Get your Reserve pin checked!

[KellyF 16]

Cliff, as Rigging 65 stated, get your's tested with one of the methods outlined in the Service Bulletin CW03-01.

[Hooknswoop 19]

http://ParachuteHistory.com/equipment/rcpin.pdf

Hook

[askir 0]

I spoke with master riggers and manufacturers this morning, some of them seem to agree that field test # 1 is not reliable, and that Capewell is trying to pass the buck to the riggers rather than just do a recall and test them and stamp them at the factory (LIABILITY)
The procedure states {3/16" (8mm) from the pin shoulder}, last time I checked 3/16" is not even close to 8mm, then it says to rotate the pin 1/4 each time 4 times, this may be easy on some rigs and damn near impossible on others. Exactly how do they want us to label the ripcord, how about those soft ripcords, how do we label those.
As for me I am inclined to temp pin customers rigs and send the ripcords to the manufacturer and they can perform test # 2 and properly stamp it "CW03-01"
I would appreciate the more experienced riggers' comments and opinions here.

LIFE IS LIKE A CIGARETTE, YOU CAN SIT THERE AND WATCH IT BURN AWAY OR YOU CAN SMOKE THAT BITCH TO THE FILTER

[sundevil777 102]

Thanks Kelly.

It sounded as though the AS8015 test was the test recommended by Capewell.

I understand now, the Capewell procedure is pretty simple.

It will be very interesting to see how many fail.

Please forgive me for speculating, but I would have figured some testing of a small quantity of pins from each "lot" would have been the normal inspection process and would have found the problem right away. I know the root cause has not been determined, but one might speculate that the manufacturing processes are subject to variation in ways they did not realize, effectively meaning the "lot" size should have been considered to be much smaller.

I have read and heard of many instances where riggers admit they can bend a pin with too much tension on a closing loop. Years ago I noticed a bent pin during a friends gear check. In my opinion this should NOT be possible.

In my opinion, pins should be changed so that the loop tension needed to bend a pin should be MUCH higher than what is currently needed to bend a "good" pin.

Maybe with this problem affecting so many people, it will result in a much stronger pin design/material alternative. Figures, right after I order a spare ripcord.

This type of failure mode is a good reason to not use a pin-puller type of AAD such as the FXC or Sentinel.

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

[darkwing 5]

there is an economic reality here. Sending every ripcord to capewell or the mfr would bring the industry to a standstill for a few weeks. Sure, it is easy to say that safety issues shouldn't be mitigated by economics, but the fact is they are, in every engineering field, not just skydiving.

While the field test isn't perfect, in my opinion it errs on the side of caution, which is as it should be. It also can be done quickly and relatively easily.

3/16' is about 5 mm.

-- Jeff
My Skydiving History

[PhreeZone 20]

Has any one figured out the codes for seeing when in a year a pin was made? I've figured out that PL02 means it was made in 02, but there are a lot of ripcords that were made in 01 that where before the November deadline.

I've got a ripcord stamped SP01 C anyone got a guess on if its affected or not?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[rhino 0]

Luckily if that pin stays the cypress will back me up

Thanks for the info.. I'll have both my rigs checked..

[rapper4mpi 0]

Due to more recent information, I have removed my original post. Please, check all reserve ripcord pins in accordance with the Capewell Mandatory Test # CW03-01.
-Rap

[PhreeZone 20]

Sunpaths version of the notice:

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Hooknswoop 19]

SP says only from January, 2002 through 2003, but Capewell says from November 28, 2001 through July 15, 2003. Is Sun Path leaving out November 28, 2001, through December 31, 2001?

Hook

[skytash 0]

they possibly had stock of pins manufactured earlier they were using at that time and only started using the pins in the date range indicated by Capewell at a later stage.

tash

Don't ever save anything for a special occasion. Being alive is a special occasion. Avril Sloe

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

they possibly had stock of pins manufactured earlier they were using at that time and only started using the pins in the date range indicated by Capewell at a later stage.

I have been informed that is exactly the case.

Hook

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

I spoke with master riggers and manufacturers this morning, some of them seem to agree that field test # 1 is not reliable, and that Capewell is trying to pass the buck to the riggers rather than just do a recall and test them and stamp them at the factory (LIABILITY)
The procedure states {3/16" (8mm) from the pin shoulder}, last time I checked 3/16" is not even close to 8mm, then it says to rotate the pin 1/4 each time 4 times, this may be easy on some rigs and damn near impossible on others. Exactly how do they want us to label the ripcord, how about those soft ripcords, how do we label those.
As for me I am inclined to temp pin customers rigs and send the ripcords to the manufacturer and they can perform test # 2 and properly stamp it "CW03-01"
I would appreciate the more experienced riggers' comments and opinions here.

What manufactures?
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[ladyskydiver 0]

Here's a question for you. I bought my rig in Oct. of 2002 and have used my reserve twice since then. Would I still need to get it tested?

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Yes. Sunrise Rigging has a link, that doesn't work yet, in reference to the SB.

http://www.skydivewings.com/

Hook

[mjosparky 4]

You don't have to, but most places will not let you jump.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[ladyskydiver 0]

Well, I got it checked. It's ok.
I just noticed on the bulletin, however, that the reserve cord was supposed to be marked as well. My rigger didn't mark the reserve ripcord. Will that be a problem or should I have her mark it the next time I see her?

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[NightJumper 0]

Quote

My rigger didn't mark the reserve ripcord. Will that be a problem or should I have her mark it the next time I see her?

Yes, have her mark it because any responsible rigger is going to look to see that it is marked in accordance with the requirement.

[sducoach 0]

I made up small labels with my label maker and place them on the handle with tape over it. It's there so anyone can tell without pulling the reserve repack card out. Make your own as long as the card is marked.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[mjosparky 4]

Even with the notation on packing data card, there is no way to know if that is the same ripcord that was tested, have it marked on the handle.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[pringles 0]

The way that the bulletin reads to me is that if the pin deviates .005 or more it is to be considered bad (please correct me if I am mistaken). I work in a machine shop and I know damn well that .005 is not a visual inspection. You would need an optical comparator or something better than your eye for this. I would agree with an earlier comment that capewell is looking to pass the buck with this testing.

Matt

Matt Davies

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I would agree with an earlier comment that capewell is looking to pass the buck with this testing.

The SB is very incomplete. It should describe exactly how to mark the handle, metal or soft. It should indicate how to measure the .005 bend. It should address rigs like the Racer. It should explain how to determine the Date of Manufacture of the ripcord. It shoud explain who pays for a new ripcord if it bends or breaks.

Hook

[tombuch 0]

Quote

The SB is very incomplete. It should describe exactly how to mark the handle, metal or soft. It should indicate how to measure the .005 bend. It should address rigs like the Racer. It should explain how to determine the Date of Manufacture of the ripcord. It shoud explain who pays for a new ripcord if it bends or breaks.

Hook

The .005 deformation is for test 2 only. The standard of deformation for test 1 is "if the pin is not straight, as visible without magnification, remove the pin/ripcord from service immediately."

I agree with your other points. The PSB was well thought out as an initial document, but it required field testing in a standard drop zone environment. I don't think that was adequately handled.

I actually addressed most of your concerns with Capewell last week, and even suggested that Bob Francis (Capewell Vice-President/General Manager) join us at The Ranch as the bulletin was implemented this weekend. The Ranch is about 2 hours from his office, and is by far the most active DZ in the region. He declined my offer. I think Capewell would have a much better handle on the matter if they actually saw how their product is used in the field, and how the testing takes place at a real drop zone. They seem to be dealing with this issue through their own manufacturing customers, but they need to take ownership at the consumer level and understand the issues in terms of the end user.

Tom Buchanan
S&TA, The Ranch
Senior Parachute Rigger

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[askir 0]

Someone asked me to provide the names of the rig manufacturers that agreed with others on the field test # 1 reliability.
Those employees of these manufacturers specifically asked me to keep this as an off-the record statement.
The mil spec requirement is 8 lbs now they want us to take that to nearly twice the standard, if I bend a pin who buys the new one? me?, the customer, surely not Capewell.
The fellow above is right, there is typos, the visual inspection is crap! in my humble opinion it is a bad idea for us riggers to assume their responsibility.
If I weaken the pin and it later fails who is responsible me with my cheap TV lawyer? or Capewell with their big corporate attorneys and Insurance backing, etc?
No sir I am not performing any test, it was their screw up they should fix it, economics? My economics and my peace of mind comes first!

LIFE IS LIKE A CIGARETTE, YOU CAN SIT THERE AND WATCH IT BURN AWAY OR YOU CAN SMOKE THAT BITCH TO THE FILTER

[freeatlast 0]

I have a Javelin Odyssey manufactured within the dates specified (although it could have been any rig affected).

As I am currently in New Zealand my rig was grounded by the local DZ immediately until a test could be carried out, which I feel was sensible.

The test was carried out today and my reserve pin failed.

Who now pays for my replacement pin / postage etc ???

It is a shame because I'm leaving for europe in 3 days and am travelling for 6 weeks. It looks like I'll be jumping hire rigs (at my own expense no doubt) until I can return to NZ to sort things out. A shame when I already own a nice new rig !!!

I am glad that this problem has been reported and action taken - I wouldn't like to think what may have happened if my pin failed when needed !!!