Leaderboard

would like to invite you all to take part in this survey. The survey in anonymous, and will take a couple of minutes to complete. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/SkydiveAgeSurvey

Why are you so focused on talking about topics besides the specific subject of this thread? This “specific dude” is an example. This scenario seems to be prevalent across many DZs and has been for decades. If you are a coach, instructor or S&TA, I’d like your opinion about this scenario. If you aren’t a coach, instructor or S&TA or would like to be a pedant about WL notation or the dynamics of WL in relation to glide ratio, please start another thread. I’d like to keep the discussion focused to those who are rated and give advice regarding canopy choice and their thoughts about this specific scenario to gain insight about the type of advice they give to new skydivers who are choosing a first rig. Are you a coach, instructor or S&TA? What are your thoughts on an A License flying a Sabre 170 w/ an exit weight of 225+ lbs @ 1.3+?

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch03.pdf From page 3-8:

Glide ratio is numerically equal to the lift/drag ratio. Adding weight increases the forward speed, but also increases drag in the same proportion, so the ratio remains the same. You can google "glide ratio is independent of weight" and see any number of articles on the subject, and none to the contrary. The flight path angle with respect to the horizon depends on the glide ratio and winds. When flying in a headwind, a more heavily loaded canopy will have a shallower angle than a lightly loaded one. When flying with a tailwind, it is the more lightly loaded canopy that will have a shallower angle. In both cases, the glide ratio is the same. The airspeed is different, and the amount of time of exposure to the wind conditions is different. Do not equate glide ratio with the flight path angle with respect to the horizon.

Perhaps they should rename SC the senate?

"Washington — The Senate voted to move forward with former President Donald Trump's impeachment trial on Tuesday, with a majority of senators determining they have jurisdiction to place former presidents on trial in cases of impeachment. By a vote of 56 to 44, the Senate rejected arguments by Mr. Trump's attorneys, who asserted that holding an impeachment trial of a former president is unconstitutional." If Republicans held the majority in the Senate it is likely they would have voted that impeachment trial of a former president is unconstitutional. I think that is a decision that should be decided by the Supreme Court.

That was dont a long time ago already. I think about six months back or so they changed that.