Helicopter Rappel - Equipment Testing and Evaluation

Helicopter Rappel - Equipment Testing and Evaluation Submitted to: Yosemite National Park Date(s) of Testing/Evaluation: October 28-30, 2010 Submitted by: Mike Gibbs Rigging for, LLC Ouray, Colorado USA Introduction: Rigging for, LLC, in conjunction with Yosemite National Park Service (NPS) all-hazard personnel, conducted three days of drop testing and systems analysis on helicopter rappel equipment and scenarios. The testing was completed at the Yosemite National Park Crane Flat Helibase utilizing the Helibase rappel tower. The drop testing incorporated the use of live rappellers (in a belayed capacity) as well as an articulating mannequin combined with steel weights (aka ). Background: The legacy system that has been utilized by both the NPS and the US Forest Service for helicopter rappel operations includes a ½ inch Nylon 12-strand braided rope in combination with a Sky Genie descent control device manufactured by Descent Control, Inc. The legacy system has been in service for many years and has been safely employed in thousands of helicopter rappels. The intent of the October 28-30, 2010 test series was to critically examine newer, modern equipment options for helicopter rappelling as potential replacements or alternatives to the legacy system. Objectives: In addition to subjective equipment evaluation in a helicopter rappelling capacity, the test series focused on objective evaluation of specific scenarios that were expected to produce high maximum arrest forces. Namely: a fall/slip by the rappeller out of the aircraft while near the edge of the open door (e.g. loss of balance due to a change in orientation of the aircraft) a rapid descent followed by a sudden stop (e.g. allowing a mechanical device to initiate a rapid stop or rappelling quickly into a knotted rope) Various combinations of newer, modern equipment were examined as well as the legacy system for comparative purposes. Maximum arrest forces were captured using an electronic load cell. 2010, Rigging for

Helicopter Rappel- Equipment Testing and Evaluation The test set-up(s) were intentionally severe in their nature in order to provide meaningful data and direction on the question: In the above scenarios, are the peak forces being transmitted to the anchor system in the aircraft too high given the combination(s) of the newer, modern devices and ropes? Equipment Selection and Criteria: A total of three descent control devices (DCD) and four rope types were selected for examination. The DCDs chosen were the Petzl RIG, the SMC Spider and the Sky Genie. The rope types were the Petzl Vector, PMI EZ Bend, Bluewater Dynastat and the braided nylon rope from the legacy system. The criteria for DCD selection included the following: general size, weight and profile of the device ergonomics of the design (e.g. handle position and curvature; use with gloved hands) bandwidth of rope diameter accepted ability to stack multiple devices on the rope in order to facilitate rapid rappel transitions ability to rig/derig the rope from the device without removing it from the attachment point carabiner (this is a speed factor while de-rigging a device at the end of a rappel in order to disconnect from the line going to the aircraft; additionally, it prevents dropped devices) ease of loading the rope (i.e. presence of appropriate icons, intuitive design) ease of inspection ease of use (dexterity required) presence of a incorrect loading fail-safe presence of a deadman feature (aka hands free stop - an automatic stop initiated by the device if the rappeller were to let go of the DCD) presence of a panic stop feature (a camming effect on a mechanical device whereby the device locks up and/or inhibits/stops rope travel should the operator open the cam too widely in a panic reaction) presence of third party certifications and/or classifications (e.g. CE, NFPA, UL, ANSI) Petzl RIG SMC Spider Descent Control Inc. Sky Genie 2010, Rigging for Page 2 of 14

Helicopter Rappel- Equipment Testing and Evaluation The criteria for rope selection included the following: elongation diameter breaking strength construction fiber content suppleness presence of a sewn termination attachment point Test Method: Two scenarios were examined in the test series: Scenario 1: Scenario 2: a fall/slip by the rappeller out of the aircraft while near the edge of the open door a rapid rappel followed by a sudden stop Additionally, within the context of each of those two independent examinations, we utilized two test set-ups per scenario: Scenario 1 tests were conducted with a single DCD on the rope as well as stacked DCDs Scenario 2 tests were conducted using live rappellers as well as. Scenario 1 Test Design This test was intended to replicate a rappeller falling out of the aircraft while near the door opening due to a slip or a change in orientation of the aircraft. The resulting fall would produce a shock force on to the rappel system. To replicate a representative amount of rope-in-service at the time of the event, the following steps were followed: 1. the spotter anchored the rappel rope to the overhead anchor point in the aircraft 2. the spotter re-directed that rope through the change-of-direction carabiner anchored above the door opening 3. the spotter pulled up slack rope from below the re-direction point and handed a bight of that rope to the rappeller seated in the first position nearest the door 4. the rappeller reeved the rope into the DCD, pulled the running end of the rope hand tight and secured the DCD 5. the spotter made their system inspections and gave the agreed upon OK signal to the rappeller 2010, Rigging for Page 3 of 14

Helicopter Rappel- Equipment Testing and Evaluation Rappeller takes a bight of slack to load device, creating a potential free fall scenario out of the aircraft Rappeller loading a DCD At this point in the test design, we then measured how much rope was in-service between the DCD and the primary anchor point in the aircraft. The amount of rope was 5 ½ feet. To replicate a representative amount of slack in the system prior to the rappeller falling out of the aircraft the following steps were used: 1. the rappeller stood up from their seated position and made their way to the door exit 2. the rappeller stopped at the door opening just prior to grabbing the pre-rigged handle (an anchored Figure of 8 plate which is standard procedure in the legacy program) 3. the rappeller did not take in any slack rope through their DCD during this maneuver 4. a linear measurement was then taken of the distance between the DCD attached to the rappeller and the primary anchor point. This distance was 5 feet. As a result of this test design methodology, a drop test using an articulating mannequin of ½ foot freefall on 5 ½ feet of rope would have been sufficient to accurately represent a slip/fall out of the aircraft. However, because certain mechanical devices allow some rope to slip or travel through the device when not under tension (e.g. while approaching the door; aka untensioned slip ) it was felt by the examiners that the amount of slack rope should be increased to 1 foot. This increased amount of freefall would produce a greater peak force on the system. 2010, Rigging for Page 4 of 14

Helicopter Rappel- Equipment Testing and Evaluation Quick Release Mechanism DCD in position for a drop As stated above in the Objectives section, the test design was intentionally skewed to be slightly more severe that you would expect in a real scenario in order to help answer the question: Are the peak forces being transmitted to the anchor system in the aircraft too high given the combination(s) of the newer, modern devices and ropes? If the recorded forces were at acceptable levels using this test design, then a presumption could be made that they would be at acceptable levels in less severe circumstances. All drop tests conducted in Scenario 1 employed the use of and steel weights. The total test mass was 300 lbs. the maximum allowable rappeller weight as indicated by the Interagency Helicopter Rappel Guide. was 184 lbs. and the steel weights (and backpack) were 116 lbs. All tests were conducted using a cantilevered beam off of the drop tower. This enabled us to drop the test mass in a freefall without risking s legs becoming entangled in the skids. Any striking of the skids would have reduced peak forces transmitted to the primary anchor point in the aircraft. Our objective in the test design was to make it an intentionally severe examination with respect to the forces created by a fall out of the aircraft. 2010, Rigging for Page 5 of 14

Helicopter Rappel- Equipment Testing and Evaluation Load Cell attached to rope connected to Temporary suspension line to quick release mechanism positioning mechanism Quick release mechanism Scenario 1 test set-up During the test series, all of the DCDs were brand-new save for the legacy system device (Sky Genie). Because the same DCDs were used on multiple drop tests, they were only brand-new on their initial drop test. Multiple rope types were used in the test series. The ropes consisted of brand-new, new with limited use and older used rope (the legacy system rope). Additionally, rope ends were swapped between drop tests for a given rope sample. For example, a drop test would be conducted on Rope X; the next drop test would often use the very same rope, but the ends would be switched hence the terms in the drop testing log sheets (Appendix A) of Side A and Side B. Switching the rope ends between drop tests allowed for some relaxation time of the shock-loaded rope. Subsequent drop tests on that partially relaxed rope would typically produce higher peak forces, as expected. The test series was conducted this way as a result of limited rope resources readily available for examination. A quick-release mechanism was incorporated into the test mass suspension system. For a given drop test, the test mass was quick-released on to the DCD and rope combination; forces were measured by an electronic load cell set at 2400 Hz. 2010, Rigging for Page 6 of 14

Helicopter Rappel- Equipment Testing and Evaluation Scenario 2 Test Design This test was intended to replicate a rappeller in a rapid descent coming to a sudden stop. Tests were conducted using as well as live rappellers. The speed of the rappels was not measured and it appeared to be highly variable. Live rappellers were instructed to rappel fast and then let go of the DCD release mechanism upon reaching a visual marker attached to the rappel tower. The live rappellers were belayed with a separate rope. Force measurement was taken with an electronic dynamometer as opposed to a load cell. The initial tests using a load cell and live rappellers had such small recorded forces that it was difficult to discern the peak force from the normal oscillations in the force/time curve. Spotter briefing the rappellers Rappeller on skid prior to rapid descent 2010, Rigging for Page 7 of 14

Helicopter Rappel- Equipment Testing and Evaluation The test set-up using as a rapid rappeller was a difficult-to-replicate challenge. To replicate an out-of-control rappeller followed by a sudden stop, the following steps were used: 1. was positioned on rope just below the skids approximately 50 feet above the ground. 2. An attachment loop was fixed to the end of the DCD handle (SMC Spider). A long extension came off of that attachment loop - towards the ground and was connected to a stack of independently suspended weights (63 lbs.; enough weight to smoothly initiate the DCD cam). 3. The independent-weights suspension system incorporated a quick-release mechanism to transfer the 63 lbs. of weight on to the DCD handle attachment loop, thereby initiating an out-of-control rappel. The 63 lbs. of weight were initially suspended approximately 6 feet off of the ground. 4. When the weights contacted the ground - after 6 feet of travel the force on the DCD handle would cease and the DCD cam would engage and initiate a sudden stop. On the tests, forces were measured by an electronic load cell set at 2400 Hz. Cord to 63 lbs. of suspended weight Temporary weight suspension including quick release mechanism Remaining rappel rope, suspended to provide full simulated weight Cord fixed to DCD handle Scenario 2 test set-up Results and Discussion: On October 28-29, 2010, a total of 38 tests were conducted and recorded at the Yosemite National Park Crane Flat Helibase utilizing the Helibase rappel tower. A total of 31 tests involved the use of as the test mass; an additional 7 tests employed live rappellers in a sudden stop scenario. Additional rappel system evaluations were conducted on the afternoon of October 29, 2010, utilizing live rappellers, but no force measurements were recorded the forces were benign as they did not involve a sudden stop simulation. The additional rappels were used to evaluate ropes and DCDs against objective/subjective criteria. The live rappellers subsequently completed evaluation forms (Appendix C) during the October 30, 2010, testing debrief and discussion. 2010, Rigging for Page 8 of 14

Helicopter Rappel- Equipment Testing and Evaluation The summary statistics are limited to drop tests #1-28, which involved testing to Scenario 1 parameters. The drop tests simulating a sudden stop (Scenario 2) were of a limited quantity and qualify only as a quick look from a testing standpoint. The results and discussion are categorized by DCD and rope. DCD A total of three DCDs were examined in the drop test series: Petzl RIG SMC Spider Descent Control Sky Genie Several other DCDs were considered, but they were eliminated in preliminary discussions for a variety of reasons specific to each device. The DCDs considered included: Petzl I D Diamond ATC Guide Edelrid Eddy Petzl Grigri Heightec PMI-Powerlock The vast majority of the drop tests were conducted on either the Petzl RIG or the SMC Spider. Of the available choices, these two DCDs were deemed to have the most promising overall mix of qualities as they pertain to a helicopter rappelling application. The Sky Genie was tested only twice in order to obtain quick look comparative data points. Additionally, the drop test parameters for the Sky Genie were modified slightly in order to account for the longer profile of the device. The overall data summary is as follows: Summary Data DCDs Force (lbf) Petzl RIG SMC Spider Sky Genie Minimum 1214 1215 1274 Maximum 1502 1673 1422 Average 1378 1480 1348 2010, Rigging for Page 9 of 14

Helicopter Rappel- Equipment Testing and Evaluation The overall range of forces recorded for each device was similar. This was to be expected as there was very little observable slippage of rope through either device during the test series. It is likely that the overall range of forces recorded were almost exclusively attributable to the different rope types and their elongation qualities. Additionally, the forces recorded were below commonly-referenced (e.g. OSHA) maximum allowable arrest force values for an adult in a full body harness. Stacked Devices In helicopter rappel operations using the legacy system, stacking devices (pre-rigging them on the rappel line 3 in total to start) is a commonly utilized practice. Accordingly, it was an objective of this test series to determine if newer, cam-controlled devices could also be stacked. Notable performance differences were observed between the Petzl RIG and the SMC Spider when examined in a stacked configuration. Each of the two DCDs were tested in a manner similar to drop tests # 1-20 with the exception that two additional DCDs were stacked on the test rope (tests #21-28). This test set-up made it difficult to determine the fall factor for each drop. Additional rope (more than the prescribed 5 ½ feet) was required to position because of the reeving of rope through two additional devices. However, that extra rope was not providing an equivalent elongation quality because it was captured in a cammed device. As a result, we chose to ignore an actual fall factor calculation for the stacked drop tests. In addition, fall factor in this scenario is largely irrelevant, as the original freefall of 1 foot, as prescribed by the test set-up parameters, was still maintained for each of the tests. The accompanying photo illustrates the test set-up. Stacked SMC Spiders Stacked drop test set-up 2010, Rigging for Page 10 of 14

Helicopter Rappel- Equipment Testing and Evaluation The SMC Spider performed satisfactorily in a stacked configuration. There was no visible damage to any of the DCDs or to the ropes examined. Additionally, the SMC Spider does not require (for security) a carabiner to be affixed to the device while in a stacked configuration. The PETZL RIG is not a suitable device in a stacked configuration as evidenced by drop test #21. During this test, the two stacked Petzl RIGs were both severely damaged (yielded) and no longer usable. Stacked Petzl RIG damage It is yet to be determined whether stacking cam-controlled devices is a suitable practice in helicopter rappel operations. The spotter used in the test series was a very experienced practitioner; he expressed that it was prohibitively difficult to manipulate stacked devices along a weighted rope. Although our test series briefly examined the stackability of the SMC Spider and Petzl Rig, it is not within the scope of this report to determine whether stacking is a practical helicopter rappel practice. Other DCD Criteria In addition to the empirical data on the two DCDs examined, a number of other criteria were evaluated. Some of the criteria were subjective observations by the live rappellers who participated in the test series. Other criteria were simply objective device qualities. These categories are covered in the rappeller evaluation forms in Appendix C as well as the chart below. 2010, Rigging for Page 11 of 14

Helicopter Rappel- Equipment Testing and Evaluation SMC Petzl Objective Criteria Spider RIG Presence of a deadman feature X X Presence of a panic stop feature X* Presence of third party certifications and/or classifications X X Presence of an incorrect loading fail-safe Ability to stack multiple devices Ability to rig/de-rig a rope while attached to a carabiner X X * several of the live rappellers reported that it was difficult to engage the panic stop feature on the SMC Spider. Ropes A total of four make/model ropes were examined in the drop test series. Drop tests were repeated on the same rope samples. A variety of time lapses occurred between drop tests; as a result, rope relaxation times were not held constant. The Bluewater, PMI and Petzl models were all brand-new or new with limited use. The legacy rope was very used and three years old. The rope elongation properties for the four models are all different. Of the three non-legacy system ropes examined, the lowest elongation was the PMI EZ Bend and the highest elongation was the Petzl Vector. However, despite the differences in elongation properties, the three nonlegacy ropes would all be categorized as life safety ropes suitable for rappelling and/or rope rescue applications. X Summary Data Force (lbf) BlueWater Dynastat 11mm PMI EZ Bend 11mm Ropes Petzl Vector 11mm Legacy System Minimum 1250 1379 1214 1274 Maximum 1561 1673 1607 1422 Average 1411 1513 1384 1348 2010, Rigging for Page 12 of 14

Helicopter Rappel- Equipment Testing and Evaluation As indicated by the data summary, the range of recorded forces for the different rope models were similar. All three of the non-legacy system ropes produced acceptable peak forces given the drop test event that they were subjected to in the test series (i.e. well below OSHA values for maximum allowable force in a harness). Additionally, no visible rope damage occurred on any of the drops conducted. Anecdotally, one of the live rappellers commented that a higher elongation rope that was still within the low stretch or static categorization of rope (i.e. not a climbing or high-stretch dynamic rope) may be preferable in the event of a sudden stop. Specifically, live rappel test #38 used the lowest stretch rope (PMI EZ Bend) and produced a force on the order of 4+ times body weight (1012 lbf). Although still well below the OSHA allowed value of 8kN (1760 lbf), this deceleration force caused some discomfort to the rappeller across his harness straps. Recommendations: The drop test series was of a limited scope with respect to the: Number of drops conducted Number of DCDs examined Number of rope makes/models examined However, despite the relatively small sample size, a number of key observations can be made: 1. The forces generated by the different DCDs were of a similar nature 2. The forces generated by the different rope choices were of a similar nature 3. The forces generated by the Scenario 1 drop tests were below industry-referenced standards for acceptable fall arrest forces (e.g. OSHA) for an adult in a full body harness 4. The forces generated by the Scenario 2 drop tests were below industry-referenced standards for acceptable fall arrest forces (e.g. OSHA) for an adult in a full body harness The question posed in the Objectives portion of this report was: Are the peak forces being transmitted to the anchor system in the aircraft too high given the combination(s) of the newer, modern devices and ropes? The breaking strength of the primary anchor point bracket affixed to the interior of the aircraft is unknown; determining that breaking strength would provide valuable information towards increasing the understanding of the inherent system safety factors. However, a review of the data obtained in this test series reveals that the forces generated were well within human tolerable limits and were nowhere near the breaking strengths of the ropes or DCDs evaluated. Bear in mind that these were very severe test designs intended to expose a system and/or device weakness. It is unlikely that a live rappeller in an airborne helicopter could produce higher forces than were recorded in the test series. 2010, Rigging for Page 13 of 14

Helicopter Rappel- Equipment Testing and Evaluation Moving forward, it seems that the most pertinent information will come from anecdotal use by NPS all-hazard personnel on the rappel tower performing live rappels. Qualities such as the presence of specific safety features, ease of inspection, ergonomics of design and similar criteria will ultimately drive the choice of appropriate DCDs for the helicopter rappel program. The numerous DCD and rope qualities should be rigorously examined through repetitive live rappels in order to properly evaluate device and rope performance in normal helicopter rappelling circumstances. 2010, Rigging for Page 14 of 14

Helicopter Rappel Testing Yosemite National Park Date: 10-28-10 Test # Time Rope Type: make, model,color Bluewater, Dynastat, 1 10:53 no visible rope damage Rope Type: size, material & construction 11mm, Polyester/Nylon Blend, ~ Rope in Service (feet) Rope End (A or B) Appendix A 2010, Rigging for Fall Factor 1 5.5 A 0.18 Rappeller Total Rappeller Weight 2 (lbs.) DCD: make and model 3 Maximum Arrest Force (lbf) Slide Distance 4 (inches) 300 Petzl RIG 1250 0 2 11:30 Bluewater, Dynastat, 11mm, Polyester/Nylon Blend, 5.5 B 0.18 300 Petzl RIG 1366 0 3 11:38 Bluewater, Dynastat, 11mm, Polyester/Nylon Blend, 5.5 A 0.18 300 Petzl RIG 1400 0 4 12:00 PMI, EZ Bend, White with Red Tracer 5.5 A 0.18 Used rope Broke the plastic sleeve incorporated into the sewn termination attachment point on the drop test PMI, EZ Bend, White 5 12:09 5.5 B 0.18 with Red Tracer Broke the plastic sleeve incorporated into the sewn termination attachment point on the drop test 300 Petzl RIG 1426 0 300 Petzl RIG 1379 0 6 12:18 PMI, EZ Bend, White with Red Tracer 5.5 A 0.18 300 Petzl RIG 1489 0 7 12:37 Petzl, Vector, Red 5.5 A 0.18 300 Petzl RIG 1295 0 Tied figure 8 knot as opposed to a sewn termination attachment point. Knot was pretensioned with body weight prior to the drop. 8 12:42 Petzl, Vector, Red 5.5 B 0.18 300 Petzl RIG 1214 0 Tied figure 8 knot as opposed to a sewn termination attachment point. Knot was pretensioned with body weight prior to the drop. 9 12:50 Petzl, Vector, Red 5.5 A 0.18 Figure 8 knot was same as #7 (i.e. not retied); it was cinched tightly by the force from test #7 300 Petzl RIG 1462 0 Bluewater, Dynastat, 10 13:52 "Difficult" release post-drop 6 11mm, Polyester/Nylon Blend, 5.5 B 0.18 300 SMC Spider 1536 1.5 Data Acquisition Rate: 2400 Hz Page 1 of 4

Helicopter Rappel Testing Yosemite National Park Date: 10-28-10 Test # Time Rope Type: make, model,color Bluewater, Dynastat, 11 14:09 "Difficult" release post-drop 6 Rope Type: size, material & construction 11mm, Polyester/Nylon Blend, ~ Rope in Service (feet) Rope End (A or B) Appendix A 2010, Rigging for Fall Factor 1 5.5 A 0.18 Rappeller Total Rappeller Weight 2 (lbs.) DCD: make and model 3 Maximum Arrest Force (lbf) Slide Distance 4 (inches) 300 SMC Spider 1498 2 Bluewater, Dynastat, 12 14:17 "Difficult" release post-drop 6 11mm, Polyester/Nylon Blend, 5.5 B 0.18 300 SMC Spider 1561 2 PMI, EZ Bend, White 13 14:24 with Red Tracer "Difficult" release post-drop 6 5.5 B 0.18 300 SMC Spider 1619 1.75 PMI, EZ Bend, White 14 14:31 with Red Tracer "Difficult" release post-drop 6 5.5 A 0.18 300 SMC Spider 1625 2.5 PMI, EZ Bend, White 15 14:38 with Red Tracer "Difficult" release post-drop 6 5.5 B 0.18 300 SMC Spider 1673 2 16 15:15 Petzl, Vector, Red "Extremely difficult" release 6 - required a hit with the hand 5.5 A 0.18 300 SMC Spider 1571 3.5 17 15:41 Petzl, Vector, Red "Difficult" release post-drop 6 5.5 B 0.18 300 SMC Spider 1465 2.5 18 15:50 Petzl, Vector, Red "Difficult" release post-drop 6 5.5 A 0.18 300 SMC Spider 1607 2.5 12.5mm, Nylon, Braid on 19 15:59 Sky Genie Braid fall=17" Used rope (appears quite old) (2007 model year) 12.5mm, Nylon, Braid on 20 16:11 Sky Genie Braid Same rope and same end (e.g. only 12 min. of relaxation time) 6 A 0.24 6 A 0.24 300 Sky Genie 1274 0 300 Sky Genie 1422 2.5 Data Acquisition Rate: 2400 Hz Page 2 of 4

Helicopter Rappel Testing Yosemite National Park Date: 10-28-10 and 10-29-10 Test # Time Rope Type: make, model,color Rope Type: size, material & construction PMI, EZ Bend, White 21 16:50 with Red Tracer 3 stacked devices Broke 2 Petzl RIG devices Bluewater, Dynastat, 11mm, Polyester/Nylon 22 9:42 Blend, 3 stacked devices Through devices - 5'2" (after reeved); first drop of 10-29-10 Bluewater, Dynastat, 11mm, Polyester/Nylon 23 9:53 Blend, 3 stacked devices ~ Rope in Service 5 (feet) Appendix A 2010, Rigging for Rope End (A or B) 6 A Total: 6'4" 5'2" Total: 6'4" 5'2" B A Fall Factor 1 MNT 1 foot free fall MNT 1 foot free fall MNT 1 foot free fall Rappeller Total Rappeller Weight 2 (lbs.) DCD: make and model 3 Maximum Arrest Force (lbf) Slide Distance 4 (inches) 300 Petzl RIG 1502 negligible 300 SMC Spider 1294 2 300 SMC Spider 1384 2 PMI, EZ Bend, White 24 10:04 with Red Tracer 3 stacked devices Total: 6'4" 5'2" B MNT 1 foot free fall 300 SMC Spider 1433 2 25 Mis-Rig Bad Drop PMI, EZ Bend, White 26 10:23 with Red Tracer 3 stacked devices Total: 6'4" 5'2" B MNT 1 foot free fall 300 SMC Spider 1471 2 27 10:34 Petzl, Vector, Red 3 stacked devices Total: 6'4" 5'2" A MNT 1 foot free fall 300 SMC Spider 1241 2 28 10:43 Petzl, Vector, Red 3 stacked devices Total: 6'4" 5'2" B MNT 1 foot free fall 300 SMC Spider 1215 2 29 25 Lb. quick-release balast Cam re-engaged with weights still suspended - flawed test set-up PMI, EZ Bend, White 9'2" 0 - out of 30 14:00 A 300 SMC Spider 1506 MNT with Red Tracer (tensioned) control rapeller 63 Lb. quick-release balast; note: a 2-peak drop rapidly rappelled to a stop/bounce (first peak force) and then continued to rappel until the final stop (second peak force) Data Acquisition Rate: 2400 Hz Page 3 of 4

Heli Rappel Testing Yosemite National Park Date: 10-29-10 Test # Time Rope Type: make, model,color Rope Type: size, material & construction 11mm, Polyester/Nylon Blend, ~ Rope in Service (feet) Bluewater, Dynastat, 31 14:30 9'2" 63 Lb. quick-release balast; note: a 2-peak drop (similar to test #30) Rope End (A or B) A Appendix A 2010, Rigging for Fall Factor 1 0 - out of control rapeller Rappeller Total Rappeller Weight 2 (lbs.) DCD: make and model 3 Maximum Arrest Force (lbf) Slide Distance 4 (inches) 300 SMC Spider 1144 MNT Bluewater, Dynastat, 11mm, Polyester/Nylon 32 15:32 Blend, 90m (18 lb.) weight as ballast at end of rope Rapid Rappel with sudden stop Bluewater, Dynastat, 11mm, Polyester/Nylon 33 15:41 Blend, ~ 20 Feet A 0 D. Pope 216 SMC Spider MNT MNT ~ 20 Feet A 0 J. Ramsdell 162 SMC Spider MNT MNT 34 15:57 Bluewater, Dynastat, 11mm, Polyester/Nylon Blend, ~ 20 Feet A 0 M. Stark 158 SMC Spider 270 MNT 35 15:59 Bluewater, Dynastat, 11mm, Polyester/Nylon Blend, ~ 20 Feet A 0 D. Pope 216 SMC Spider 610 MNT 36 16:01 Bluewater, Dynastat, 11mm, Polyester/Nylon Blend, ~ 20 Feet A 0 J. Ramsdell 162 SMC Spider 316 MNT 37 16:04 Bluewater, Dynastat, 11mm, Polyester/Nylon Blend, ~ 20 Feet A 0 K. Lober 188 SMC Spider 348 MNT PMI, EZ Bend, White 11mm, Polyester/Nylon 38 16:30 ~ 20 Feet B 0 D. Pope 216 SMC Spider 1012 MNT with Red Tracer Blend, Very fast descent. Pope became familiar with Spider after multiple rappels and indicated before the test that he could go "fast" Data Acquisition Rate: 2400 Hz Page 4 of 4

Appendix B Re.: Helicopter Rappel - Equipment Testing and Evaluation Location: Crane Flat Helibase; Yosemite, CA Date(s): October 28-30, 2010 Testing Contractor: Rigging for, LLC Footnotes 1 Drops resulting in a in a fall factor of.18 were produced by a 1 fall on 5 6 feet of rope in service; drops resulting in a fall factor of.24 were produced by a 1 5 fall on 6 of rope. 2 Total rappeller weight for consisted of a 184 lb. articulating mannequin and 116 lbs. of steel weight in a haul bag suspended from the mannequin. 3 The Petzl RIG DCD was pre-set in the locked position prior to each test. 4 Slide distance refers to the length of rope that travels through a DCD during a drop as a result of the force generated by a fall. This value was obtained by marking the rope prior to the drops with an indelible marker. 5 Two values are indicated for rope in service on drop tests #22-28. The 6 4 value is the total amount of rope. The 5 2 value accounts for the removal of the rope required to reeve the two stacked devices. 6 Releasability was determined by a subjective scale: Easy Release Moderately Difficult Release Difficult Release Extremely Difficult Release No resistance encountered when operator releases the device Operator must exert mild effort to release the device Operator must exert a significant though not necessarily prohibitive amount of force to release the device Operator must strike the handle of the device with a fist or open palm to release the device. Unless otherwise noted, all devices should be considered to fall under the category of an Easy Release. Key to Acronyms in Report Item Description mm lbs lbf DCD Hz MNT Millimeter Pounds Pounds force Descent Control Device Hertz Measurement Not Taken 2010, Rigging for Page 1 of 1

Appendix C Re.: Helicopter Rappel-Equipment Testing and Evaluation Location: Crane Flat Helibase; Yosemite, CA Date(s): October 28-30, 2010 Testing Contractor: Rigging for, LLC 1-Poor 2-Fair 3-Average 4-Good 5-Excellent Descent Control Device: Subjective Criteria Evaluation Form Device SMC Spider Security [considerations: hands free, untensioned slip, incorrect loading fail safe] Rating 4 Comments On the Spider there was an untensioned slip when unloaded not having a locking feature was a disadvantage, but not critical. Great ability to stack (but unknown how difficult for the spotter or rappeller to move it up and down the rope would be). There was a slip of 2-3 on a hard stop but I though that was no problem and may help reduce forces like dynamic belay. Ease of Inspection [considerations: both the device and the tie-off] Rating 4 Comments Spider seems slightly easier [than the RIG] to inspect but not significantly. Good, easy diagrams on Spider faceplate. Not so with the RIG. Ease of Loading [considerations: speed and simplicity, removal from attachment point on Rating 5 Comments I found the Spider much easier and more intuitive to load that the RIG. I for some reason could easily be confused for a few seconds on how to load the RIG. Ease of Unloading [considerations: speed and simplicity, removal from attachment point on Rating 3 Comments Both devices were similar after a loaded rappel. However, one more step to was needed to remove the RIG removal from the redirect carabiner. I did find the RIG was slightly easier to open the plate, rather than having to manipulate the small detent pin. Pros and cons to both. About equal. Ease of Use [considerations: smooth ride, easy to use with gloved hand, ergonomic handle, dexterity required] Rating 4 2010, Rigging for Page 3 of 10

Appendix C Comments The RIG was a smoother ride than the Spider. But that smooth ride related to the faster speed down the rope which was almost too fast. RIG was way too involved with rigging on the skid with the needed redirect carabiner. I thought this was a significant negative. I liked the strong feeling and all metal construction of the Spider vs. the plastic feeling of the RIG. Plus having seen us break the RIG (albeit in an unapproved stack) did not give me confidence. I liked the sweet spot better on the RIG. The handle angle on the Spider seemed unergonomical. I had difficulty with the over-cam slow down feature of the Spider, nearly hitting the ground too fast (but this was a training issue and me not understanding the feature.) This also may have been because the handle angle is difficult to get all the way into the over-cam slow down position. 2010, Rigging for Page 4 of 10

Appendix C Re.: Helicopter Rappel-Equipment Testing and Evaluation Location: Crane Flat Helibase; Yosemite, CA Date(s): October 28-30, 2010 Testing Contractor: Rigging for, LLC 1-Poor 2-Fair 3-Average 4-Good 5-Excellent Descent Control Device: Subjective Criteria Evaluation Form Device Petzl RIG Security [considerations: hands free, untensioned slip, incorrect loading fail safe] Rating 3 Comments On the Spider there was an untensioned slip when unloaded not having a locking feature was a disadvantage, but not critical. Great ability to stack (but unknown how difficult for the spotter or rappeller to move it up and down the rope would be). There was a slip of 2-3 on a hard stop but I though that was no problem and may help reduce forces like dynamic belay. Ease of Inspection [considerations: both the device and the tie-off] Rating 3 Comments Spider seems slightly easier [than the RIG] to inspect but not significantly. Good, easy diagrams on Spider faceplate. Not so with the RIG. Ease of Loading [considerations: speed and simplicity, removal from attachment point on Rating 1-2 Comments I found the Spider much easier and more intuitive to load that the RIG. I for some reason could easily be confused for a few seconds on how to load the RIG. Ease of Unloading [considerations: speed and simplicity, removal from attachment point on Rating 3 Comments Both devices were similar after a loaded rappel. However, one more step to was needed to remove the RIG removal from the redirect carabiner. I did find the RIG was slightly easier to open the plate, rather than having to manipulate the small detent pin. Pros and cons to both. About equal. Ease of Use [considerations: smooth ride, easy to use with gloved hand, ergonomic handle, dexterity required] Rating 1-2 2010, Rigging for Page 5 of 10

Appendix C Re.: Helicopter Rappel-Equipment Testing and Evaluation Location: Crane Flat Helibase; Yosemite, CA Date(s): October 28-30, 2010 Testing Contractor: Rigging for, LLC 1-Poor 2-Fair 3-Average 4-Good 5-Excellent Descent Control Device: Subjective Criteria Evaluation Form Device Petzl RIG Security [considerations: hands free, untensioned slip, incorrect loading fail safe] Rating 1 Comments 1 because the device did not perform well in a stacked configuration. However, other factors were comparable to Spider. Ease of Inspection [considerations: both the device and the tie-off] Rating 4 Comments Ease of Loading [considerations: speed and simplicity, removal from attachment point on Rating 2 Comments I disliked the need to have an additional carabiner as a redirect. Ease of Unloading [considerations: speed and simplicity, removal from attachment point on Rating 3 Comments Similar to Spider. However, additional redirect carabiner creates an extra step. Ease of Use [considerations: smooth ride, easy to use with gloved hand, ergonomic handle, dexterity required] Rating 2+ Comments RIG handle was smaller. Plastic handle seemed to be less robust. However, ride was smooth. I liked the position of the handle when in use, position was superior to the Spider. 2010, Rigging for Page 9 of 10