dgw

I heard a very experienced Instructor (now a CCI in the UK) express the view that he would like to see first jump SL (direct bag) students do an exit facing the rear of the plane, back to the wind, arms in, like the military, and then progress them onto the standard exits used. My recollection is that he was of the view this was an easier exit for first jump students, with a lower potential for 'problems'. He said it wasn't a popular view. I couldn't see any obvious objections to it. I likened it, in my own mind, to doing a tandem before AFF.

You're dead right. But, it does look like the fellow's first response is to try and 'Cntrl Z' the deployment of the pilotchute. A sort of 'undeployment'...

I found this movie clip, demonstrating why one 'needs a good reserve pack'. To my untrained eye, it looks like the lucky fellow has a PCIT, rolls onto his back, then slowly hauls in the errant pilotchute, before casually rolling back over and deploying a well packed reserve. It shivered me timbers. http://www.pointzero.co.uk/reservemovie.htm [joke]Anybody else using this technique? [/close joke!] edited to clarify...

Can't say I have. Sorry for the ambiguity. I rephrase: Are there any factors to suggest that such induced motions result in a parachute 'running downwind' as per OP's query?

Are there any factors to suggest that such induced motions result in a parachute heading into the oncoming direction of the wind, rather than any other direction?

Well, that completely scuppers all ill-fated aspects of my theory. I'm pleased to have been through the exercise though. Thanks for the input.

Bollox! You are certainly right. There is an error in the resolution of the forces. My alternate suggestion, based on the same diagram (with zero credibilty): The bigger angle 'a', the further you need to pull down the riser to achieve a set amount of deflection. This would require more/different muscle power, making it seem harder to pull, accepting other factors. I leave the original post as a testimony to my stupidity

I have a theory. Please see attached crude diagram. The 'steady state' riser tension is always 'F', for a given suspended weight. In order to pull a riser downwards, one must apply a force of F/cos(a). With larger canopies, 'L' increases, which increases angle 'a'. This reduces cos(a), and increases the force required to pull a riser down. The wider the canopy, the higher the downward force required to pull a riser 'down'. As you will appreciate, the riser tension remains constant as 'F'. I don't have data on L, but for the sake of comparison, if F=100kg, and a = 45 degrees, then the downward riser load required on the riser is about 141kg. If a = 50 degrees, riser downward pull is 156kg. I'm sure there are other factors. This simple view offers a 'fundamental' explanation for rising downward pull forces with increasing canopy size, I think.

This is the second major theft of gear from Irish dropzones this year. Some months back (May or June), a shit-load of student gear was ripped off from another dropzone in Tipperary. http://www.skydiveireland.ie/news-2.html

On my AFF level three, which I passed, my main instructor pulled for me, inexplicably. It transpired his alti had failed. Initially (in the air and on the ground), I was displeased. I thought I MUST have funked up. When he told me why, after letting me sweat for nearly an hour, I was less displeased. From my perspective at the time, there was no problem - I was MILES up!

CrazyL, Here is a post I made a while back. Some info on reserve repack wear... http://www.bpa.org.uk/forms/council/Riggers%20Minutes%20-%201%20June%202006.doc "John Harding had also included information and statistics on tests carried out by a number of organizations regarding the handling of parachute material vs porosity. The results from these organizations show that there was a marked increase in the porosity of the fabric due to handling, and this is mainly during the packing process. They also concluded that parachutes that undergo such a porosity increase might not pass TSO tests. John had also included information of countries that have adopted a one-year re-pack cycle and a list of manufactures who have endorsed 1 year repack cycles on their equipment where regulations allow."

Well, you may be right. However, it looks like the project is at the stage where money is no longer an issue, (based on the article). The cited factor likely to prevent the attempt is the weather, which is a relatively cheap overhead. I guess time will tell.

Article from today's Sunday Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2241721.ece

BIGUN, I'd be obliged if you could elaborate on what this type of PLF comprises?? Thanks.

I grew up in Ireland, and, like everywhere else, kids had an evolving slang vocabulary to express the degree of 'coolness' of everything. 'Cool' is fairly timeless. Lots of things are cool. Lots of things are 'uncool'. When I was about eleven, a couple of new monikers came into common use. One was 'Big Swing' in place of 'Big Deal', and, if the situation warranted, it could have additional weight through the appendage.. 'of the mickey' (Universal Latin translation: of the penis). The other was 'deadly'. A day off school was deadly. The A-Team was deadly. Magnum was deadly. Magnum's Ferarri was deadly. The birds (another moniker) in Magnum were deadly. When assessing my personal risk homoestasis regarding skydiving, I am drawn to the view that it is 'deadly'.

I was mulling it over. I did thirteen SL jumps in Ireland, and the procedure was as described: everybody got hooked up prior to emplaning, gave it a tug, and off we went. The planes were Cessnas 182 and 206, with three or four students per lift. I did four SL jumps in the UK from a PAC750, where I was hooked up prior to emplaning. However, I was the only SL jumper on each occasion. In a different UK DZ, I have observed SL operations from an Islander. All SL students were hooked up prior to emplaning. Just my observations...

*pleb speaking* When I was on static ine (direct bag), the procedure was to to snap the S/L shackle onto the 'strong point' before embarking, and the student was then handed the static line to give it a good firm yank, prior to emplaning. There was none of this rigging static lines up enroute.

"It's actually pretty tough (and annoying) to remain completely stable as a static line is ripping stuff off your back. And trying to do a practice ripcord pull under those conditions is unpleasant." I agree . So does my shoulder. When I originally started doing the SL progression, I used rigs with hip mounted ripcords. My AFF was with a similar deployment system. On dummy pulls with the hip mounted ripcord, the SL deployment didn't really affect the handle position, and I found this helpful for dummy pulls and early freefall, particularly in light of later efforts on BOC dummy pulls, where the container and handle move during deployment. I thought that the transition from hip to BOC (after 40 jumps) was no great leap, although I appreciate early freefalls are a picnic short of a picnic. I haven't got a strong view on the matter, but I do think that hip mounted ripcords are way more easily reached on dummy pulls, and, consequently, allow a student to develop more confidence in deployment procedures. By comparison, on a first freefall with a BOC progression, a student could be forgiven for grabbing where the handle was on the dummy pulls - it won't be there. Thanks for the response.

*THREAD HIJACK* Tom, I did both SL and AFF, and on one SL jump, which was a dummy pull from a PAC750 ( four jumps) with the door on the left, I got my arm over the static line, and then wrapped up in the risers (which funked up my shoulder for ages). On a previous jump from the PAC, the SL got in the way of my dummy pull, but just pushed my arm away. On planes with right hand doors, (13 SL jumps) the potential for this didn't seem to exist. In IAD, is there a greater risk of instability during dummy pulls and potential entanglements?

I like the magnets idea. A couple of small rare earth metal magnets wouldn't add a lot of effort for installation or packing. However, I haven't thought this through, and there may be a catastrophic failure mode that will kill you

I think I agree, but there's a double negative in your post that beer is making a meal of. It is difficult for me to draw a conclusion as to whether a first AFF or static line jump is more psychologically difficult (scary), as I had exposure to SL before AFF. My view (recollection) is that SL is tougher, particularly out of a Cessna 182 where you have the added, unforeseen, stress of climbing out to dangle off the strut with all the wind in creation in the way. I think the static line progression requires a bit more commitment, and a bit more courage. You ultimately learn to fly on your tod, which requires a dogged approach, unless you're a 'natural'. It seems to me that the static line progression is a 'filter', insofar as the (time and effort) commitment required is higher than a week at a sunny dropzone for an AFF course. I think there are lots of current skydivers who would not have persevered with SL training, had it been the only option.

I did the static line progression up to 15 second delay with altimeter, and then, after emigrating completed AFF. I feel personally that I got a really good mix of training. However, I believe that the static line process, which takes a lot more time and, in my opinion, effort, offered me a better training experience. I got a lot more exposure to equipment and techniques over a period long enough to benefit from the experience. If I had to choose a training technique that would result in the best overall skills outcome for a student, I'd recommend the static line progression. If I had to choose the scariest method (from my perspective), I'd also recommend the static line progression - you learn the hard stuff the hard way, on your own, with no one to assist or advise as you flip towards the earth with brainlock (first 10 second delay). AFF is, in my view, an excellent training method that gives students a key property - confidence - which helps with the 'relaxation' requirement. In an ideal world, I think a hybrid training system would offer the advantages of both methods. (I did my static line progression at kevinwhelans dropzone - It was a good learning environment, with good extended briefs and debriefs for 'free'. It was my pleasure to jump there.)

Thanks man. I'm not a troll, just a bit ignorant Regards, Darren

I am confused and ignorant. I picked up a Cruiselite a couple of years ago for low money out of curiosity, that had been 'configured' for BASE. It's in a box. It has a modification to the upper skin on the centre-tail area, which looks like it is configured for stowing lines. It's about (from memory) 30cm wide, and 15cm deep, and is a pocket with velcro. Never seen anthing like it before or since, but I don't get out much. I just assumed this must be for 'tailgates', and put it away in the History Box. Does anybody know what it actually is?

There is some speculation in the Incidents forum in the "Namibia incident" thread. It mentions the handicam as a speculated contributor to the incident.