FrogNog

I second the front riser thing. My Hornet 190 (which is the same as a Pilot 190) bucks quite a bit when I do front riser turns, or double front riser approaches. I'm lengthening the brake lines bit by bit to see if I can make this better, but I don't hold out much hope. Other than that one thing, the canopy rocks. I think some people complained that it "oversteers" after a turn but I guess I just learned to let up my toggle or riser a bit early and it goes right where I want it. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Hand-tacking the excess inside the steering line with a bit of "E" thread worked for me when my excess line was popping back out of its fingertrap at the toggle knot. I don't know if this would help with the tip of the excess poking out somewhere else. I think the reason this happens is the steering line can get compressed then snapped back to regular length, and since the excess line sleeping inside isn't experiencing the same thing, it can move around. Tacking just helps to hold them together a bit. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

How many jumps did he have? 500 ft seems pretty low! What was the type of jump, where was breakoff supposed to be, and where did he normally pull or plan to pull on this jump? This reminds me that near my DZ, one of the wooded areas is a bit over 500 ft higher than the landing area... -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Worst case so far would be that you get the knife, some stitches, and a cast for a week. It is unfortunate you didn't escape injury, like we want to with every jump, but on the lighter side this isn't super bad luck, all things considered, right? -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Where do you see such a sticker in this picture? - Dan G Well, in this picture I don't. In the Twin Otter at Kapowsin I do. I assume (without knowledge or detailed inspection of the picture) that this bar is also effectively affixed to the skin of the aircraft and not a beefy load-bearing member. Clearly, if this plane has some sort of reinforced doorframe, I would be in error.

Sure, as long as it "fails safe". In a power-out emergency that also indicates immediately dumping the jumpers, there needs to be a way to get the door open. Maybe one of those garage door things where you pull the handle and it disconnects. The problem I see is when the weight and maintenance cost of the door "features" cost more than the benefit created by allowing a quicker descent for the next load. I think it was on diverdriver.com that they pointed out the bulk of turnaround time improvement comes from efficiently flying up; flying down was the lesser part. An electric door isn't going to be weightless. (For that matter, I don't know what the pulley system weighs, either.) -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Sweet; glad to see it looks like they changed the cabin around a bit for skydiving. I was formerly of the mind that the only that was "made factory cool for skydiving" was the bolt-on stuff. Looks like a lot more sweat than I thought. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Besides the excess getting snagged and unstowing the toggle, the toggle itself could have moved and unstowed. I've jumped / packed some rigs where the toggles are supposed to be velcroed down, but the velcro was totally weak, and the "nose" of the toggle wasn't retained by anything. It always seemed like a brake fire on opening waiting to happen.* If the toggle got out of the container and into the air during freefall, I could see it unstowing itself and joining my formation big-time. (* brake fires didn't repeatedly happen, so clearly I was just being a worrywort. But I still like my toggles to be retained.

You can try grabbing the link and bumper at the top of the riser and pull down on that. Not an excellent grip improver, and down low if the bumper slips off at the wrong time it could be bad, but it can make it easier to grab than just plain webbing. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

With adaptations and care, most everything 2-way should be launchable from a side door. Maybe they won't launch as well... -=-=-=-=- Pull.

And there is literature somewhere that says the attachment point has to be part of the aircraft, and certain parts count but other parts don't. Seat components, I seem to recall, don't count, which is why we have these rings bolted into the floor on our 182s. I would suspect that an inside otter bar with a sticker next to it that says "do not hang from bar" would also not be considered sufficiently "structural" to satisfy the literature. Now if someone can just remember where this is written, and whether it is an FAR, a recommendation, or a BSR or what. I thought I saw it in my SIM somewhere... -=-=-=-=- Pull.

If a skunk must be killed... and I'm not a fan of killing animals unnecessarily ... then I've heard opening the top of an egg's shell and pouring some poison into the egg contents and setting that out where he can get it will do the trick. I believe I got that from an old beekeeping book that listed skunks as occasional apiary terrors. Of course, that risks killing any other animal that comes along and decides an egg would make a nice snack. And I forget the precise poison used - I think it was plain rat poison. If you were manly enough, I'd suggest catching and anesthetizing the stinky SOB, washing him up, then getting him to the vet for de-stinking. That would learn him. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Do you know if the rig has a secondary set of cutaway equipment (i.e. for a tertiary canopy)? Could be that he's selling a complete intentional cutaway rig. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

You mean nit, not knit. (And if one looks nit up in the dictionary, nit picker comes from the animal nit, not from the luminous nit.)

Plus it's a C-182 and there were only 3 passengers. (I know it doesn't prove anything. It's just a joke.) -=-=-=-=- Pull.

Our rights begin and end about where we can make them do so. When a jumper is at a DZ, they can look at stuff, talk to people, and make decisions based on that information. But info about somewhere else - like overall skydiving injury rates or the history of a particular DZ a jumper may visit some time - the single jumper can't get. To me this implies a brotherhood concept. The sport is risky for all of us. How risky is it? We'll only know if there is decent reporting. Unfortunately that means reporting what happens at the DZ we're at. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

They're both great, from what I've personally seen, personally packed, and been told. Some recent Mirages I jumped, like a Wings I also jumped, have over-hangy main container side flaps so the PC bridle can be covered 100% of the way from the BOC to the pin. My Infinity tends to have .5" of PC bridle exposed where it exits the BOC and goes under the side flap. I don't think .5" of PC bridle exposure at that point is really going to make a difference in safety. So I decide which rig to get on other factors (which have been well-discussed elsewhere). Back to the post topic: I love my Infinity's main flap. It's tight; I trust it. I think it has more retention force than the Mirage / Wings design (which seemed to just "slip" under its retainer, but the amount of scraping that would be required to dislodge any of these is outside safe skydiving parameters; if the main flap pops open on any of these rigs, I'm going to search for what I did wrong, not a "better" rig.

I think a much earlier effect to consider is that in half brakes, the airfoil shape is wildly different from full flight. The angle of attack of the canopy after it has stabilized in flight will be more dependent on the airfoil shape than vice versa. (In a wing inflated by airspeed, certainly there is some bidirectional dependence between airfoil and angle of attack.) From what I remember about hang gliding (and it's applicable to a lot more flying than that), the characteristic in question here is "sink" (rate). And all the canopies I've jumped (in my entire 14 months in the sport ) have a lower sink in partial brakes than in full flight. The sink isn't low throughout the entire brake range - but it reaches a nadir somewhere in the brake range and is higher in full flight and full brakes. (Duh - just before the canopy stops flying and falls out of the sky. ) [And, while I'm here, "lose" means when something goes away, i.e. it is lost (verb, pronounced "looz"). "Loose" means something that is not fixed, tied down, or retained (adjective) or the act of setting something free or untying / unfixing it (verb - pronounced "loos", as is the adjective).] -=-=-=-=- Pull.

QuoteIt sounds cool, but I wouldn't recommend dumping in full flight.Quote He said in the future. Canopy reefing will get so good we can deploy head-down and get a pillow-soft opening. (In 3,000 feet. ) Although, at that airshow I would expect jump run to be at like 30,000 feet, and the spectators would see it with their bionically-enhanced eyes. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

They're almost there. A perfect word for "best known" exists: notorious. I think that would capture the mood. -=-=-=-=- Pull.

No, it's true that there's no guarantee in being able to correct a lineover. But it might be correctable. Or, to put it another way, messing with it in the proper way for a little bit might correct it. Key is to avoid messing with it too long. It sounds like goose was successful there. (Yay!)

How many Yen would it cost to buy the news story they just got? Answer: about 400,000. If they had paid less than 1,000 Yen per 1,000 Yen bill they counterfeited, then they might not have gotten the story.

Since you are approaching this so technically, it should be noted that the system is more complex. My point was to consider a subset of the parts of the system that would work to cause the undesired outcome (reserve deployment), while ignoring the parts that would work against it, and show that the simplified theory still suggests it was unlikely. The "slop" in my methodology would function as a safety margin. Of course, the gear will defy theory. It loves to do that. If my reserve handle were loose, it would probably hook itself on my belt buckle and pull during opening shock (because the best time to have a reserve come out unexpectedly if while the main is still inflating). -=-=-=-=- Pull.

I think you mean "C" license accuracy.