't make or sell their own line of tandem rigs.... must be all sold over seas or to the military.
I asked Strong why they had not done any test jumps on the P.aero mains instead of a blanket statement that their not approved, their answer was that George Galloway hadn't sent them any canopies for testing. Then I called George and asked him why he had not taken the time to send Strong any canopies to test....
George busted up laughing and said that is BS and that he personally handed Ted a canopy @ PIA almost five years ago or so for them to test, he also said it's all BS that they are trying to keep other mains out of systems that are proven safe.
I called back to Strong and called them on the not been sent mains for testing, then the reply was well we want the MFG to do their own testing and produce a manual on how to use their product in our system, it has to be detailed, like packing, line trim etc. and then we'll do the testing to make sure we feel it meets our standards.
The whole thing is bull shit! It's dose not help matters that we see a tandem death such as the one in the eastern block country where the gear was jumped by a non rated TI, the gear was not maintained and it had a HOP 330 in it. Had the rig been maintained the ripcord housing would not have caused a total, had the TI had his head out of his ass and done a gear check he would have seen the problem.
Strong likes to claim the use of the HOP 330 was to small for the container because it was yanked out the side of the open side flaps because it was too small. I won't dispute that as fact, I believe the company would have enough research to know if a canopy is too small for a container or not. However with that said, I don't believe this type of accident is justified to say no other MFG's properly sized mains can't be safety used in our system.
There are a number of reasons I can think of why a TI might like to have what ever canopy of choice, such as maybe a guy who owns his own gear needs to replace a main and money is tight, he finds a nice used P. aero 365 for 1500 bucks, and a new strong set 366 is 3600.00, their both the same size for the most part and miles apart in price.
I've known a lot of people who use other canopies in vector tandems over the years and no one seemed to make much of a stink about it @ UPT, then again I'm not rated for UPT, maybe they have made a big stink about it? The only one I see making a big stink about it is Strong, maybe that will change now with the new strong system, but I highly doubt it will.
QuoteHe has no control over Production or Design of the components he does not make. But he gets hit with the responsibility for them.
Ted says the same thing and it all sounds good, however how is that any different then a vector sport rig I buy and place a xyz main in it and then bounce. These same companies sell rigs without mains of there own product lines all the damn time, there is no real reason the same couldn't done in the tandem world IMHO.
Maybe they all need to stop selling sport rigs with out their approved product line of mains, if you buy a system from them it's a complete system 100% or no sale.
It's like having Cessna say your only allowed to use firestone tires and hartzell props on our airplanes... no one can use goodyear tires or McCauley props on our airplanes because we didn't make or test them so we have no control over the MFG process.
Quote
Maybe they all need to stop selling sport rigs with out their approved product line of mains, if you buy a system from them it's a complete system 100% or no sale.
If any one manufacturer did what you suggest in regard to sport rigs, they would sell zero rigs. Apparently, they consider that they can make this policy with tandem gear and "get away with it." Conversely, I would think that if say for instance UPT came out with a list of approved main canopies, it would prove to be one more selling point for them, and another reason to avoid Strong gear.
Maybe somebody should put Eclipse gear back in production and allow multiple mains? Might make it viable again? My Eclipse rigs continue to serve well, and for the most part no manufacturer giving me shit about anything!
AC DZ
pchapman 279
QuoteIt's like having Cessna say your only allowed to use firestone tires and hartzell props on our airplanes...
Or if your car is a Ford, you were prohibited from ever putting any non-Ford parts on it, whether as direct replacements or upgrades. Will all those parts be of equal quality to original Ford parts? Maybe not.
(Mind you, with the Cessna / Hartzell issue, only certain props are certified with certain aircraft & engine combinations. Still, the overall point is valid.)
Para5-0 0
There is a tandem rig (Basic) from over seas that has no age requirement. So if you order one of those you can jump with 16,17 year olds without violating the BSR. Scary, but if Eclipse removed their age requirement their rig might see an increase in sales. Is that insider trading?lol
PhreeZone 20
It all comes down to who is on the line in a lawsuit. When sport jumpers die there is just a fraction of those incidents that end up in a lawsuit but most tandem fatalities end up in a lawsuit of some type. When any incident on the rig is going to result in a lawsuit the companies have to cover their own backsides since its been proven time after time that DZO's fold and leave the manufactor holding the bag and the bill.
It would be nice to see some of the canopy makers working more directly with the tandem systems to build an "approved" list for each container size to eliminate the test jumping that is done in the field now.
I do know that one company used to just kick out prototype canopies for DZ's to use and send feedback up after they jumped them with unknowning students. I think this is what the companies are trying to prevent. If you want to put your Icarus 330 into a MicroSigma (sweet combo BTW!) then Icarus should work with UPT to develop testing criteria sating here is the line trim and if it gets X out then it needs to be relined. I know now most of that is not published but UPT will help guide you on those numbers if you call them and talk to them. Icarus refuses to publish line trim info so I doubt they will do this but I think its a fair thing to put into an "Approved canopy" list.
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
normiss 800
At least there is proof you at least thought about some sort of technical aspect of tandem gear and/or jumps.
Para5-0 0
QuoteIt would be nice to see some of the canopy makers working more directly with the tandem systems to build an "approved" list for each container size to eliminate the test jumping that is done in the field now.
I agree.
QuoteQuoteIt would be nice to see some of the canopy makers working more directly with the tandem systems to build an "approved" list for each container size to eliminate the test jumping that is done in the field now.
I agree.
From our end it seems to be something that would be very easy to do. My guess is that there is more than a little politics involved as well. UPT has a fairly tight relationship with PD, and well then there's Ted.
Another thought on Strong systems. Since Strong doesn't collapse the drogue until the canopy is extracting form the bag, don't the Strong canopies have more reinforcement through the drogue attachment point? No doubt George Galloway, and others could add structure to his canopies if necessary for the Strong system.
Again, being cool with multiple main manufacturers would be a selling point. I will never purchase a new Para-Phernalia rig with the 20 year and out bull shit, they just cut off their nose to spite their own damn face on that one IMO.
AC DZ
riggerrob 643
Most tension knots are caused by sloppy packing.
Sloppy packers need to be reminded of the proper way to pack.
Sometimes tension knots are caused by lines that have stretched or shrunk out of trim. Worn-out lines - still in service - means that either the rigger is lazy or the DZO is too cheap to buy new lines.
The only ones I dislike:
13. Report any cutaway.....
Stupid. Accidents/injuries, sure. But a random and routine chop?
19. All TI’s will be required to participate in the Continuing Education Module. The test will be available online. The format will be 3-question multiple choice....
This one is going to be stupid. I used to work as a corporate instructor and I can tell you any online re-currency test is either going to be stupid easy or irrelevant to the actual job.
Other than that, they are all pretty reasonable and I agree with them.
I REALLY like the idea of any tandem keeping both of my ratings current.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites