eric.fradet

as you can see in the attached file, the maximum weight on Optimum 113 has been limited to 220 pounds for a while from 2008 up to 2010 at least, while the reserve packing manual from 2002 and 2009 says 254 pounds, something is wrong..

it also eplodes at 220lbs/150 KEAS

also something important you should know : The maximum weight written down on PD reserve is UNTRUE, I have the proof it does not work since we tried , at the maximum operating limits (200 pounds) and 175 KEAS with the Optimum 113 reserve = it explodes , because PD has been cheating on certification tests

This one from June 2008 shows something has been modified on Optimum 113 reserve but not the reserve packing manual :

concerned in a fatality in which the weight of the victim is important, this Optimum 113 Reserve DOM 04/2008 shows in its warning label a maximum weight of 220 pounds (100 kilos) while all reserve packing manual since 2002 mention 254 pounds (115 kilos), who to trust ? knowing that under no circumstances should we believe the manufacturer

finally Aerodyne convinced FAA that if their rigs do not work properly on the ground during evaluation, they do in the air, surprinsigly FAA agreed, at the same time Aerodyne changed its reserve stiffeners on reserve flap #1, #2 by textile and stiffener on reserve flap #6 and reserve cover flap by grey Nylatron which prove Aerodyne think it is not totally safe. Aerodyne did not issue any service bulletin to rettrofit the old ones...not very cleaver..

not sure it is a non-issue to jump a rig, with riser cover not able to open when you pull the reserve only, whatever it is legal or not, Sandy Reid is dishonest and not qualified enough to certify a rig without even tested it, It is exclusively from France since there is no other country where people like me are paid only to find out the design flaws

definetly not working properly...below 60 pounds force Curv 1.0 VC 3 #16086 DOM 01.2015.mov

A French rigger recently, reported to me an issue he found during a regular packing cycle on a Curv 2. After pulling the reserve handle and the reserve container opened up, the rigger is used to take the reserve canopy out by pulling the reserve bag by its bridle in order to let the canopy takes the air out for the next 3 days in this case, the rigger was not able to get the risers cover open up, they stay locked even by statically pulling with all his strength (about 60 pounds force), even he made several tests with different traction angles without success on this Curv 2 while it does not take so many tension to release magnetic risers cover on others rigs We were able to duplicate the issue on some others Curv 2, Curv 1 , CPX rigs. It did not take us long to find out, Curv and CPX are poorly designed regarding reserve extraction with not enough flexibility at the base of the reserve pin cover flap, it definetly forces to open the riser cover up, specially on rigs with small yokes. Consequently there are 3 risks on some of these R.I and Sunpath equipment : - both riser cover flaps stay locked up with the slider keeping skydiver head pinned down - If the riser cover delay opening until the slider begins down the lines and then they suddenly release, the slider will come down the lines like crazy causing an incredibly hard opening. - If the hang up is only on one side with one riser free, it will cause a spin of the main. Then you can get a different result if you reproduce a whiplash but wondering if it is realistic essai K avec octavie 2 .mov Curv 1.0 DOM sep 2013 # 15649.xspf

sfzombie13 is correct. I spoke with the rigger Raphael Plantin in Saumur, he forgot the 4 documents in their plastic cardboard that he had slipped in between the reserve flaps, which made this sound when hitting the ground. Now ,all folks who spend their energy wondering what fell out of that rig, would have better ask Aerodyne what corrective action are they going to take to make their rig working properly? once every 10 days in this repack cycle perio, riggers report to me a malfunction in the Icon reserve opening. This rig will soon be grounded in France, which does not mean that it will work better abroad; like the virus it crosses borders.

The idea of a reserve not deploying in time after an AAD firing is totally unacceptable and defeats the reason for having an AAD in the first place, and it is worst when we speak about reserve Pilot Chute failing to clear the side flaps when manually pulled by its handle. in 2008, all the major rig manufacturers using a retractable reserve pin cover (Parachutes de France, MIRAGE, PARATEC) accepted , as a precautionary measure, the change in the cutter position. On Vector rig the reserve pin cover flap uses a tuck tab which is a folding tongue underneath instead of sliding into a slot at the top of the midflap ( which I call retractable), it is a safer design. Since 2008, AERODYNE has not worked on a device to retract the cutter body in the top of the reserve P/C contrary to the others manufacturers using a retractable reserve pin cover. As a consequence of which, collateral damage inherent to this cutter location such as deformation of the closing flap above the cutter and markings on the grommets are only observed is on NEXGEN generation rigs. The ICON rigs before the NEXGEN generation of rigs do, in fact, have a tolerance to accept the cutter location above the reserve P/C without damage, and therefore a shortened cut of the closing loop which is a guarantee of perfect operation in the event of an AAD firing due to a total malfunction. Otherwise a cutter located below the flaps, makes the container have to open from the inside out, and that takes more energy and results in a delay in container opening. I have to isolate Icon rig from other rigs with 4 flaps above reserve PC : Aerodyne uses a stiffer plastic than other manufacturers 1.5mm plastic instead of 1.0 mm makes a difference enough to re-enforce a wrong way and makes the Icon a very steamlined rig (not sure of the exact term in English and that's not a compliment). When we proceed to reserve manual test on Icon rigs, we found out the main issue is the double (10 cmX 8,5 cm) stiffener of the central flap #5 ; since it is not flexible enough it does not bend and does not help the reserve pin cover flap to lift outside while the pin is extracted. Also on last Icon rigs, the reserve pin cover flap is excessively long, recently Aerodyne made them longer, probably because the flaps kept coming loose during free fall and this change participate to keep the container locked when open from the out side in : by manually pulling the reserve ripcord specially on ballistic Icon rigs. In this situation, reserve flap #6 is caught by pinching in between reserve flap #5 and reserve pin cover flap. Keep in mind what when the main is still in his container, the flap #5 clearance is limited because it is largely encompassed by the main side flaps which does not help. Now Aerodyne could make necessary corrective actions to change all of these defects but then, the rig …will be named differently !

if Bergan told you that he was lying, not a surprise, he is used to. Aerodyne has a habit of hiding problems. Currently the situation is as follows: before grounding Icon rigs, French Civilian Aviation gives one last chance to Aerodyne to fix its problems of reseve non-opening by manual action. As Aerodyne will continue to deny and refuse to admit the reality of the facts, Icon rigs will be grounded, it is only a matter of time. I agree it takes long, but it is because it is right now in discussion, the only way for Aerodyne to prevent its Icon rigs from being grounded is to solve their problems of malfunctions by opening manually the reserve, but it will cost them too much in terms of money and image to accept that, especially because they start from very far away...

this is a sensitive subject. Yes after incidents of total malfunction or delay in manually reserve opening found by riggers during reserve packing cycle, Aerodyne has been contacted but denied any issues claiming testing were not done on a regular basis. We noted that malfunctions did happen on recent rigs (two last years) and it looked changes that had been carried out by the manufacturer (in particular on reserve closing flap) which at least affected the certification of the parachute since FAA has not being notified. Due to this situation, we asked French FAA equivalent to carry out tests with an independant and neutral laboratory called DGA (Direction Générale de l'Armement). in november 2021, Aerodyne president Pal Bergan and European representative Herman Landsman were present in Balma (France) to meet the French authorities and to conduct tests. A test protocol was drawn up by DGA and Aerodyne signed it up, means before starting each test , Aerodyne should validate what the rig was compliant (packing method, reserve PC power, type of canopies inside, reserve loop length, mounting of AAD, reserve manual force, etc)..before proceeding with the test in accordance with rules of art, which means parachute well tighten and chest strap, in a human body which fits to dimensions of the harness rigs, in a stand up and laydown position. The first day, we proceed to 17 tests and got 3 failed by manually deployment and 5 total malfunction by firing AAD located underneath the reserve PC, which makes a total of 8 on 17.. I cannot tell you more, since it is still under investigation....

Aerodyne stole the Aeromard from my device, my patent attorney studied my patent and found Aerodyne infringed my patent. Since these people from Aerodyne have no brain, they copied everything in view. Their research and developpment office is a copycat machine. The main issue is since they do not understand how it works, in the end they do not make rigs which work properly, they have poor canopies that malfunction, we have a lot of issues with Aerodyne products but they have a good publicity because they give products to everyone in sight, and they sell off their equipment though anyone who wants to be a reseller

in fact, I found out what when the cutter location was below the reserve Pilot Chute, once the AAD fired : the cutten loop was too long in between the cutter location and the end of reserve Pilot Chute and had the tendency to keep all the reserve flaps locked together or at least slow down the reserve opening, it is the reason why the rigs manufacturers with reserve PC inside the container like Icon re-located their cutter above the PC. But in this Icon situation, the issue comes from the reserve pin cover flap which goes too deep inside his location, since Aerodyne changed the reserve cover pin flap length, and because these Aerodyne people have no brain, they did not think about it, since it does not work properly by pulling the reserve ripcord, it certainly does not open with and unconscious skydiver not knocking the reserve container...