sundevil777

I don't think there is anything in the manuals from the mfgs about that, so I would say you are already getting their advice in their manual. 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

There may be an issue with this, but the software should be able to run with nothing plugged in. From what has been said from the OP, it might not even do that. 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

I don't remember it being much trouble for me, I did it a couple years ago. If you want something specific, like file names or copies of particular files/drivers, send a PM 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

I had the 7 cell 189 foil. 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

So it is projected area, as used more commonly in the paragliding world? Is that mentioned in Jump Shack info? Maybe I missed it! In any case, that is a huge, huge change in comparison to how other canopies are measured in skydiving. (e.g., the old debate about PIA vs PD measurrment style). So the measurement is still based on the physical dimensions of everything stretched out fully (as in a 3-D CAD drawing), but not with aeroelastic effects modelled (ie, spanwise shrinkage as cells inflate), correct? Using inflated plan form would create a smaller number than other companies have, for the same canopy. So for the same number, a Jump Shack canopy would tend (all else being equal, which it is not) to pack bigger and fly bigger. Please correct me or clarify as needed! It would seem that canopy mfgs would want to make it clear how their products compare to the competition. I understand that there might not be easy agreement on which way is "best", or as JS put it, "the way we were taught", but it wouldn't take much effort for a mfg to have info available about how the other methods (maybe 3 methods total?) would change the 'size' of what we buy. 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

I see a lot of people with helmets wearing earplugs. For the OP - below is a link to a thread I started about some really good earplugs: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4083263#4083263 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

It may have been that the junior pilot was more aware of their bad situation than his trainer, but the cultural issue might still have led to the hesitation in questioning whether a correction was needed. To the knowledgeable pilots of such planes such as twardo's wife, is the pilot flying (pilot in command) normally also in charge of throttles, or is that left to the other? 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

For military planes (flying super fast and low to avoid radar), instead of terrain following mode, it has been called terrain modification mode. 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

I think that it is possible that the ideal angle of attack may have been a bit less than what they were at (at least at the min where you get stick shaker, perhaps quite a bit into stick shaker land), but I wonder how easy it would be to find that ideal angle of attack without overshooting to be too shallow and losing more altitude. Perhaps someone knows more definitively where that ideal angle (max lift) would be relative to where the stick shaker starts. 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

No, that is not a stall. There is more to a stall than that. No, I think they would either have hit the wall much more directly, or perhaps put it into the water. A water landing may have been better, if it had been early enough to stop before the wall. They likely would have stopped very quickly. 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

However only two at the controls, and let's not forget the cultural thing regarding the PIC. Do we even know that the extra pilots were in the flight deck? I'm not at all sure that it should be assumed they were in there. Maybe it has already been reported? My 5.5 years at Boeing designing about 40 switch panels (switches, electronic packaging and light plates) for the 777 flight deck make this incident really hit home. I wasn't responsible for the flight mgt computer, autopilot, radios, etc. but all of the system control panels were mine (all of the overhead panel, plus several on the fwd panels and aislestand). I had a lot of time discussing things with the flight operations guys (they represented the interests of the test pilots/airline pilots), and really got to understand a lot about how the systems are used, and the design philosophy that allows 2 people to do so well what decades ago required at least 3. Regarding the cultural issues of copilots not speaking up against their "superiors", I think it is likely that it had an effect in this incident. That is really sad in that such issues should have been thoroughly trained out of crews by now. It will be interesting to hear how the crew worked/didn't work together. I think the autopilot/autothrottle mode is key to understanding this - what if any speed did they set. I do not know whether using a speed setting mode is the usual for a good weather approach, and would hope that someone around here could provide some reliable opinion on this issue. Pehaps the pilot wanted to not use any such "aids", and wanted to do a "full manual" type approach. If this was the case, then I would think the other pilot should be paying more attention than usual to the airspeed and altitude, but maybe the other guy forgot? If they had kept the airspeed up to a reasonable number, It would seem they could have stretched out the level flight at the end and nobody else would have known. I think Billvon said this was the copilot's (the pilot in commad) first 777 landing, but I thought it was just his first at SF with a 777. Is there info that it was his first 777 at any location? Also, I think even the 707 did not "directly" control the flight surfaces, as the cables still gave input to tell hydraulic actuators what to do for the primary flight control surfaces. 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

I am interested in how airspeed is typically managed during approach. I would have thought that it to be usual for the autopilot to be in a "maintain speed" mode where the autothrottles would usually be engaged. Perhaps the pilots wanted to do a full manual approach flying it without this aid, so I wonder how unusual that would be. Hopefully someone knowledgeable can help. Also, would it be the pilot not in command's job to monitor/manage the airspeed/throttles? 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

You are making conclusions that I think are not correct. Actual video of the crash shows the plane moving with very little vertical speed at all in the last few seconds before it hit. That does not seem like a stall. It was flying near stall (we know the stick shaker was active) at a high angle of attack and with steadily increasing thrust that I think might have resulted in a climb out if they had some more time. That doesn't seem like a stall. Had the plane been already over the runway, then your suggestion that, "What he should have done was not throttle back up but simply land the thing and be done with it" would be appropriate. Your suggestion seems to be that they had the option of reducing the angle of attack and prevent the tail strike, choosing to land with a higher rate of descent but at least to put it down on the landing gear. This was not available to them because they weren't over the runway yet, although putting it down in the water might have been an option. That almost happened, and might have been a better outcome. If they had put the nose down at just the right time, perhaps it might have lifted the tail and not struck the wall, but I think it more likely that even more of the plane would have impacted the wall. 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

Stupid news coverage - despite video of the actual crash being available for many hours, they keep showing animation that shows none of the severe launch up, slam down, and rotation. Also, and this is really classic - The stick shaker and YOLK begins shaking! (yoke vs the yellow part inside an egg!) 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

Why would you carry it that way? Of course you attract extra scrutiny! To all of those that want to carry it on - not in a bag...this is not a good idea. Please suppress your desire to have your rig on your back. There are plenty of nervous people out there that might get security people involved as you wait for your flight. We do not need or want that kind of attention, as the hassle resulting from such incidents will encourage individual airlines, airports, and even the whole TSA (or whatever security service) to revisit their policy that allows us to carry on our rigs. Having it visible will cause problems and hurt us all, so please just don't do it. You might have to check it in anyway, as sometimes they simply say no and you can't change their minds, so you'd want to have a bag available for that possibility. Having homeowner's/renter's insurance that will cover it sounds like a great plan, I will definitely check into that before I fly next time, in case I have to or choose to not carry it on. 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

Yup, that's what matters. 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

I was referring to your speculation about "seams expanding": I described my speculation about why it is that porosity matters for the top but not the bottom skin. I don't know what level of porosity would result in a noticeable drop in flare performance, but I do suspect that there is still plenty of good performance to be had even if there is something more than zero porosity - as someone might expect with an old canopy. 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

Why does porosity of the fabric matter so much? Maybe not for the reason you think...and why are mfgs putting ZP on the top skin only of some canopies - why does that not result in a canopy that will perform badly after a couple hundred jumps? The following is based on my somewhat informed opinion of what I know of wing aerodynamics. I hope others can confirm or rebut my claim. When a wing is flying at high angles of attack (such as during a flared landing), it is very important that the airflow over the top of the wing stay "attached"/not separate from the surface of the wing (or else the lift suffers greatly - the flare is lousy). If air is leaking out through the top skin fabric too much, then I think it has the effect of separating the airflow. Conditions on the bottom skin of the wing are very different, with separation not being an issue, so leakage through non-ZP fabric doesn't matter. If it was possible to actually suck air into the wing through/from the top skin, then you get the ability to produce good lift at higher angles of attack, as the airflow stays attached when it otherwise would not. This has been done on some experimental airplanes, including a Boeing 757 testbed that had part of the wing drilled with very tiny holes and a vacuum applied to suck air into the wing. So, air leaking out through the fabric matters a lot for the top skin, but not for the bottom, as long as it is not so much that cell pressurization suffers. I put a few hundred jumps on a PD210 9 cell (non zero P material) and it was great for me at a WL of 1.2. The canopy had 7 jumps on it when I bought it, basically new, but it didn't land so well after the first hundred. So, what I did was spray 3M scotchgard on the top skin (and it soaked into the rest of it), really soaked it about 3 times, and I know it improved the flare performance. The thing suddenly was able to plane out like it did when it was new. I jumped it for about 100 jumps after I coated the sucker, the stuff did not harm the fabric. I do realize that many will say that others have tried to coat non-zero P fabric with silicones and other such stuff (there is probably a silicone spray that might be even more effective) to make them effectively more zero P, and the results have been hard openings and blown canopies on opening, but I had none of those problems at all. I understand some will say it is not right to in effect encourage others to do the same, but I actually tried it instead of just saying what I think it will do. Perhaps the scotchguard reduced the porosity enough without it being too much, I don't know. I was willing to risk it - if the result was bad I was going to want a new canopy anyway and my old one was basically worthless also. Getting back to the original thread topic, I think ZP fabric remains close enough to ZP for a very long time, close enough that canopies still flare well with a lot of jumps on them. The amount of air leaking through ZP fabric after 1 or 2k jumps is still likely a lot less than what you'd have from non-ZP fabric when it is new. 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

I hope you meant "peas" as in pea gravel. That is an unusual mistake to make on the keyboard, so I do wonder. 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

Quite right! A packer is very unlikely to care about checking for twisted steering lines, which I think is a primary cause of knotted line type malfunctions. A packer isn't going to be nearly as careful at setting the brakes, stowing the excess, and many other things where being careful and neat can make a difference. 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

The backpad location for the control leaves it vulnerable to damage from setting/tossing the rig down on the backpad, if that is done in a rough manner. even if you don't intend to be rough on it like this, it can happen because you forget to be gentle, or when packers are handling your rig. The location inside the yoke can be vulnerable to damage if you have the habit of standing a rig up on the yoke. I've seen a small number of people do that, many more people tossing their rig down on the backpad, not thinking about the potential damage to the control unit. Just a reminder that there is a potential downside that you might not have considered. Also, I don't think you can really, properly do a reserve pin check just by sneaking a peek at it from the side. I think opening the flap completely is needed to check the condition of the loop, check for a bent pin, pull on the cable... 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

Pretty sure Jim West is still flying a Westwind at Skydive Greene County in Zenia OH. Their website says they have 2 of them, in Xenia. 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

...which of course is why students using rounds, for many jumps, not anticipating at all is part of the training (so newbies are told to look out at the horizon to prevent it). The brain will not only anticipate wrong, but the natural reaction is often to pull the legs up as part of that incorrect anticipation. Pchapman probably knows this, but I thought it was worth an emphasis for others that are jumping rounds. 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

Quite right. What used to be called a "factory pack" for main canopies was very close to a propack but done on the ground, and is often called a flat pack by those that haven't been around so long. I've seen riggers start a reserve with a factory pack then tidy it up into a propack. This seems like a good way to do it, as tension is applied all the way to the top skin as the line groups are laid on top of each other, but I'm not a rigger. Does anyone do a standing propack and not take the time to tidy it up cell by cell on the ground? It seems that if yes, then there is no difference. 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

That would be different, to jump a DC-10! A slightly different bird than what they have. 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