BASE813

hehehe! might be the first time the GC needs more care and looking after during and after the jump than the jumper! - it will certainly the GC that will be at more risk!

Just make sure you have your iron balls packed for FaberLand! Pity I cant join you dude in the UK for a flick or two - this forced vacation is going to have me out during your stay! wont even be able to make it as groundcrew.

it would also depend on canopy size and container closure method - a guy jumping a pin rig with 220 canopy may bee cool with jumping a 42 at sub300 but a guy with a 310 velcro closure perhaps would not be as cool. I have taken a 42 from around the 220 mark - and too be honest I beleive a 42 can yeild more consistant initial inflation. But generally I jump a 46 below 250 - well I used to until my forced vacation!

depends how many jumps you want to do in a day!! Michael (ex-Hintonian)

if you look at the deployment process then the larger PC may bring out your bag and lines quicker but as soon as your canopy hits into the deployment process the pilot chute is bascially now redundant. What you call "hard opening" may be infact a quicker deployment and normal opening taking you by surprise. I would say if your line stows are not correct (line dump) and packing is slightly different eg. slider not properly set or nose wide open - this would cause hard openings more so than the PC being 2" larger - you will get a quicker extraction with a larger PC due to the increase in drag (minimal between 2 sizes close together eg. 30 v 32) - but whether this is causing Spanking openings I would find it hard to beleive - "quicker" maybe but not measuarbly harder.................. just my 2" differences worth.......... someone may wish to correct me on my thoughts..............

if you UK guys want to get decent info on weather (and maybe slightly anoraky) then have you tried this site: http://expert.weatheronline.co.uk this will show you wind speeds at varying heights, front movement, pressure movement, precipitation movement, temperature at altitude movements, blah blah blah.............. this will help you determine weather forecasting more reliable than the BBC or the other wanky weather reports once you learn how to read the charts.......... also get hold of "understanding the sky" by dennis pagen as it will also help you to understand the charts and forecasts - this again makes better forecasting than the shite the BBC (or other public forecasters) buy from the met office coz they are too tight to purchase decent information! just thought it might help............

.... and I just thought you wanted to have a 5 cell canopy!! I have to admit - that after witnessing you jump 15+ times it seems that your canopy keeps the end cells closed for some time - on lower freefalling jumps (3+ sec canopy rides) it was only your flaring that would pop them out - whereas your other jumps with longer canopy rides it was full drive flight after 1 or 2 + seconds that would unfurl your end cells. Im not sure if this is canopy design (do others have this with foxes?) or trim or vents withhout valves or why this occurs - I have not seen this on any other canopy I have witnessed out of the skydiving environment. Would it be caused by the wave of air pressurising the canopy but then escaping through the non-valved vent? and thus the side of the canopy being less pressured in the end cell then the out side air trying to push through the closed cell? but this to me does not explain why then the cells would pressurise on flaring - as I thought that unvalved canopies allowed more air to escape on flaring? (which is why faber lands like shit!! hehehehehe) - but explains why they pop open with forward flight?? Again - I am still on my canopy opening / flight / pressurisation learning focus at the moment - so forgive my ramblings and perhaps school boy errors in my thoughts - just me questioning things out loud (sometimes not thinking through as much as I should) so to speak..........

just throwing some thoughts around here...... so forgive me........ although the end cells may inflate earlier on in the sequence due to vents placed on cells 1 and 7 - Would this not be rather negligble in the timing? Instead of the reasoning that the end cells were inflating earlier - would it not be that due to the end cells inflating earlier they cause some other unusual opening character? I know this must sound like gobblegook - Im not really very good at saying what I mean sometimes - I mean rather than (1) would it not be (2)??? 1) Its the vents on cells 1 and 7 that cause strange heading effects 2) its the vents on cells 1 and 7 that cause xxxxx and xxxx to happen which in turn cause strange heading effects. I know this maybe nit picking - but I can not see why vents on 1 and 7 would in themselves cause unusual effects but would perhaps cause other effects? If the inflation is first through an exposed center cell and through the ports and subsequent opened nose cells then if the vents on 1 and 7 inflate uniformly - I cant see that the minimal time between these events this would be enough to cause off headings - but I guess it might be enough to cause other effects that build toward magnified off headings from other factors? Please remember, I am only throwing some (inexperienced) thoughts around here trying to understand more about the stages of deployment - something I know little about!! (which maybe obvious from my ramblings on this post!) Thank you for wasting your time reading!

You aint fooking wrong! - you non-island guys dont realise how lucky you are!!

I beleive that body position and wind has more to do with off headings than anything else. Your off heading is normally determined before you have initial or bottom skin inflation in which the valves and vents help to give you in quicker time - the wind and your body position will have already determined your off heading before the vents / valves have kicked in. (I beleive this is what Skin was saying?? Obviously my thoughts count for shit and someone may like to correct my own thoughts on this....... Generally I believe packing nuances are low down on the list for heading performance…….. again this maybe just the way I think and someone will tear my post to shreds for the school boy errors held within! I would appreciate thoughts if this is the case..... If you are that worried get non valved or MDV - what ever makes you happy dude! Just my bored at work thoughts........

yeah right..........

On searching the BLiNC archive to who had said ".......50/50....." I found these - thought that some of them may raise a smile.................. or not of course.... Nick_BR Wed Jan-19-00 09:26 PM #1774, "Looking For Nuggets http://www.blincmagazine.com/forum/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=7&topic_id=1774&mesg_id=1774&listing_type=search

A very well known and experienced jumper said this – and I think its more about the mind set and attitude on the edge then any correct percentages or calculations to risk analysis……. I say I agree with this not due to any calculations but on how scared I am internally on each jump – I accept that this jump maybe “the one” – this keeps me sharp and totally aware of my environment at every stage – Don’t get me wrong – I know the odds are not 50/50 – but I never feel that the jump I am about to do is going to go perfect and work in my favour!! It helps to keep me from getting complacent……….. BASE scares the living shit outta me…………..

2 quotes I had always liked and believed in are (something like this anyway) - 1)Every jump I give myself 50/50 2)We all have a place on Nicks list, we just don’t know which number / place / order sorry but I dont remember who said these..........

I know a guy who did exactly this - he bought an old army parahute from the US and he modified it slightly and then hurled himself outta a plane - no formal training just complete heavy duty balls of steel! He is currently still jumping. Nice one Doug!

I live right near it and have many friends that jump there.......

thanks Tom. Yes in the UK tresspass is obviously different then - which is why I asked - tresspass in the UK is a civil offence and not a criminal offence. In fact it only becomes criminal when some sort of intent or agression is shown - (this may be slightly inaccurate someone may like to correct the details here) - but generally tresspass is not something the police here in the UK will do you for. The reason I questioned is that "faces prison" to me seemed harsh - and I would like to know exactly what they would send the jumper to prison for? surely not tresspass? - but I guess the US has some fucked up rules and regulations! ............and for the other response - why do we do it late at night and run away? - well hey I dont want to be noticed by anyone and would like easily accessable objects kept open, I dont want people that dont understand what I am doing to shut down objects by raising the security - this is the only reason to me - seeing that technically BASE is not an illegal act!!

trespassin is not a criminal offence?

whatever.............. for what?............... harsh......... we are just trying to have fun without hurting anyone or anything......

nice! thats the way!

In the early 90's I was into the illegal UK rave scene. I was once sold Ketamine in place of E - and the experience was scarey - more so than my heaviest and badest trip. I was a regular heavy user of E and even with this usage, I found the K experience hard to handle and deal with. It was intensly hallucinogenic both visually and mentally - but not in a way that acid is. I found it a very very dark experience with alot of feelings and visuals relating to death. People talk of "the hole" and I can say that this is a very strange place - sometimes curious sometimes extrememly scarey. At the start of the evening there were 4 of us on the way to a party, only 2 of us bought these types of pill - within an half hour we 2 knew something was different to what we were on - we left the others and went off on our own to deal with it - we both lived the same thoughts and feelings and visuals (yes I know that you can trip together in the same way and feed off each other - but this was different) - Although interesting in a strange way, I would never wish to relive this - my friend that I was with could not handle it after sometime and he got someone to call him an ambulance (he then called every 30 secs as his perception of time really was fucked) - he was in a state where he was sure that death was not far away, I was left alone to experience the effects - it was hard - I guess it would be different if you expect it but I was expecting an E experience and what I was given was not anything like it - luckily I knew enough to recognise what was happening and how to deal with it - and occasionally enjoy it - some others may not be as lucky - I have heard of people spiking drinks with K or LSD on non-users and this in my mind is one of the most evil things you can do to someone. For your information I no longer take any form of illicit drug - but thats another story!!

Statistically speaking, they would be right. This is the sort of thought that is dangerous....... SKYDIVING IS Dangerous........... I think that alot of people fail to remember this. Complacency is not healthy - just because 10's of 000's jumps have gone right before does not mean there needs to be no thought about your next one - remember each time you exit an aircraft you are effectively a dead man falling until you are back in the hanger with your kit on the floor.........

Sorry to deviate, and go off on a tangent, and also answer my own post, but: Does anyone have info / links about the other information to parachute history that is not easily found? I know the Chinese were certainly there pushing the limits back in the day but I don’t seem to be able to find much on those pioneers that were really pushing the limits of accepted perception? Sorry but I am just wondering to satisfy my own anorak needs…………………….

A jolly good idea!! For those that have not seen this before, prob not many!: http://www.parachutehistory.com/eng/drs.html Excerpt from Sandia Report SAND85-1180 "An Introduction to Deployable Recovery Systems" by Jan Meyer August 1985 The first known written account of a parachute concept is found in da Vinci's notebooks (cl495). The sketch he drew consisted of a cloth material pulled tightly over a rigid pyramidal structure. Although da Vinci never made the device, he is given credit for the concept of lowering man to the earth safely using a maximum drag decelerator. Fauste Veranzio constructed a device similar to da Vinci's drawing and jumped from a tower in Venice in 1617. Over a century would pass before further developments would be made by the famous balloonists, Joseph and Jacques Montgolfier. In 1783 they succeeded in lowering animals to the ground from rooftops or balloons. During the same year Sebastian Lenormand jumped from a tower using a 14-foot diameter parachute. The first emergency use of a parachute was made by Jean Pierre Blanchard in 1785 after the hotair balloon he was in exploded. Blanchard also worked on a foldable silk parachute, for until then all parachutes were constructed with a rigid frame. In 1797, Andrew Garnerin made the first jump with a parachute without a rigid frame. One of Garnerin's balloon jumps from 8000 feet, a very high altitude for the time, was observed by a French astronomer, Lalandes. As the parachute descended, severe oscillations were induced in the canopy. Lalandes suggested cutting a small hole near the apex of the canopy to inhibit the oscillations. This modification is now known as the vent and does indeed dramatically reduce canopy oscillations. During the next century, parachute use was confined to carnivals and daredevil acts. Acrobats would perform stunts on a trapeze bar suspended from a descending parachute. The parachute was released from a hot-air balloon by attaching the top of the parachute to the equator of the balloon with a cord that broke after a person jumped from the basket. Public opinion became very unfavorable towards the use of parachutes when Robert Cocking fell to his death in 1837. Cocking jumped an inverted coneshaped parachute (point down) from 5000 ft. and distinguished himself by becoming parachuting's first fatality. The next major contribution to parachute systems was the development of a harness by Captain Thomas Baldwin in 1887. The concept of folding or packing the parachute in a knapsak-like container was developed by Paul Letteman and Kathchen Paulus in 1890. Kathchen Paulus also demonstrated an intentional breakaway. After a first parachute inflated, it was released and pulled open a second parachute. The first jump from an airplane has been claimed by both Grant Morton and Captain Albert Berry in 1911 or 1912. Morton jumped with a silk parachute folded in his arms which he threw out as he left the plane. Captain Berry had a 36 ft. parachute packed into a metal case beneath the fuselage. The parachute had a trapeze bar for him to hold on to as he jumped and descended to the ground. Also in 1911, an Italian, Pino, invented the pilot chute or drogue chute.' He attached a small parachute with a rigid frame to his helmet. The pilot chute would easily inflate, pull the helmet off and then pull the parachute out into the airstream. The first freefall jump was made by Georgia "Tiny" Broadwick in 1914, but the military still did not believe that the human body could tolerate the experience of freefall for more than a few seconds before "blacking out." The skeptics were convinced in 1919 by Leslie Irvin and Floyd Smith. They demonstrated freefall jumps and developed the ripcord at the parachute testing and training center at Wright Field, established in 1918. From World War I to the early 1930's, conventional round silk (now known as solid cloth) parachutes remained unchanged in structure. They were primarily used by military air corps in Europe, Russia, and the United States. During the 1930's Germany's Luftwaffe established the essential ingredients for air supremacy. Kurt Student conceived and implemented a rapid deployment strike force by parachuting men, equipment, and weapons from gliders and aircraft, such as the Junker JU52/3m. Germany demonstrated the effectiveness of airborne troops delivered to the battle scene by parachutes during World War II. The development of modern parachutes deployed at high speeds and high altitudes started in the 1930's. Knacke and Madelung developed the ribbon parachute in Germany for decelerating heavy high speed payloads. After World War 11 Knacke invented the ring slot parachute which is used for moderate subsonic speeds. This parachute is used primarily for cargo delivery and aircraft deceleration. The ring slot parachute is significantly cheaper to manufacture than the ribbon parachute. The ring sail parachute, developed by Ewing, is used to decelerate payloads at low to moderate subsonic deployments speeds. The ring sail parachute was used as the final stages of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo projects because of its slow inflation rate and stability. H. G. Heinrich invented the guide surface parachute (left) used as a pilot chute or for vehicle stabilization in the supersonic (to Mach 3) deployment regime. The hyperflo parachute (right) developed by Sims, is used as a hypersonic pilot chute for the Mach 1 to Mach 5 speed domain. The specific construction details of these modern high speed parachutes may be found in the Recovery Systems Design Guide. The development of sport parachutes beyond solid cloth parachutes began in the early 1960's. Solid cloth parachutes were modified with drive slots that provide greater stability and horizontal speed. A class of sport parachutes, known as high performance rounds, includes Piglets, Paracommanders, Sierras, and Papillon parachutes. Piglets are similar to modified solid cloth parachutes, but are constructed from less porous material than solid cloth parachutes. Piglet parachutes are much smaller and much more reliable than solid cloth parachutes. The other three high performance rounds are characterized by many modifications in the form of turning and drive slots. The top of the canopy, or apex, is pulled closer to the payload by means of additional rigging lines. These parachutes are also known for their relatively high malfunction rate. During the early space projects, Rogallo developed a single membrane flexible wing, known as the parawing. The large parawings designed for recovery of reentry vehicles did not have reliable opening characteristics at high speeds and were not used in the actual manned flights. There are several review articles describing the subsonic deployment and control of parawings. The parawing parachute, designed for maximum lift as opposed to maximum drag, was primarily used in sport parachuting during the 1970's. By the late 1970's the parawing was replaced by the parafoil, invented in the middle 1960's by Domina Jalbert, a kite maker. The parafoil or ram-air parachute is a deformable airfoil that maintains its profile by trapping air between two rectangularly shaped membranes, sewn together at the trailing edge and sides, but open at the leading edge. Several ribs are sewn to the inside of the upper and lower surfaces, maintaining an airfoil cross section in the spanwise direction. Stabilizers are added to prevent side slipping. Most personnel ram-air parachutes have a nominal aspect ratio of two and a forward speed of 25 to 30 mph. Dynamic stalls may be performed with a ram-air so that landings are made with zero velocity. The ram-air may also be flown backwards by deflecting the trailing edge past the stall configuration. The parawing and parafoil are hybrids of maximum drag decelerators and rigid wing technology. The vastly superior maneuverability of a ram-air parachute makes it one of the most promising decelerators. The deployment of ram-air parachutes at high speeds tends to degrade or destroy the parachute components. As suitable methods of reefing and staging of deployment are developed the ram-air parachute may have unlimited use.