tetra316 0 #26 April 4, 2010 Quote I don't know what all of the rigs are. I know 7 of the 8 with AAD's and none of the 7 without AAD's. /reply] Then why not say so. For all you are sprouting about a cover up conspiracy, you seem to be part of it. Share what you know. Otherwise, why did you bother to post at all? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #27 April 4, 2010 Quote If he was worried about what might be found; why would he be calling for release of the information? That doesn't make sense. It is more logical that those that do not want the information released are worried about what might be there. Read the advisory again. A group has been charged with _gathering_ data. There *is* no report. As far as fear of what is to be found, read the last couple of year's incident incident forums. The information is there, and even collated pretty darn well, if you know what you're looking for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnSherman 1 #28 April 4, 2010 Because of who I am, if I were to release what I know it would be characterized as Sour Grapes and the messenger would be attacked, and probably will be anyway. Additionally, I don't know it all and a partial release would take the pressure off of USPA to do its complete job and might cause undue concern about the unreleased part or the part that I don't know. USPA pulled the old Washington trick of releasing info the night before a 3 day weekend then going home to avoid questions. USPA has a legal responsibility to inform its members. They violated a trust with me and I believe their feet should be held to the fire. I will tell all I know publicaly, if USPA doesn't, by Wednesday. I believe they deserve a chance to correct their wrong. For the life of me I don't know why. I have already told a number of people on this forum privatly even though I believe it should come from USPA. BTW: The FAA already knows and in fact initiated the entire study which is what I want released. Your help is solicited, contact your USPA rep and demand they tell all they about these equipment failures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #29 April 4, 2010 Don't know all the details yet but I can guess. I've always jumped your stuff John (except for one Reflex I bought) as I like how when activated your pack trays cease to be containers. And how on both bags packing is more like gift wrapping rather than that thunk sound you get when the bags are pushed deep into the corners on some other rigs Here's a test for those who might have the rigs in question. Place both bags into the rig per the manufactures instructions but leave the flaps open. Now turn the rig over (back to earth). If both bags don't easily fall out it's built wrong . . . NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #30 April 4, 2010 Quote Here's a test for those who might have the rigs in question. Place both bags into the rig per the manufactures instructions but leave the flaps open. Now turn the rig over (back to earth). If both bags don't easily fall out it's built wrong . . . NickD Meaning only to refine your thought and intending no great argument, I think I'd prefer that once turned over, you have to shake a little bit to get the bag to drop out. Else we risk out of sequence deployment in unusual attitudes. But if you have a pilot chute that launches like a homesick angel, the sequence should be so fast as to possibly not matter. In the past, some rigs had a hesitator loop to help ensure a sequenced deployment. Then rigs got tighter, and hesitator loops went away. Maybe rigs are too tight now, and we should back up a bit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #31 April 4, 2010 Quote BTW: The FAA already knows and in fact initiated the entire study which is what I want released. Your help is solicited, contact your USPA rep and demand they tell all they about these equipment failures. What FAA study are you talking about? If there is such a document, a FOIA request should be able to produce it. Which accidents are in your list that pertain to this issue? .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #32 April 4, 2010 As a point of information concerning any and all rigs, I have a question. John Sherman would seem to be someone who could answer this. Aren't harness/container systems required to pass TSO testing for approval ? In addition to just the reserve canopies, I have been under the impression that the entire reserve system (harness, container, pilot chute, freebag, and canopy, etc.) are supposed to open in something like 3 seconds or 300 ft. of initial pilot chute release. Izzat so ? Is real TSO testing being conducted, or are the test results submitted just another "conspiratorial dog & pony show" ? Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnSherman 1 #33 April 4, 2010 You bet your buns that is so. Your quote of the spec is right on. I have video of all of my tests. You can see much of it in my video gallery. I can't answer for anyone else and I don't mean that snidely. I presume they do the same thing I do but the results do bring that into question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #34 April 5, 2010 Quote Is real TSO testing being conducted, or are the test results submitted just another "conspiratorial dog & pony show" ? Just because it passes in "lab tests", does not mean every real world scenario will pass too.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #35 April 5, 2010 Quote Releasing raw data without conclusive information is more likely to generate unmerited panic than to provide useful information. It sounds like you work for Toyota... Just kidding... But seriously, I think all the raw data is the property of the community and the members of the USPA who hire the USPA to represent them. QuoteI'll be grateful to the PIA and USPA when they complete their investigation/report and share it with the world. I hope all the raw data is released too, in an academic format, so people can learn and study it... I am sure there are a few people out there who can digest it and put together their reports too. Not a watered down version, but every detail. Serial numbers, model numbers, DOM, etc... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,822 #36 April 5, 2010 >Because of who I am, if I were to release what I know it would be >characterized as Sour Grapes and the messenger would be attacked . . . Sounds like you have some of the same concerns that USPA does. Ask yourself this. If USPA had an unsubstantiated rumor that a Racer had killed a jumper - would you want them posting that on the net without confirming it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #37 April 5, 2010 Travis, I'm in agreement for the most part. Of course the raw data belongs to membership of USPA. They're there to lobby on our behalf, whether they're lobbying the FAA, PIA, IPC, or local government. They're in place to help us protect ourselves from ourselves and other influences. Yet for someone to demand the curtains be opened (let alone suggest there is something hiding behind them) after only the foundation has been poured is a huge stretch, IMO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 1 #38 April 5, 2010 Quote>Because of who I am, if I were to release what I know it would be >characterized as Sour Grapes and the messenger would be attacked . . . Sounds like you have some of the same concerns that USPA does. Ask yourself this. If USPA had an unsubstantiated rumor that a Racer had killed a jumper - would you want them posting that on the net without confirming it? Not necessarily, if that's all it is. But if they have raw data, why not release it, even if only in raw form, and let people analyze it for themselves? Lotta good brains in our little community. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 420 #39 April 5, 2010 Quote There is already data, 15 deaths which paint a horible picture about the lack of performance of the gear out there. John - you seem to be implying that there is evidence that the deaths were actually caused by a failure of the equipment, rather than, say, a momentary p/c snag on the body or an unstable body position casuing an abnornmal launch. Since you are container manufacturer with a bigger stake than most in this situation, can I assume that you have sufficient information to form that opinion, or am I reading you wrong? And I'm guessing from your posts that none of the incidents in question involved Racers.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnSherman 1 #40 April 5, 2010 Quote Ask yourself this. If USPA had an unsubstantiated rumor that a Racer had killed a jumper - would you want them posting that on the net without confirming it? THe Racer may be on the list. I don't know. But if it is let the chips fall where they may. BTW: These 8 deaths are not unconfirmed. The AAD's all show firing at 750+/- and the reserve didn't work. No excuses. All 8 of them can't be hapenstance. Maybe we should be discussing this on the forum "Reasons not to buy an AAD". All the AADs involved in the 8 deaths did was fink on the rig. BTW: Don't even think about burble as some of them were unstable.THe TSO doesn't allow for burble anyway it requires a 300 foot opening after activation. Additionally, most of them occured with the main closed. The data must be released so we can make our own decissions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,486 #41 April 5, 2010 QuoteAs a point of information concerning any and all rigs, I have a question. John Sherman would seem to be someone who could answer this. Aren't harness/container systems required to pass TSO testing for approval ? In addition to just the reserve canopies, I have been under the impression that the entire reserve system (harness, container, pilot chute, freebag, and canopy, etc.) are supposed to open in something like 3 seconds or 300 ft. of initial pilot chute release. Izzat so ? Is real TSO testing being conducted, or are the test results submitted just another "conspiratorial dog & pony show" ? I'd like to extend this question a bit. Are different sized containers tested separately under the TSO process? And if so, are different sized reserves tested with the different sized containers? Or does one set of tests cover the entire range of container and reserve sizes (and combinations of them)? The practice of stuffing an oversized reserve into a container is often veiwed as an inconvenience for the rigger who has to pack it and unneccessary wear on the container, but I don't recall seeing any discussion on how it would affect the opening characteristics."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,822 #42 April 5, 2010 > But if they have raw data, why not release it, even if only in raw form, >and let people analyze it for themselves? Because the data they have so far might be "he had a PD reserve and it blew up when he deployed it." If in fact the incident involved a 10 year old PD190 main, and the reserve was not deployed, it would be counterproductive to post that. I agree, once they have data they are fairly sure of, they should post it. But after being involved with several incident/fatality investigations, I know how hard it is to collect accurate data even if you were there when it happened, and the people involved feel like you _should_ get accurate information. Overall I'd rather see information they are sure of than guesses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #43 April 5, 2010 I apologize for being so blunt. The way I interpret the "we need to gather more data" concept is this: "We are seeing something that has killed a few people. But we are really not sure yet what exactly the problem is. So, we have to wait for a few more people to get killed before we tell you anything more. In the meantime, try to be careful." If there is enough data to say what has been said, then we need to know what is known now so we can try to make a difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #44 April 5, 2010 Quote > Overall I'd rather see information they are sure of than guesses. Additionally, (and especially in these forums) there’s the likeliness that "vested" individuals will skew the information to their liking. Come on, we’ve all seen it. In turn, semi-woofos like me will take said “skewed” ramblings as fact and proliferate it into legend. I agree raw data would be nice, but I’d rather see verified information from reliable sources. I will admit, however, I’d of like to have seen this information before I just bought a new rig?? Mark… should I be worried? I ask this because he’s a knowledgeable rigger who has good information, knows my gear, and I trust him. Based on this advisory, each of us should be asking our riggers the same thing. Should I be worried? As always, IMHO Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ufk22 33 #45 April 5, 2010 Quote>Because of who I am, if I were to release what I know it would be >characterized as Sour Grapes and the messenger would be attacked . . . Sounds like you have some of the same concerns that USPA does. Ask yourself this. If USPA had an unsubstantiated rumor that a Racer had killed a jumper - would you want them posting that on the net without confirming it? These 8 deaths are not unconfirmed. The AAD's all show firing at 750+/- and the reserve didn't work. No excuses. All 8 of them can't be hapenstance. Maybe we should be discussing this on the forum "Reasons not to buy an AAD". All the AADs involved in the 8 deaths did was fink on the rig. BTW: Don't even think about burble as some of them were unstable.THe TSO doesn't allow for burble anyway it requires a 300 foot opening after activation. Additionally, most of them occured with the main closed. QuotePerhaps a more appropriate question would be "If USPA had evidence, but not totally conclusive evidence, that the design of the Racer (or any other rigs) or an AAD (of any brand or brands) had potentially contributed to the deaths of 8 skydivers, should this information be posted on the net or released without 100% verification"??????This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnSherman 1 #46 April 5, 2010 What do you conside "Verification" Are you saying that 8 AAD records of activation at 750+/- feet is not verification of activation altitude? Yes, data must be released even if it includes a Racer the data should be made public. We as manufacturers have the responsibility to face and respond to any and all reports. Any manufacturer who hides behind the skirts of their National orginazition must be suspect. Everything is our sport must stand the light of day. If one more fatility like the 8 previously mentioned occurs, and I believe it will, we will all be to blame. John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 107 #47 April 5, 2010 QuoteThe practice of stuffing an oversized reserve into a container is often veiwed as an inconvenience for the rigger who has to pack it and unneccessary wear on the container, but I don't recall seeing any discussion on how it would affect the opening characteristics. In some cases, it might improve the speed of freebag lift-off. Oversize reserves get squeezed out of container corners, and may prevent riser covers from seating fully. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,822 #48 April 5, 2010 >These 8 deaths are not unconfirmed. Agreed. And they have been reported as such. >The AAD's all show firing at 750+/- and the reserve didn't work. Literally true. However, one of those AAD's THOUGHT it was at 750 and was actually at about 100 feet due to the jumper turning it on at home. > All 8 of them can't be hapenstance. If you are saying "all 8 of them can't be due to things like pilot chute hesitation" then I disagree. I used to do AFF with spring loaded pilot chutes; about 1 in 4 would hesitate and/or do really odd things during deployment. Even when the student was doing bizarre things himself, like trying his best to go head down. Were they all due to that? Unknown - hence the TC investigation. >"If USPA had evidence, but not totally conclusive evidence, that the > design of the Racer (or any other rigs) or an AAD (of any brand or > brands) had potentially contributed to the deaths of 8 skydivers, > should this information be posted on the net or released without > 100% verification"????? If they have _reliable_ evidence - yes. (Although keep in mind that PIA, rather than USPA, is doing the investigation, so the PIA TC will be the group that gets most of the evidence.)' Sadly, in many cases, there is more accurate, up to date information available here on the Incidents forum than is made available to USPA. There is also far more meaningless crap. Determining which is which is often quite difficult. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #49 April 5, 2010 QuoteIf you are saying "all 8 of them can't be due to things like pilot chute hesitation" then I disagree. I used to do AFF with spring loaded pilot chutes; about 1 in 4 would hesitate and/or do really odd things during deployment. Even when the student was doing bizarre things himself, like trying his best to go head down... I don't want to get things off-track, but I have to respond to that. The burble from a trio of side-by-side jumpers during an AFF deployment is MUCH larger than that for a solo skydiver deploying a reserve. A solo jumper has much more clean high-speed air flowing around him, then does an AFF student with two jumpmasters hanging onto him. Your experience with spring-loaded pilot chutes as an AFF jumpmaster is not relevant to the behavior of spring-loaded pilot chutes on reserve deployments. I have over 5,000 skydives with a spring-loaded pilot chute on a main canopy, and it is very rare for me to get a pilot chute hesitation - probably one out of 500 jumps. If it was happening to me 1 out of 4 times, I would switch to a throw-out in a heartbeat. It ain't happening with that frequency. So I don't want anyone here to get the impression that the probability of a pilot chute hesitation on a reserve parachute is 1 in 4. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flydog 0 #50 April 5, 2010 Bill, How do you know that one of the AAD's thought it was at 750 feet when it was only at 100 feet. This is pure speculation as none of the information as to what incidents are being looked at has been released. Or do you have inside information that John is looking for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
