winsor

Not at all. The ribs on a frap hat can focus an impact on one of the plates of the skull, thus increasing the likelihood and severity of a skull fracture. The utility of a frap hat is for carrying gloves, altimeter and whatnot, as well as keeping a dirt-alert against the ear and reducing injury from sharp metal in the airplane. For protection against impact a frap hat is junk, and may well be worse than nothing at all. I wear frap hats, and try not to hit my head. Blue skies, Winsor

Changing the order is a good idea. Like the observation that you can smoke then drink but had best not drink then smoke, sky then scuba is a whole lot better than scuba then sky. Getting bent sucks. Blue skies, Winsor

Okay, okay, so it's a bad idea to try to land a cheapo as though it was a Sabre. For those of you who don't already know, burying the toggles on a modified round does not induce a flare - it results in an immediate SINK. Should you apply both brakes vigorously at around 20', the amount of time you have to set up for a PLF will be reduced severly. If you are jumping a round like it's a round and are already set up for a PLF, it will just be a bit more vigorous a landing than usual. If, however, you are lacksadaisical and expect to snap into PLF position at the last second, there's a good chance you can hit asymmetrically and break something (like a tarsal). This is particularly true if you're wearing TEVAs instead of Paraboots. There's nothing wrong with an old 7-TU if you jump it accordingly. If you wish to make it up as you go along, the "if you're going to be dumb, you have to be tough" rule of thumb applies. Blue skies, Winsor

Uh, I landed my 99 loaded at 2:1 last week with the pilot chute inflated. No biggie; it just flew kind of funky but landed as softly as I could have asked. Blue skies, Winsor

My highest is something like 23,500 feet out of Mullins' plane. One's blood boils at something like 64,000 feet, but you'd surely get bent well below that altitude. You first. He can make it if he maintains a nominal 3.7:1 glide ratio from 30 k, to include the canopy flight portion. If he has really honking tailwinds (often available at altitude) and substantial throw from the aircraft pointed at France on exit, perhaps in a slight climb at as high a speed as he could handle, he can make it. I jump for fun, and this would not appear to qualify. Blue skies, Winsor

49:17

Driving is more dangerous than skydiving. Well, at least if you are driving to the hospital to get your stomach pumped after finding that the aspirin you washed down with tequila were actually quaaludes, and you only have a car with bald tires and bad brakes at the top of the mountain with winding roads without guardrails between you and medical attention. Under normal conditions, however, skydiving is one hell of a lot more dangerous than driving. Blue skies, Winsor

Canada Short season, otherwise great. Germany Reasonable and very nice. Switzerland Short season, costly, good community. Austria Most expensive, limited jump window. France Reasonable with outstanding infrastructure. Italy Great fun, but too long ago for opinion to matter. Scotland Great fun, but too long ago for opinion to matter. Blue skies, Winsor

For anyone coming to Rantoul who is interested in jumping rounds, we will have a variety of airworthy gear at Load Organizer Tent 3. There will be at least a couple of ParaCommanders D-bagged in Wonderhogs with BOC throwouts (no CYPRES) and likely the odd cheapo. If you're bringing any kind of a round, please touch base so we can organize an all-round formation. Perhaps we'll see how many people we can get into a baton-pass dive; at Quincy all we got was a two-way. In any event, for people who have never jumped a round this is an opportunity to experience the best of the breed. Blue skies, Winsor

17:49 6:2,200 logged Lost handle Line knot Broken lines Lineover Unidentified spin (probably lost toggle) Line over Blue skies, Winsor

When Mike bought 9HW it had PT6-28 engines, which develop 680 horsepower, and three-blade props. Since then he has installed PT6-34 engines, rated at 750 horsepower a side, as well as C-90 air intakes and four-blade props. When he had the -28s it was the fastest ship in the business. IIRC the engines are derated to the stress limits of the airframe, but the larger motors allow him to develop full power to altitude. At Coolidge a few years back he took up a light load, maybe 5 jumpers. He was only going to 13,500, but it only took him 5 1/2 minutes from rotation to cut. In addition to having the best climbing plane in the business, Mike is the guy you want at the controls if lots of lights start flashing on the panel. He's very good at what he does. Blue skies, Winsor

If you know how to pack, it's all about the same. I can show you how to get either one in the bag with a minimum of effort (stop by Tent 3 if you're at the Convention). As far as performance goes, the difference between a 210 and a 190 isn't great enough to warrant the expenditure. Since you feel the 210 is a dog, it's probably a good canopy to keep on hand for night jumps and other cases where a lot of control on landing are useful. My exit weight is also 200#, and I jump canopies from 99 to 282 sq. ft.. They're all fun. I wouldn't feel screwed if the only canopy I had on hand was a Sabre 210, and probably would have to work at it to fly it to anywhere near the limit of its performance. You could do worse than to jump the hell out of your 210, and consider adding a smaller canopy to your lineup when you have hundreds of jumps on it. Jumping the odd demo for comparison in the meantime is not a bad idea, but you can learn some serious canopy control under your 210. Rather than looking to downsize while your main is still operational, why not wear it out with repeated use and get your money's worth out of it? If it opens reliably and gets you to the ground in one piece time and again, it would appear to be holding up its end of the bargain. I don't know anyone who wore out their first canopy that wishes they had downsized sooner. Stick around and you'll have plenty of time to jump all sorts of canopies. Blue skies, Winsor

Until the CYPRES came along (and Tommy Piras bounced) nobody USED one of them unless so required (student or whatever). With CYPRES aboard, low-pull contests became futile. People rapidly found out that deploying a little late was an invitation to discover personal CRW, and getting a repack and new cutter(s) every jump proved dear. Snivelly canopies really didn't take hold until after the CYPRES was firmly established. Blue skies, Winsor

You all can argue back and forth all you want regarding who is qualified to jump what canopy. You may or may not be right. What I want to see is some way to get a handle on people impacting at high speeds under perfectly good parachutes. One way to start is to somehow link canopy size to experience. "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. That is, however, the way to bet." If you have 107 jumps and want to jump a Class V canopy, fine. Jump your ass off and get some quality experience under your belt and you'll have all the qualifications anyone could ask for soon enough. If it's not that important, don't sweat it. I have just as much fun under Class I canopies as I do under Class V. I jump both about equally. If you want to learn how to drive like a maniac, the best thing to do is to push the envelope in a car suited to learning - something forgiving that you can beat the shit out of without concern. Something from Hertz, for example, Then, when you get ahold of a Ferrari, powerslides, bootlegs and the like are second nature. Trust me. It is said that the limits of the Kodak Brownie have yet to be reached (by professional photographers). I have shot a couple of rolls of Tri-X with a fixed focal length rangefinder camera and wound up with a two-page spread for my efforts, while someone using Kodachrome in an SLR with all the bells and whistles burned up a mess of film and had nothing but badly composed and framed snapshots for his effort (in all fairness, he didn't know the difference and was quite pleased) - not one photograph in the lot. If you can fly a Triathalon loaded at 1 psf to anything like the limit of its capabilities, you are one hell of a canopy pilot and don't really need something loaded at 2:1 to have lots of fun. If you are going to practice landing with rear risers, steering with combinations of all six major controls and exploring the world of canopy formation flight, it isn't a good idea to do it under something ground-hungry and unforgiving. if you're going to stick around in the sport, you will have plenty of opportunity to fly radical equipment all you want by any of the policies that are under consideration. If you're tenure in the sport is likely to be brief in any event, don't sweat it. In the meantime, please focus on developing the skillset that will keep you out of the incident roster. THAT is the real goal here. Blue skies, Winsor

What if one's opinion is that they never wish to hear such a sound? Then earplugs or another hobby are in order. Unfortunately, if you stick around this sport long enough you are likely to be on hand when someone does something terminal. It's nasty. Typically there are two effects to someone impacting. One is that there is a surge in students whose awareness of the DZ came from the report on the 6 O'clock news. The other is that some people who witnessed the event never come back. Sometimes they sell their gear, and other times it just goes in a closet forever. Blue skies, Winsor

Your basic squareback Racer Elite, 400/400 cu. in.. The reserve fits just fine with a CYPRES, and the main is controlled by the closing loop. Being crossbraced, it packs bigger than its size would indicate. My other Elites have 175 and 200 sq. ft. Swift Plus reserves, but I think bigger is better. Blue skies, Winsor

I would think that you would have to agree that you would have to start out on a cessna before you would have to progress to a F-14, yeah??? Why bother? The thing is equipped with a simply teriffic ejection seat, and it would be a waste not to use it. Knowing what you're doing is imperative only if you expect to LAND the thing. Blue skies, Winsor

FWIW, I don't undo my chest strap either. I toss the rig on like a pullover and put my feet through the legstraps; I take it off in reverse order. It's not so much a safety issue - I'm just lazy. Blue skies, Winsor

This is one issue that's a sore point with me. I have a couple of mains that I load over 2:1, but the reserves in those rigs are 1:1 or less. That's a 99 in the main pack tray, with a 218 reserve. A reserve is not just another canopy. You may be using it because someone broke your collarbone in a furball on exit, and YOU CAN'T FLARE! You may be otherwise injured such that you can only ride in with the brakes still set, steering by shifting in the saddle. You may be over all sorts of interesting things and very low, as a result of the reason you pulled silver in the first place. The runway necessary to swoop in your tiny reserve without injury may be simply unavailable. You may have your vision obscured by blood on your goggles or in your eyes (been there, done that). You may be alive but unconscious under your reserve, but succumb to an uncontrolled downwind landing (it's happened). I have NEVER been under a reserve and looked up with the thought "ah, I could have gone smaller...." If your container is too small to get a reserve that will save your life, get another container. When you're deep in the beeps, you have had enough near-death experiences for one day. You don't need to be trading one emergency for another. Blue skies, Winsor

I contend that the statistics, as discussed so far, are little more than a red herring. FWIW, I find the idea of more regulations repellent. Once in place, regs take on a life of their own and tend to serve purposes that little resemble their original intent. this is primarily what we are discussing. what defines 'time in grade'? well this i dont understand. what exactly is the difference between 1000 and 100x10? neither number tells us of currency, or of training or natural ability or weather and terrain conditions i fail to see the difference you are eluding to. everyone want those tools, reduction of injury is always a worthy goal. What we dont want is to be forced to use them unless you can show clear evidence that they should be required. there is no argument as to if they would be beneficial to nearly everyone, and should be developed, incorporated into student training programs and studied by those who wish to pursue them once licensed. We should also make it a point to greatly encourage any and everyone to seek training and education where ever possible, but that does not justify making them requirements without clear evidence that there is a definitive increase in the number of injuries/deaths under HP canopies out of proportion to the total number of canopies being flown and the number of jumps being made on them. btw. i love how your assumption that my opinion will change once i have seen more people die skydiving, as if people dont die everywhere every day. Participation is sports such as skydiving merely increases your proximity to it. Increased participation can unfortunately also increase the frequency with which it is observed. That knowledge does not change my opinion, but we can certainly argue about it 10 years from now if you like.Quote I am going by my observation of people's reaction to incidents over the years, and merely meant to indicate that I had a hunch that your standpoint would evolve. I do not claim to have a global perspective on the dangers of the sport, but have found that my viewpoint has been affected by the dozens of incidents I've witnessed and/or cleaned up after. I've seen people pull off things that I would have said "no way!" until they did it, and I've seen people die from the unlikeliest combination of events, that ganged up on them to their detriment. The net result is not that I am more sure of my preconceived model. Quite the opposite, I take a lot less for granted than I may have at one time. The one factor that stands out to me as related to safety is attitude. It takes ego to exit, but it's humility that gets you down in one piece time and again. You can't pass a BSR that will infuse our community with the kind of attitude that keeps incidents to a minimum. You can, however, commit to working toward a cooperative environment where the learning curve is steep and tuition is cheap. I have been lucky to jump with people having a great attitude. The price for doing so is to try to pass it on. Blue skies, Winsor

Well, for some years now I have been a Load Organizer at the Convention, spending 10 days at a time working with people having less than 200 jumps. Some of our participants have thousands, and are there just to have fun without pressure. I get around enough that I'm pretty much a known quantity, and have been asked at different times to jump with neophytes and keep them out of trouble by DZOs and S&TAs in Wisconsin, Puerto Rico, Vermont, New Jersey, Georgia, Alabama, Maryland, Illinois, Indiana, New York, Germany, Virginia, Florida and Tennessee off the top of my head. I don't think I am shirking my responsibility by much. The thing that rankles me is that I am no longer deemed qualified to do so, and that someone who has blown a weekend and paid the fees is - regardless of our relative experience levels. I was certified to SCUBA dive in 1968, but had to get recertified in toto after my wallet was lifted some time back (the original certifying agency no longer existed). In order to justify charging me the full price, I had to sit through a prepackaged course assembled by people with a much weaker background than I have, and I found it galling. My gut reaction is that there is a conflict of interest issue at work, and it offends me that securing fiefdoms could take precedence over safety. Maybe I'm a cynic, but in an environment where people can charge to teach freefall skills but can't make a living teaching parachute flying skills you have people who can freefly and turn points with the best of them but can't fly their parachutes to save their lives - literally. There appears to be a correlation here. I don't care one way or another if someone can turn all kinds of points if they jump with me. I do want them to stay heads-up, maintain good eye contact, break at a proper altitude, track properly, deploy with plenty of room and altitude and land their parachute safely. The rest is just details, and there are professional instructors to teach them. By retaining amateur status, I can have jumpers on my loads whose goal is to have fun and keep it safe. Such people as wish to push the envelope go elsewhere. If I get the ratings, I am accepting a professional responsibility to convey the fundamentals, and it becomes a job. I have had better luck with people who accept responsibility for themselves, and pay attention to information that can keep them alive and in one piece. I may break down and get a Coach rating, but the very idea annoys the hell out of me. Blue skies, Wisnor

all of those are single point observations. Put them together and you have a body of anecdotal evidence, which when combined with non-observational information can be used to draw conclusions. Drawing conclusions without the background data is alot like trying to guess someone’s height from a photograph lacking another reference point. Is the problem "real" or has the perception of the problem increased? (i'm not arguing either here, i'm trying to show you the questions that have yet to be answered) if HP canopies are now more easily available then they are being flown more, has the incident rate for HP canopies increased OUT OF PROPORTION to their increased use? got any observations to show that it has or has not? Hard to say with only single point observations.. think about it... if 10 HP canopies are being flown 1 injury is a significant percentage...if 10000 are flying 100 injuries is not.. without good data it is impossible to determine the scope of the issue I love it when people bandy statistics about like this. Okay, for a little background for who would appear to have missed the lead-up to the situation in which we now find ourselves. Zero-P and elliptical canopies became available around 1990, more or less. The Sabre became the gold standard, and for quite a while if someone botched a high-performance landing there were better than even odds that they did it under a Sabre. Hook turn/avoidance turn injuries have been with us since well before the zero-P/elliptical era, and I know too many people who broke backs or died under Delta Clouds or big Falcons. With the increase in wing loading possible with zero-P, hook turn injuries became more severe overall, and "femur" is now commonly used in the verb form. Seeking answers in statistics is a waste of time when a clear picture is available by inspection of the physics involved. With increased wing loading comes increased speed (in general). The net effect of this increase in speed is twofold - things happen faster and they do so with greater energy & momentum. The same error that will result in an ambulance ride under a Class 2 canopy will entail a trip to the morgue under a Class 5 canopy. I have a decent amount of experience, and am still impressed by how fast things happen when loading a cross-braced elliptical at 2 psf. You can talk statistics until you are blue in the face, but I have witnessed enough serious injuries that were a direct result of, or exacerbated by, high wingloading that I don't consider the point debatable. It's a stark reality. In aviation the key is to survive the first couple of hundred hours of flying time. In skydiving I won't go by numbers so much as time in grade. Since people can go to turbine dropzones and bang out as many jumps as they can afford, it's hard to distinguish between a thousand jumps and a hundred jumps ten times. If you lose a few friends, it is hard to tell the trends from the anomalies. If you stick around for a few decades, the patterns become pretty clear. You have a right to your opinions, but if you survive and stay on the scene, I have a hunch that your opinions will not be the same in a few years as they are now. In the meantime, I want to come up with tools to help more of us stay alive and in one piece. Blue skies, Winsor

Perhaps I am. OTOH, I do not aspire to be an instructor. That's a job, and I do not wish to make skydiving work. If I could just get a rating without a lot of fuss, I suppose I might. Unfortunately, the process is inconvenient as hell and a real pain in the ass. I'm not sure that the hazing involved in getting ratings serves to get the best and the brightest so much as those willing to endure the hazing for whatever reason. If an evaluator saw fit to participate in a couple of skydives I organized for low timers and treat them as evaluation dives, I might go for that. To try to get me to follow a standardized approach on the basis of someone else's agenda, on my time and with me footing the bill isn't likely to work. Blue skies, Winsor

Ron, The reason I let you jump a Blue Track with such little experience is because you had been doing CRW with Doug Wolf, who vouched for your attitude under canopy, and that you agreed to follow a very conservative flight plan. The Blue Track is not fast, but it is responsive as hell, and had a bad reputation for hitting the ground before the jumper in a panic turn. I kept a picture on my wall at work for years, showing Lake Wales with a canopy in the way - burying a toggle in level flight will put the canopy directly below you. Going from a Raven I to a twitchy elliptical takes some mental planning, and I wanted to be sure you understood that a low-level avoidance turn was potentially much worse than the collision itself. The problem with the regs you suggest is that they would disqualify me from giving the preflight briefing. I'm not an instructor or a coach or any of that. I've made thousands of jumps over the last thirty years, and Fluid Mechanics is my Mechanical Engineering field of expertise, but someone that knows no more than what is taught in the USPA syllabus and has met the minimum experience requirements would be able to teach what I could not. I don't charge to teach neophytes how to pack, and I organize low-timers just to give back to the sport. I'm already forbidden to jump with unlicensed jumpers without a mother-may-I from someone who might wish to charge to do so themselves. I fear that canopy regulations would serve to further cut people like me out of the loop. Even with the proliferation of first-class professional operations, I think that safety can best be promoted by means of community rather than bureaucracy. Don't assume that I'm too competent for you to give my gear a once-over. If you see something that might be misrouted, tell me! If I do something unsafe, don't be shy - point it out! I may not even realize that I cut someone off or whatever. I agree that letting safety sort itself out isn't working as well as I would like. Incidents like the one that started this thread are too common for my liking. I'm leery about rules in general, since they tend to take on a life of their own. I will give some thought to operational tools that we can all use to improve our collective safety - hopefully ones that are enough fun to be worthwhile - and put them forth for comment. Blue skies, Winsor

Let's see, these are the ones that come to mind offhand: Balloons, tethered (800') and free Beech 18 (Twin Beech), Twin Bonanza, Queen Air, King Air 90 & 200 Bell UH-1 and 412 Boeing Vertol CH-47 Boeing Stearman SNJ (? - "yellow peril") Boeing 727 Cessna 150/152, 172, 180, 185, 205/206/207 (including an Allison Turbine model), Caravan CASA 212 (?) DeHavilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou and DHC-6 Twin Otter Douglas DC-3/C-47 Lockheed C-130 and C-141 Helio Stallion Pilatus Porter Piper Cherokee, Navajo Chieftain Shorts Skyvan In general the turbines do better at higher altitudes, so 182s aren't ususally mainfested for loads into Class A airspace. Big radials tend to be toads above 10 grand as well, At 182 DZs people tend to know how to skydive. They can take off a chunk from an awkward exit, and are turning points on the hill. They don't have much altitude to waste, so they learn how to use it. They can't put together 16 ways that take six grand to build. Another nice thing about C-182s is that you're not competing for landing space with 23 other parachutists. It's a lot easier to keep track of three other parachutes, and it only takes one that you missed to kill you ('bye, Roger). I was just missed by someone flying a nonstandard pattern this Saturday (out of an Otter), and problems on short final I can do without. In general, fast is good. If you want to know what I'm talking about, get on some of Mike Mullins' loads - that man can get to altitude FAST, and flies a great jumprun. As far as exit goes, tailgates tend to be the most flexible and forgiving. Flexible and forgiving can lead to lax performance, and I doubt if you're going to see 8-ways build faster than the A-team out of Mullins's King Air, so it's all relative. Raft dives, tubes and what have you are better suited to tailgates, but that has little to do with high performance skydives. Also, doing big ways out of a C-130 is easier than a DC-3 from the standpoint of getting everyone out of the plane in short order. They're all good, and I'll jump just about anything but a Twin Bo or Queen Air again. The GSIO motors on those airplanes tend to fail (I've bailed out of two of them when engines crapped out), and they're most likely to do so in that window of opportunity after rotation where the pilot has no Plan B. My preferred method of suicide is old age, thank you very much. If you have a C-182 on hand, you're in good shape. You can develop all the skills you need to survive for a long time, and have a grand time doing so. Blue skies, Winsor