pilotdave

Yeah... it cracked me up. I wonder how many readers had any clue what he was even talking about. I mean, it was written to Justin. I thought it was funny... but it's still negative. Dave

Sorry, talking old AFF program vs ISP. ISP is definitely more expensive, but (in my limited experience) seems to produce more knowledgeable and higher skilled A-license recipients. They just have had more instruction. I think the ISP also helps keep them on track... there's no big "graduation" after 7 jumps where the students kind of get left on their own to figure out how to finish. It's all laid out very clearly. But there's no reason why that can't be done for the older AFF program too. Dave

I think it's more complicated than that. Experienced jumpers doing stupid things with tandem rigs are probably unlikely to sue a manufacturer. Far less likely than real tandem students. But tandem gear isn't designed for that kind of use/abuse. That raises the risk and therefore the likelihood of someone getting hurt and possibly causing a lawsuit. But this is still about why the manufacturers of tandem gear make so many rules, not why the rest of us should care to follow those rules. One difference between tandem and sport manufacturers is the number of them. Sue Fliteline out of business and so what? Now you've gotta buy a Wings instead of a Reflex. But sue UPT out of the tandem business and you're left with only a couple options. Tandems are the reason we have turbine planes and the reason our dropzones can pay their electric bills. We might just need some of those manufacturers more than they need us. Dave

Now you're talking about "load factor," not wingloading. Yes, when you flare, lift increases and you create more lift than you weigh. That slows your descent. Descent rate itself is not the factor. Acceleration is. Dave

Was this really not posted already? http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/11/16/land_locked/ Howard White sent out the link this morning on a new england email list... Dave

Most riggers won't open someone else's packjob and reclose it without doing a full inspection. But the rigger that packed it will likely be able to open his own packjob, install the cypres, and close it back up without redoing the whole thing. If you're buying a used rig from a stranger, I'd recommend getting it inspected and repacked anyway. A rigger you know and trust should inspect it before you buy it, if possible. Dave

No need to go all the way to Lithuania for head down tandems... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB3usnuj4pA Dave

If you didn't include the weight of the canopy as part of the total weight of the "system," would you include the drag of the canopy in the total drag of the system? It simply makes no sense to ignore it. There's no difference between a skydiver being suspended under a canopy and a plane being held up by its wings. From a wingloading perspective, the length of the suspension lines doesn't matter. If someone designed a canopy that the skydiver sat on top of, would the wingloading calculation be any different? Dave

Paragliders aren't FAA certified as far as I know... no FAA/TSO requirements. Sounds like the reserve is a base canopy. Dave

I'd say a cutaway increases your wingloading to infinity. Deploying a reserve is another story... depends how big it is.

That's not correct. The weight of the main IS most definitely included. A wing has to support not only the weight suspended from it, but it's own weight too. A 747's wings weigh an awful lot because they're full of fuel. Your canopy might not weigh so much, but the principle is the same. What really throws off discussions of wingloading is that we have no idea how big our canopies are. There are a lot of different ways to calculate the square footage that should be used in a wingloading calculation. But we usually just use the size the manufacturer tells us. For airplanes, the wingloading is calculated using the projected area of the wing (like the size of the shadow cast when the sun is directly above) and it can include the part of the wing that goes through the fuselage. So dihedral will affect the wing area used to calculate wingloading. So yeah, the 7-lbs of main probably doesn't make much difference unless two people are trying to compare their exact wingloadings using the same canopies. Wingloading would technically be affected by loosening a chest strap too... if we used the same calculation that is used by aerospace engineers. Those several places that told you otherwise need to do some reading on dropzone.com. This has been discussed a million times.

Skydiving footage: http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=7041 http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=7063 Dave

I definitely see your point that experience jumpers doing a stunt like this can get away with it and there's many more dangerous things that happen on a daily basis. And as others have pointed out, the manufacturers of tandem gear prohibit this kind of "stunt." It's easy to understand why the manufacturers don't like it. I somewhat agree with you... I don't particularly care what a bunch of experienced jumpers do with their own tandem rigs. This could probably be done over and over again with no incident. But... There's always a but... What you might not see is that what's bad for the tandem manufacturers is bad for us as well. What we don't want is for tandem gear manufacturers to get out of the business. Imagine if Joe Skydiver got killed while riding as a tandem passenger during a stunt like that. Strong gets sued by his widow, because afterall it was a premature deployment of the gear that caused the fatality, right? Strong gets tired of $10 million lawsuits and says screw it, we'll focus on military equipment. You see where this is going. I'm sure you can see how that would affect all of us, right? You're seeing that people, especially tandem instructors, get very passionate about tandems no matter what the circumstances are. I took the tandem course and got my rating just for fun earlier this year. Really getting to understand tandems changes your perspective. Stick around a few years and I bet you'll change your opinion on this too. You can stand on my back for $10,000 any day you want! Dave

I'm still confused though. Your corrected vision isn't 20/20. Can it be? Is it just time for a new prescription? Dave

In 1993 they may not have counted. There used to be a freefall requirement, but now all jumps count toward the A-license. Dave

Yeah better call ahead and make sure they get their sewing machines greased up. First sale of 2008! Just kidding!!! Dave

Sure it does. Right in the beginning of the BSRs in the Applicability Section: "2. A "skydive" is defined as the descent of a person to the surface from an aircraft in flight when he or she uses or intends to use a parachute during all or part of that descent." If you want to get technical, the license requirements section of the SIM doesn't use the word "skydives", but rather "jumps." I'm sure there's a lawyer out there that'll argue a broader definition of that word. But clearly base jumps and ground launches don't count. Dave

Tandem fatality #2. From the Tandem Vector manual: #2 - Current Tandem Instructor 1349 jumps total - 62 tandem jumps. Second Tandem of day for Tandem Instructor. Pair exited Cessna 182 at 8,500’. Normal opening at 4,000’. After opening, Tandem Instructor released both side connectors; released reserve static line (stevens system) and pulled out both upper snap safety pins. Then did CRW and had wrap at 3,000’. Other solo jumper cutaway - reserve OK. Tandem cutaway at 2,000’. Passenger and Tandem Master separated at lower connector points almost immediately and went violently unstable until impact. For first part of fall after cutaway, Tandem Master was attempting to grapple with passenger to gain control. During latter part of fall, Tandem Master stopped all activity as if trying to fall stable. No attempt to open reserve was observed. Dave

Find them both at http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/LicensesampRatings/Licenses/tabid/87/Default.aspx on the right side of the page. There's the ISP 4-page card and the old fashioned 2-page card. Dave

It's probably the arrowhead. Use the dropdown next to the blob shaped thing (custom shape tool) at the top to shut it off. Dave

I know... I removed it. Not sure about the original video you're asking about. I've definitely seen it. Can't remember if it was on skydivingmovies.com or not. Can't find any record of it. I remember that it was filmed in Europe though. Dave

Here's the discussion about that video: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1869338 Dave

Out of curiosity, anyone know the dimensions of the FTP or vapor pro, as a comparison? Dave

I noticed the same thing... then read through this thread and realized that loudiamond posted pics of a second prototype with the rear latch a long time ago. Looks nice. Dave

If I remember correctly (been a while since i checked), 20/40 corrected vision is good enough for a 3rd class FAA medical. Just something to use as a comparison. I'd say you just need new glasses. Get lasik if you want to stop wearing glasses.