Sigma "Super Drogues"??

[skydiverek 63]

Does the drogue also collapes as soon as it is released?

[-ftp- 0]

So if a toggle breaks, or you need to replace/modify a slider for some reason, can you only use manufacturer's parts?

[theonlyski 8]

Quote

Quote

AC105-2d was recended

When did that happen? I missed that being reported.

I believe it was 'quietly' pulled back.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[RIGGER 0]

I never said the drouge is a TSO'd item.

I did said that the Sigma is a SYSTEM & was approved as a SYSTEM.

I said that the Sigma drouge is a part of the Sigma System & it is the only drouge approved by UPT to be used with the Sigma & the Drouge System was desinged for that.

The drouge Bridle, Disc, Safety Pin are patented & should not be copied.

You can e-mail UPT for final word.

Cheers

[stratostar 5]

No wonder it stopped showing in searches.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[SEREJumper 1]

I emailed UPT and they said in a nutshell that you can only use components recommended by the manufacture of the system. A master rigger can build a drogue and install it, but that would break the UPT user agreement and would release UPT of any liability. If there is a fatality and it is contributed to the drogue in any way, all of the responsibility will be on the rigger who installs the drogue since it is his responsibility to insure compatibility.

See attached document for canopy and component compatibility dated 2009.

We're not fucking flying airplanes are we, no we're flying a glorified kite with no power and it should be flown like one! - Stratostar

[pchapman 279]

Nice to know it is "just" a liability thing. They aren't claiming that jumpers are breaking federal aviation law, or that jumpers are open to suits under tort law for breaking a signed contract, or that therefore they'll never sell you gear again, or whatever.

They're just saying that they the manufacturers can't be responsible for stuff that isn't theirs, that they haven't tested.

Well, duh. Obvious to anyone in a normal society; but maybe not in the world of lawyers.

[ActionAir 0]

Have any of you ever looked at your UPT Owners manual? There is NO warantee and by using the equipment you specifically waive any rights you might have.
Silly buggers.

AAP

[daytripper419 0]

Where can one of these be bought?

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

I believe it was 'quietly' pulled back.

It may have been but it was just as quietly implimented. It is the law of the land.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%20105-2D.pdf

[skydiveoc 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

***
"If the Cessna "Mod" is wrong, how is the Rig "Mod" right?"

That's the point. It is not "Wrong". And Blackhawk did not need Cessna's blessing to do the mod. They went through the STC process. It is a great conversion. We have a Blackhawk, 850 HP, Grand Caravan here.
Cheers,

But they went through a process to make sure it would work, not so with the drogues, right?

Matt

What would make you think Simon did not do any testing with his drogues?

If he did, then the poster should have been clearer in his point.

Matt

I dont think you have to test if a Master Rigger uses "like materials and design as strong or stronger.

Stockpiling parts doesnt seem wise with the way designs change. If you bought a bunch of UPT risers before they went to Vectran you'd have a bunch with toggle loops too long.

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

It may have been but it was just as quietly implimented. It is the law of the land.

...and it is scheduled to disappear again very soon.
They still have statements that conflict regulation in it.



MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[JohnSherman 1]

Mel,

Please share with us what you know. When will AC-105-2d dissappear?
AC-105-2e went out for comment over a year ago, and it was the same as 2d was before modification. It will not be adopted with that language (re: The non-existant chart in NAS-804). I know the FAA better than that. If the language changes they will again need a comment period.

JS

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Mel,

Please share with us what you know. When will AC-105-2d dissappear?
AC-105-2e went out for comment over a year ago, and it was the same as 2d was before modification. It will not be adopted with that language (re: The non-existant chart in NAS-804). I know the FAA better than that. If the language changes they will again need a comment period.

John,
I am really surprised that they have put it back up on the website in the first place.

There is pending litigation with regards to some of it's content (conflicting statements with regulations) and a couple of fatalities/lawsuits.

The AAD stuff is mostly the target, but there are still some other issues.

Leave it to the liberals and the manufacturer's puppets to screw something so simple up!

...and I was just reminded that the AC is recommendations only. Not regulatory...


MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[JohnSherman 1]

Quote

There is pending litigation with regards to some of it's content (conflicting statements with regulations) and a couple of fatalities/lawsuits.

The AAD stuff is mostly the target, but there are still some other issues.

I would really like to know more about this. Can you point me to a source.

Quote

Leave it to the liberals and the manufacturer's puppets to screw something so simple up!

...and I was just reminded that the AC is recommendations only. Not regulatory...

I'm a liberal and a manufacturer who can't afford puppets, so I guess it is my fault.
BTW: Don't try to tell an Administrative Law Judge thet the AC is advisory not regulatory, which I agree it is, they treat it as gosple.

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

I would really like to know more about this. Can you point me to a source.

I just did a little Google work, and it did take a few tries.

http://www.skydivingservices.net/index.php?page=contact_us\

Simon@SkydivingServices.net

John,
As a third party (not UPT), I'd appreciate your opinion on these drogues if you end up with one for review.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[PhreeZone 20]

I've seen them in use for a season on gear that was averaging 800-1200 jumps a container and they are seriously built stronger any of the originals I have ever seen. We have some in each size and let me tell you when the 60 inch one gets deployed it will slow any big boy down so video can fly with them all day. We had all sorts of wear items appearing on the originals but the Super Drogues seem to have made that disappear for the most part.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Skydivesg 7]

This is not in response to any one particular - so anyone who has the information please chime in and
please be patient with my ignorance but I am a bit confused.

According to posts on here - it sounds as though the FAA has "quietly" recinded the AC 105 -2D which was implemented 5/18/11. ---- Is that correct?

And if so it sounds like the reason is because of some incorrect or vague language. Is that correct?

And here is a fresh concern on my part: As I read the document I've noticed how some language can be questioned. One example is - the document states in section 5. d. (2) "Generally, AADs are installed on the resrve parachute."

Is it just me - am I being to nit-picky - but shoudn't that say the "reserve container" instead of "reserve parachute"?

I also noted that in the very next paragraph (a) "The FAA requires that all tandem parachutes have an AAD installed on the reserve parachute."
but makes no mention that the AAD be turned on or in operational mode.

Again - if I'm being too anal - just say so.

However - I've been involved in litigation whereby this type of ambiguous language created hell in the court room, especially if you have a very good lawyer arguing the case.


Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.
.

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[mrfalconfixer 0]

doesn't the TSO override the UPT side??

Ryan
242196

[RIGGER 0]

What do you mean by that ?

Cheers

[RIGGER 0]

Hi

Jhon, would you like that "other" drogues will be used on your tandem system ? will you "Approve" that ?

I do not understand why TI's / DZO's want "Other" drogues on the Sigma.

Do you understand why a tandem system which is approved as a system should turn into a non mfg. approved parts collection ?

Thanks

[SpectreDriver 0]

Oh boy I just realized what a sh!tstorm I started way back with my original post!

I now have two of these drogues, love them both, and was considering ordering another. But I wonder if Simon will even speak to me after exposing him to this virtual bashing??

[DougH 270]

You exposed him to a dz.com shit storm, but you also probably introduced his product to a handful of people that didn't even know it existed.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

DougH

You exposed him to a dz.com shit storm, but you also probably introduced his product to a handful of people that didn't even know it existed.

I agree and thought it was a good advertising move on the OP's part. Made me take a look, that's for sure.

Chuck