pilotdave

There ARE other reasons to remove a door than to jump out.

Hehe I really doubt that's a jump plane. 337s have a second prop in back. That's a very nice, pressurized plane, not suitable for jumping. At least I hope... Dave

When I jumped a PD-150, I could be first out of an otter doing a solo and still be last on the ground. I used to have tandems spiraling past me or chasing me around all the time. They didn't get in my way though. Dave

I actually spent the last couple nights trying to watermark a few of the videos that have been stolen from my site and posted elsewhere to prevent it from happening again. I also actively do request that videos that I know were taken from my site are removed from other sites. big-boys.com or whatever it is seems to not like that idea very much. For the most part, videos with happy endings aren't particularly exciting to the public. Dave

Hehe... they actually came from a doctor (his house, not his waiting room... I hope!) He was practicing medicine into his 90s. Probably 10 years ago I decorated my room at my parents house with all his old EAA calendars. His wife gave me all the magazines a few months ago after he died. 40 years worth of airplane construction tips is probably a little much for waiting room reading.

I pay almost that much for a freaking sandwich, bag of chips, and a drink. Thursday is sushi day though. Almost $10 and well worth it! It really helps me make it to friday!

What percentage of dropzones in the world have multiple landing areas? And why does it sound like so many DZs don't just pick a landing direction before boarding? That works great except on days with light and variable wind, when you just know the first guy down is gonna be a dumbass and chase the wind sock, disregarding the predetermined landing direction. Just follow the plan and there's no problem... Dave

Tried it in firefox? Dave

One jump a week, during AFF, isn't really all that strange. That's a LOT faster than I did it. Don't forget it gets cheaper as you go, and after you graduate AFF, jumps suddenly get a lot cheaper. You may be able to pick up the pace a little then. If you need to do AFF slowly (I don't think of once a week as slowly, but I'm sure many people do), just be prepared to enjoy each jump and don't worry too much about repeating levels. It's just as much fun to repeat a level as it is to do the next level... you're skydiving either way. Dave

Hey, look what I found in the Sept, 1968 issue of Sport Aviation... Dave

I just found out that EAA has a partial index going back to 1958 on their website (only covers articles about particular aircraft, not events, etc). And they sell every issue on one CD for $160. Whatever I do, I better spend less than that!

I've sort of inherited hundreds of aviation magazines. Mostly EAA Sport Aviation, dating from the 1960s to the 1990s, with many other magazines mixed in. I also tend to keep the magazines I subscribe to, so I have tons of parachutist, sport aviation, aopa pilot, and flying magazines piled up. I've got plenty of room for them, but I just can't think of a good way to keep them in a way that they're accessible (as opposed to sitting in boxes, like they are now). The old magazines are great... Flying's 50th anniversary issue from 1977 has an article by Isaac Asimov about what aviation will be like in 2002 , and a quick little piece on Burt Rutan and how he's an up-and-coming name in sport aviation with the success of his Vari-EZ. So what do I do with em? I've thought about just getting a book case, but they won't just sit there like books...they're all floppy. I could use book ends to keep em in place, but it just doesn't seem like the best solution to me. Anyone have any creative ideas? Wish I had an index of all of them too... so much browsing to do! Dave

Michigan freefly suits have a "stock" diamond pattern you've probably seen. And Atair canopies have diamonds on them. Dave

When I was president of a collegiate club, I'd get that same question every once in a while. I don't think its quite as bad as when I show someone a picture or video of me in freefall (and tell them it's me) and they ask if I took the picture. Showed a video to someone yesterday...inside view (not shot from above the formation) of a 14 way or something. "Was the video shot from the plane?" Dave

The FJC scene: http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=category&id=15 Dave

I'm definitely not a swooper, and I don't jump a high performance canopy (lightly loaded sabre2 135). But with my canopy, if I flare a little bit high and slowly, I can bring it down to a very very soft, very slow landing. If I flare a little low and more quickly, it gets a little bit of a swoop. It's not really any different, I just have the option of allowing it to really plane out or not. Couldn't a higher performance canopy do the same thing? I understand a desire for a fast, maneuverable canopy that lands slowly... I just don't understand why it has to have a steep glide. Don't ya like making it back from long spots? Dave

Here's a 63 foot jump and here's an 88 foot jump. Dave

Well, lift does exceed weight for a brief period when you flare, etc. But of course you can't keep it that way and it has nothing to do with aspect ratio. But for a convincing argument why too much aspect ratio is bad for a non-rigid wing, check out THIS video of a paraglider collapsing. Higher aspect ratio generally means higher lift to drag ratio (more efficient production of lift). Thats why sail planes use extremely high aspect ratios. But a high performace swoop canopy is nothing like a sail plane. It's much more like a little aerobatic plane or a fighter plane, which both use fairly low aspect ratios. Sure, they're less efficient, but that does not traslate to slower or especially less maneuverable. High aspect ratios are appropriate to make a canopy that comes down as slowly as possible (ie a paraglider), not a canopy that's going to produce a lot of speed and maneuverability. Dave

There's drama on dropzone.com?? Why do I always miss the fun? It must be a speakers forum or womens forum thing cause I've never been in either of those forums... or maybe the german forum. There could be all sorts of drama there and I'd never know it even if I read it all. I could really use some good drama though. Too cold to jump this weekend... need some other entertainment. Dave

http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=1996 Dave

Sounds like the wrong time for the comment. My instructors were very clear before my first release dive in that once they let go, I'm on my own. They of course never said they wouldn't try to help, but they made it 100% clear that I was 100% responsible to save my own life. I was a very slow faller, so I think they were particularly afraid of going low on me. After level 4 I switched to only jumping with the slowest falling instructors. Different situation though. Guess he forgot the

Ok, they're referring to airport traffic pattern procedures. Like extending a leg of the pattern to avoid overflying neighborhoods, or different patterns for helicopters or jets. They aren't talking about differences in local laws. Dave

Where is that stated? Sounds like you're talking about some state tresspassing law, not anything that has to do with the FAA, which doesn't write any laws regarding tresspassing. Dave

I totally disagree. Aircraft engine certification is very serious stuff. Add in electronic systems (digital engine controls, FADECs, etc), which will be pretty much standard on all future aircraft engines, and things get extremely complex. You might be surprised by how much analysis goes into engine certification and engine installation certification (by the aircraft manufacturer). Homebuilders are having great success with low compression, low horsepower auto engine conversions for experimental aircraft. The affected engines in the lycoming case were big 540s I think. I'm currently working on some of the certification documentation to install new engines on an existing helicopter airframe. I have no problem with the FAA allowing experimental aircraft to use experimental engines, but they have no place on certified aircraft. BTW, the FAA report on the crankshaft failures faults the crankshaft maker, not lycoming. This may very well just be a case of who hired the better lawyers. Dave

I don't know what you're talking about. A parachute (other than a powered parachute) is NOT an aircraft and does not factor into FAA right-of-way rules. And a balloon is NOT an airship. And where in the FARs or any other law book does it say that a balloon can land wherever it wants without regard to tresspassing laws? Dave