winsor

Using the sunroof in military aircraft is not a recreational activity. My standard questions to someone who has done so are: 1) Where did you regain consciousness (often a different country or geographic region)? 2) How long were you hospitalized? 3) Have you fully recovered yet? It sounds like I'm joking, but I'm not - and someone who has gone through the process tends to take the questions seriously. I hope it works out for you, and thank you for going in harm's way for us. Blue skies, Winsor

Gloves are a requirement? I only wear them when it gets cold. About the only time I don't wear gloves is for naked jumps. There can be all kinds of sharp pieces of metal on which to cut one's hands within and without the airplane, and it makes a slippery mess when you're trying to grab handles. In addition, I no longer have the kind of calluses that allow me to grip the oddly shaped metal of some floater handles with impunity. Blue skies, Winsor

First off, that should have been vee squared over cee squared (typo on my part), which is a vector operation (dot or cross product?) over a scalar operation. It's a mismatch that most people miss, and gives rise to much comic-book fizix. As far as turning in the headwind vs. tailwind scenario, it sounds like you're describing a turn in a continuous block of air, e.g., no wind shear. It is the wind shear that makes things interesting - and sometimes painful. If wind shear wasn't enough, dead air behind obstacles can result in rotors, which suck REGARDLESS of your direction of entry. Blue skies, Winsor

Bill, This part is what's confusing. Please explain the relationship to the 20 kts groundspeed and a faster airspeed? Blues, J.E. Physics 101 - we're talking VELOCITY here, not speed. The difference between the two is that velocity is a vector quantity, where it has both magnitude and direction. When you have a tailwind and descend into dead air, the airspeed your canopy sees is your initial airspeed PLUS the difference between the tailwind and the dead air. If you are flying into a headwind and descend into dead air, the airspeed your canopy sees is your initial airspeed MINUS the difference between the headwind and the dead air. Thus, if you have a canopy airspeed of 20 mph and a tailwind to clear the tall trees of 20 mph (and no turbulence, of course, to keep the model simple), when you drop below the trees and hit air that isn't moving with regard to the ground you're going through it at 40 mph, and will likely balloon like a bastard. If you're going into a headwind of 20 mph with your 20 mph canopy and come down behind the same trees, you go from a vertical descent with 20 mph airspeed to zip for airspeed in dead air. If you're hanging on the brakes, you'll likely stall and arrive in whatever configuration the canopy sees fit to deliver you (a broken coccyx is cheap tuition for that lesson). If you're in full flight, the canopy will likely surge forward and slap you into the ground in that direction. Don't worry, even Einstein screwed up the distinction between scalars and vectors upon occasion (what's the value of V^2/C^?). Blue skies, Winsor

I definitely recommend leaving the brakes alone while working with the canopy. Also, I won't screw with it if I'm in more than a carving turn - if it's spinning, I go right to Plan B. The only lineover I've cleared was by grabbing BOTH of the risers on the offending side (right hand on right rear riser and left hand on right front riser) and hauling down vigorously. It just popped clear, and I had an uneventful skydive thereafter. Regardless of how high you think you open, remember to limit your attempts to clear the malfunction so that you can cut away above your hard deck if it doesn't all work out. Something you could clear on a hop and pop at 13,500 might just kill you if you persevorate starting at 3,000. Put another way, give it a couple of earnest tries, then chop if it stays mal'd. Blue skies, Winsor

It doesn't have to open properly per se, you just have to land it. If you chop, you lose. Blue skies, Winsor

At last count I had 132 some-odd rifles, pistols and shotguns (including black powder but excluding air). I load for 6 gauges and maybe 30 metallic centerfire calibers (I rate .38/.357 or 10mm/.40S&W as duplicates), from .25acp to .50 BMG, with at least 9 presses of various description. I guess the answer is a qualified "yes." Blue skies, Winsor

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. You will note that the number and type of lines is the same in both a Sabre 107 and a 230, and the line attachment points are of identical material and construction. Your main concern is not equipment failure, since the rig will generally stand greater stresses than will the jumper. If you're opening hard enough to risk split cells or broken lines, Mr. Bill is going to be one unhappy camper (not so bad for Sluggo). Get as slow as you can at exit, and pitch as soon as you're clear of the aircraft. Blue skies, Winsor

Thats one of the advantages of a bungee PC. If the bungee breaks or wears out, you have a regular PC. Sparky Advantages over what? A kill line pilot chute has the same characteristic. Bungee pilot chutes are strictly from hunger. If you jump a Class V canopy, a bungee pilot chute is an invitation to disaster. Blue skies, Winsor

Eastern Flight Sports. I have one of their jumpsuits.

1987-07-15 12:15

Now, I'm a bit puzzled here. I know a lot of African-Americans that skydive, but none of them are negroes. I also know quite a few blacks who skydive, but none of them are from Africa. I suppose you are using that newfangled "politically correct" terminology, but I have seen more confusion resulting from the use of NewSpeak than would seem warranted by using terminology that was perfectly okay for the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr.. If you stick with the sport for a while you will note various nationalities that dominate above and beyond what mere demographics would suggest, and others whose absence is unexplainable in terms of weather conditions or income restraints. One thing I've found is that unless one is a nubile Breasted-American (or singularly operational foreigner, for that matter), one can expect a period of being an outsider before becoming accepted in the sport. Some people take it personally and are never seen again, and others weather being treated as tyros until they have earned acceptance in the community. If someone takes the attitude that "you guys are just being hard on me because I'm , and would treat me better otherwise," odds are they will go away with the idea that skydivers are a crowd likely to be hostile to them. If someone says "those guys are all losers, and they're just jealous because I went to College" or some such rot, odds are they'll be history before someone sets them straight. The people with whom I look forward to jumping come from a wide spectrum of nationalities, religions, occupations, sexual orientation and all that, and it annoys the hell out of me when someone sees fit to make a big deal about it one way or another. The most racist/sexist/etc, drivel often appears in the guise of egalitarianism, and I find it offensive. The title of this thread is a prime example. Blue skies, Winsor

I've seen it done from 80' with a BASE rig and a static launch, and 240' with a skydiving rig from an airplane. It's kind of a hackneyed, Hollywood way to get away from the usual "bad dudes," and not terribly practical in reality. Blue skies, Winsor

One school of thought is that safety should be regulated into existence. With enough safety rules, it becomes almost certain that someone will inadvertently obey one, thus avoiding danger. Another approach is to buy safety. By that theory if someone gets hurt it's because they didn't spend enough money - they should have bought another device or attended more seminars or paid for more advice. As luck would have it, USPA seems intent upon sparing us the dilemma of picking one or another - they ensure by regulation that we spend enough money to be safe! No longer does one have to corner someone with thousands of jumps and years in the sport in order to do low-key drill dives or get advice about how to stay alive and in one piece. We now have mandated that a Trained Professional (tm) will give the benefit of their recent personal experience with the training process, intent upon earning their fee. You get what you pay for, right? Man, that's progress. I get a warm, fuzzy feeling from the sure knowledge that our best interests come first and foremost with the people we entrust with the decision making in our sport. Blue skies, Winsor

I didn't say he was found innocent, I said he IS innocent - I'm aware of the distinction. He was found not guilty of the charges because he is innocent of the crime.

I just looked at the Coach Rating material at USPA's website, and strongly disagree with everything you say. For me to blow three days on material I've covered from all sorts of angles over the last 40 years (most of it is a repeat of Boy Scout material, with a little altitude thrown in) is asking a lot. To have me pay for the privelege is adding income to insult. I had to get recertified as a SCUBA diver about 20 years ago, since the card in my wallet came from an organization long derunct, and I couldn't get it replaced when it was stolen. The instructor was trying to explain theory she had memorized, but didn't inherently understand. It was a massive waste of time, and it still annoys the hell out of me that I was forced to go through with it. To have somebody put me through the same sort of "Dick and Jane go Skydiving" course would be more than I could stomach, particularly if I had to keep a straight face for three days. If you paid me enough, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. For someone just trying to figure out what skydiving's all about, getting the rating might be a good way to come up to speed. The fact that jumping with low-timers became the prerogative of people who have the course under their belt is just plain offensive. I might bite the bullet and go for it one of these years, but can't bring myself to do so as of yet. Blue skies, Winsor

This one should allow for multiple answers. My newest rig is like a '98, and my oldest (assembled) rig is from maybe '63. The oldest rig I jump routinely is a late '70s Wonderhog (I have three of them), set up with a D-bagged ParaCommander. As far as relatively normal rigs, mine were all made in the '90s. Blue skies, Winsor

Regardless of opinions, Mike didn't do it. He was acquitted because he is innocent. I'll jump with him anytime, and am honored to have him as a friend. Blue skies, Winsor

I have 9 of them, and think they're great for my purposes. I have three Elites, all of which have reserves much larger than the mains and work just fine. The various conventional Racers are set up with canopies ranging from 150 sq. ft. ellipticals to Raven IVs for accuracy/demo use. If you have to wear a rig all day, you will be hard pressed to find one more comfortable than the Racer. As far as the repack goes, it is no tougher than any other rig and easier than quite a few. It helps to know a few tricks (I don't even own bodkins, but use microline & hemostats), though even the standard procedures are pretty straightforward. If someone can't pack a Racer, I'm not sure I'd give them my business with something they think they can pack properly. I have jumped rather a wide range of rigs, and have a great deal of faith in the quality and reliability of most any of the popular models. I have a great deal of respect for all of the gear manufacturers I know, and trust their competence, professionalism and integrity. Though I have three Wonderhogs for ParaCommander and Bridge jumps, as well as a Mirage and a Corsair for reasons I can't recall, I stick with Racers as my personal choice. They have served me well. Blue skies, Winsor

Hell, we expect four points from a 4-way from 3,500 feet. 5,500 is nosebleed freefall territory by comparison. At 2,500 feet you are limited to not much more than playing with the canopy, but I have seen a jump made successfully at 240' AGL with CRW gear from a C-185. 10 seconds from the step to the peas. Blue skies, Winsor

Well, if your drive to the DZ involves washing a Quaalude down with whiskey before leaving and trying to get there before it kicks in, I can see where the driving part could be a tad risky. In general, however, the "driving more dangerous than skydiving" theory is reflective of active denial more than anything. If you look at skydiving as the act of committing suicide and intervening at the last moment (kind of like playing chicken with the planet), it's hard to put normal traffic patterns in the same category. If your statistical analysis indicates otherwise, you could use a more rigorous study of stochastics. Scientists didn't "prove" that a bumblebee can't fly; a bumblebee established to a high level of assurance that the scientists in question needed to work on their models. Blue skies, Winsor

Go toward the light.

I don't know from crack in particular, since I have been clean and sober since before it became popular. From where I sit it all looks about the same. My personal observation is that the biggest difference between skydiving and narcotics is that with heroin the first one's always free. Blue skies, Winsor

I highly recommend the book "DB Cooper - the real McCoy." Bernie Rhodes and Russell Calame make a compelling case that "Dan Cooper" was, in fact, one Richard Floyd McCoy Jr, who was killed in a shootout with Federal authorities while an escapee from prison. He was given a 45 year sentence for a subsequent hijacking, which was similar enough to the first to seem like a repeat performance rather than a copycat crime. Amazon has it for pretty steep prices; I was able to find it some time back Blue skies, Winsor

Well, I don't know, but it seems to me that there are a whole lot of people out there that don't/won't flat track. I've been on a whole bunch of big-ways in the last year, from coast to coast, and on every one I've seen people (experienced skydivers even) diving steeply away instead of flat tracking. These people are a hazard, the organizers never seem to do anything about it, yet every organizer pays lip-service to safety. Yeah, I have been stunned upon occasion to watch BIG NAMES in the sport doing a sinking delta below me. It's not quite as bad as doing a standup out of the formation, but sinking out during the track certainly has some of the drawbacks. I'd rather be above people than below them from the standpoint of avoidance, but my first preference is to have everyone on the same level. A good flat track has many things to recommend it, chief among them is the maximum separation between breakoff and opening altitudes. If everyone is on the same plane, you only have to scan one dimension (the line of the horizon) to find everyone - the principle behind a fixed pattern altitude. When people have fall rates that diverge greatly after breakoff, it takes much more work to spot everyone, since they can be anywhere in the picture (where's Waldo?). It's fun to jump with people with fantastic freefall skills, but I prefer to jump with people with fantastic lifesaving skills. The Golden Knights come to mind as jumpers with brilliant freefall skills, superb safety procedures, and they're the nicest people you'd ever want to meet - proof that you can have it all (at least they can...). Blue skies, Winsor