ps5601

Several people have repeatedly insisted on the "first man down" method, due to the serious dangers presented by people landing in different directions. There is a simple solution to this, one I have seen at several DZs, generally those where you can expect to see lots (30 - 80) canopies in the air at once. You have a big f*ckoff arrow on the DZ pointing in the direction in which everyone is to land. The arrow is controlled by ground staff and NOT the wind. In light and variable winds the landing direction is obvious to all. Everyone is able to set and fly their pattern, not having to watch who is down when. If the winds change then the ground staff (normally DZ control) can move the arrow as required. Can the advocates of first man down please post a valid reason as to why they would prefer to use first man down method over the big, easy to read and understand, manually controlled arrow? Blue skies Paul

Around a year or more ago I had a reserve re-pack and the packer also did my main (Springo 140 loaded at aroud 1.35:1). The initial opening was very nice, until the end cells inflated. At which time my canopy had a massive surge forward, started to dive and turn - fast. However my lines were all straight. Upon reaching up to remove my brakes and flare (to recover from the diving turn) I found that both my brakes were unstowed. In over 1000 jumps I have never had a brake fire, and it appears a little too coincidental that I suddenly have 2 brake fires at the same time, so I have to assume that it was packed that way. Needless to say, I was not best pleased. Blue skies Paul

In opion the "first man down rule" sucks. I open at 2,000 - 2,500ft . From there I can see if the wind direction or strength has changed significantly pretty quickly (my DZ has several flags, and wind socks of differing sizes). I generally do about a 120 into landing, so I fly to a suitable holding point before starting a pattern (note also that my home DZ has a landing area near to the centre for those with 800+ jumps). However, someone else on a hot canopy spirals down 1000+ft below me, and is pretty much over the landing area. There is no way that I can tell in which direction they are setting up for landing, as I don't know what sort of turn they are going to do (lots of people with very similar canopies) and I can't tell how high they are. The first time that I know in which direction they are landing is when I see the canopy hit the deck, by which time I am generally at 1000ft or lower. I have not been sitting directly over the landing area as I don't want to get in other people's way. If I am to change my set up now, I will struggle to be in the correct place at the correct time for my swoop. OK, so I don't get to hook on that load, not the end of the world. However, it is the inconsiderate and selfish nature of the first man down that hoses all those who follow. If the winds are strong, land into wind. If not, follow a pre-determined landing direction. It's not hard. Unfortunately, there are some for whom the rules do not apply, either due to their Skygod status, or because they MUST land into wind. In my opinion, if you are following a first man down rule, then the first man down should fly an easy to follow pattern that ALL can see. Think of others, not just yourself. A further problem with "First man down", is when 2 people come into land "first" almost at the same time, but neither has seen the other until they are too low to do anything about it. I have seen this several times, at different DZs, with some very experienced skydivers. Bit of a rant sorry, but it's a rule that I find stupid and unnecessary. With just a little planning and forethought the problem can be solved. Blue skies Paul

OK, here's one to make you think. There was a program on the BBC last night about the world's top 10 conspiracy theories (moon landing was only #10, sorry). A good point that was made (as to why the landing was fake) was that there was no way that the US government or NASA would have shown the thing live on world wide TV when they had no idea what would happen. The presenter bloke suggested that the possibility of the astronauts getting killed as they stepped off the lander didn't go down well with NASA etc. It was also stated that NASA did do dummy runs in the desert. So. What about the possibility that all the stuff we (well not me, I'm too young) saw live, and the "One small step for man" thing was pre-made and fake, to make sure that nothing nasty was seen? Once the mission was known to be successful the other photos (like the colour ones) were releaed. Before you ask, yes I do think that NASA has landed on the moon, just questioning if the grainy black and white photos that are most often complained about real (including the originaly video footage). Sorry, like stirring the pot Blue ones Paul

The reason is that the reserve is made very differently to the main. Your reserve is much more of a square canopy, but more importantly the gap between the top and bottom skin on the reserve is much larger than on the main (ie your reserve is "deeper" than the main). This results in a much greater level of drag on the reserve, hence you fly slower. On top of that most reserves are F1-11 rather than ZP, I suspect that this also increases the drag on the reserve (though I an not 100% sure about this). Blue ones (they are today as I have to be at work) Paul