EvilLurker

Food grade silicon is what they use to lubricate machinery in the food processing industry. I guess it means you can eat the stuff and it won't hurt you. The reason they specify it for parachute equipment is (I believe) that it won't have anything in it that might affect plastic or nylon. Does that make sense? Maybe. I'd try Home Depot if you have one close, or a place that sells meat grinders or industrial belts. I don't think it's all that rare most places. My rigger moved away, or I'd ask him where he got it. Sorry.

You guys are scaring me, seriously.

I'd have say that's not the right stuff. I don't see anywhere on there that it says "food grade". It MAY contain petroleum-based additives, which could eat plastic/nylon. The food-grade stuff will say "Safe on Plastic" and "Non-Chlorinated" on the can somewhere. The food grade spray holds an H-1 U.S.D.A authorization rating, so if you see that, you're good to go. But of course if you're in the U.K., there's no USDA, so I'm stumped. Sorry. I'm sure they have the same thing under a different license, I just don't think what you're linking to is it.

I have the most fear from the time the plane starts rolling until we hit 1200 feet, because you're really out of options if there's a major problem. Under canopy, I worry the most about someone getting in my "blind spot", either right behind me or right above me, because it's impossible to both land and check your 6 at the same time. For some oddball reason, once I'm under a good canopy, i don't really worry about an equipment failure. I figure if it just took 5 or 6 G's on opening, it ain't gonna break now. I made sure I bought a step-through though, I never did trust those legs snaps. Fear is good, it's what keeps you checking your equipment before you take the big plunge.

I'd agree with that, if you're doing a 2-way, make sure you have an agreement like "I'll throw out at 4k and you throw out at 2500, then stick to it. Have the person with the higher wing loading be the low puller, then you shouldn't have the possibility of a mid-air. It's pretty hard to find the other canopy in the dark, even if they have a strobe/lightsticks and it really sucks to wonder if they're at your altitude or not. That was what I was most concerned about, but we jumped out plan and ended up with good seperation. (I never saw their canopy until they were on the base leg, and I was looking for them HARD). The solo jump is a piece of cake in comparison, I really enjoyed that one.

It's not a bad idea to take a good look out the door and find the landing zone before you exit. If you're doing a 2-way, stagger your opening altitudes and make sure the high opener has a visual on the low one before setting up and for a landing. Know where the power lines/fences are, they're hard (impossible) to see when it's dark. Borrowing an altimeter with an illuminated dial would beat having a light stick tied to your wrist, like I did. The red goggle idea is good, I didn't do that, either.

I can't see how that would have anything to do with how they open. Am I missing something? Or are you talking about the chances of it spinning up after opening? Thanks.

Same, it keeps me from having to rotate my wrist to read it, helps reduce possible glare.

No, those jumps may not have been on Sabres. There are more, and some MAY have occured on Sabres. I don't have the inclination to plow through all the incident reports and find everything related to sudden death after opening, though, especially since many of them don't state the type of main or the final medical cause of death, but I do remember at least 2 that were attributed to detached aeortas from reading Parachutist. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I wasn't responding to "Sabre's open hard", I was responding to "detached aeorta's have never happened". They have, if the autopsy reports can be believed. Those people, most likely, had an undiagnosed heart problem. I'd say from personal experience, there are quite a number of canopies on the market that have a higher probability of hard openings than a Sabre and I'd personally have no concerns jumping one, but I wouldn't be real surprised if a Sabre "spanked" me now and then, either. I don't know if either of those incidents I posted was related to a Sabre, sorry for not specifying that.

I wouldn't worry about the spotting part, you're going to be going real slow, and directly downwind, so it's a lot less challenging than spotting from a plane. Take some binoculars with you for spotting and leave them in the balloon, everything is going to be going real slow until you jump, so just be sure you haven't overlooked any power lines, fences, swamps, etc. and have an alternate if possible. Good luck, that sounds like a lot of fun.

No, that doesn't sound callous, it's honest. I tend to agree with you. Thanks for taking time to read my opinions and reply, I appreciate it.

I meant the software in the current VR system could be easily modified to model a HP canopy (actually ANY canopy you can define the aerodynamics of), not that it could easily be modified to address all of the points that Bill brought up (and he brought up a couple of good ones re. HP landings). Everything but the G-forces and variable riser tension, though, is a pretty cheap fix from my perspective. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I should have made myself more clear.

Bill, I guess it teaches you to look up and inspect your canopy, which is probably the whole concept. I'm all for that. A line-over malfunction on the VR system presents you with visual clues showing that you are spinning/in an uncontrollable situation. I believe that is a more realistic way to present the situation that would actually occur, so I'm of the opinion it's better training. If the student, after initiating correct EP, couldn't describe the actual malfunction type, I don't really think that's important in the grand scheme of things. Do you? Is that the important question? I guess we could conclude that all of our training is "good enough" right now and quit trying to improve it. I was drawn into this by the attitude from a lot of people here that it's not good enough, and that instituting new rules/BSRs, improved canopy training and W/L restrictions would save lives, so I threw my opinion out for a beating. I gave you my personal training experience, in hindsight, on how I thought it could have been improved. I don't think you have too many students riding line-overs in due to the fact that it's a rare malfunction, especially with a good packer and a sub-terminal deployment (I'm ignoring AFF here). I've personally never seen one, so I can't comment on how well trained I was to recognize it. I've seen students with closed end cells do nothing until they cleared themselves many times, and I've seen them hang until line twists worked themselves out of their own accord a few times, so I think some of the training is not sinking in with the current lecture/picture technique (or we could attribute it to the student being in shock/stupid/ totally inexperienced). I hate to comment on "is it good enough", because we're teaching a lot of people to skydive per year, most of them are landing at least close to the intended target, the injusy/accident rate is low, and many of them are pretty heads-up under canopy and following instructions/training, so I guess i'd say yes. I do think it could be improved upon, if we decided to spend the money on training equipment that gave a better "feel" for the experience prior to putting someone out the door. Any low-timer could learn a lot on that VR system with the right software, and the beauty is it's available even if there's a weather hold, etc., so people could be practicing skills instead of watching video or playing grabass. You team this up with tunnel time and you could have a decent skydiver that had never been in an airplane, they go hand-in-hand. It's all about not spending the money, in my opinion. Thanks for the feedback, you've got me thinking.

Well, he would have burned another 2 or 300 feet getting his hook knife out and cutting the steering line, then would have had to re-evaluate whether or not he could fly and land it. If he had been higher, I'd go along with you, but from his altitude I have to applaud his decision and his awareness of a hard deck and say if he was in the same situation again, do the same thing again. I've been in a similar situation and cleared the mal before my hard deck (doesn't sound as severe, I was turning vs. spinning), but I was going to chop it if I couldn't get it fixed by 2k. Break that chain of events, because you don't know what's going to happen after you commit to try and land a marginal main like he had. I agree with you there, but it's early in the year and a lot of people in the "cold areas" aren't as current as we were last fall. It sucks to realize you're having doubts at 500 feet, know what I mean?

Bill, I can only speak for myself, but I don't think casually looking up and seeing that you have a line-over is at all realistic. I have a feeling that I might first notice that I was spinning horizontally and freaked out, in which case I might be better served by initiating my EP than studying the canopy, as a first-jump student isn't really prepared to clear a mal other than line twists or closed end cells, maybe a stuck slider. I don't remember anyone mentioning or demonstrating how a line-over would effect flight, just a picture. So, I'd have to say yes, the real way to recognize that type of malfunction was poorly trained and I was taught an incorrect way to recognize it, in reality. How big a can of worms do you want to open here?

...who have obviously never had an aircraft repaired, or left out a couple of 00's

Not many live ones, anyway. It doesn't sound like an actual concern to me, given the parameters quoted. If it did fire, assuming the door was closed, it's pretty harmless (maybe some underwear damage if you got hit by a PC).

Bill, Oh, I agree, it wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a huge improvement over what we're doing now. I could address the wind speed and sound very easily (you're already wearing a helmet and have the data available from the sim to drive the fan/speaker). The turbulance/G-forces add a lot to the price, but visual clues are a decent substitute. It would detract from the HP/swoop training a lot, I agree, probably not as useful there. I'm still of the opinion that USPA could do a lot better job of training/preventing injuries by concentrating on applying some modern technology in the fashion I described. I really didn't feel someone holding a glossy picture of a line-over above my head "trained" me to recognize a serious malfunction, for example. I had no real idea on my first jump what the relative size of the landing area would be when under canopy, I didn't have any "feel" for what kind of ground speed I should be witnessing in flight, what my landing point was going to be by "eyeballing", etc. None of those skills really require G-forces to be simulated and could be easily taught in a cheap sim. That's what I think USPA should be providing to the members, good tools for the instructors. You could even use them for tandems, it might convince more of them to come back and take up the sport. Anyway, thanks for your view on it.

Minor detail, that's easily fixed.

Actually it HAS happened several times." Jumper spiralled under open canopy until impact " would be a good way to search for the incidents. Edit: Here's a couple: http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/Detailed/35.shtml http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/Detailed/31.shtml

Bill (and other instructors) You may want to take into consideration that other people overhear some of the advice you are giving these students, and some of them take it to heart. I learned a lot while I was at the DZ from listening to what was being said in the "background", and even though it might not have penetrated through and made an impact on the student you were addressing, some of us listened and learned from it. It's very hard to tell what the impact of your information was, don't just limit it to the "immune" student . Now, here's what my thoughts have been (for quite a while now): If USPA wants to intelligently teach HP canopy control, what's needed is a hanging-harness simulator system with a VR helmet that can be used to train/verify canopy skills. This is not a hugely expensive project, the entire set-up could be built for the price of a tandem rig (cheaper if USPA had it contracted in bulk from a major manufacturer). All facets of first-jump/malfunction/canopy control could be taught in safety, and it would be a lot more realistic than what's being used now at most dropzones. Simulating canopy flight is no longer out of the realm of possibility with a cheap PC setup and the graphics are realistic enough to provide an excellent training tool. You can rewind/replay what happened and give pointers/critique performance. Now, put your student that is "immune to advice" on there, give them a high wing loading, and when they bounce (and they will), they're going to be a LOT more receptive to listening. Once they display proficiancy on the trainer, THEN go to the actual in-flight canopy training, at least the student will have a good idea about how something is supposed to look/feel/how fast it will happen, the lack of which is what really kills people.

I would have chopped what you're describing, since you had never done a rear-riser landing on that canopy. You done good, I'm glad we're not reading this in the Incidents thread. At the altitude you were at, you had a short time to make a decision, and you did. Without being there or inspecting the mal, that's my read on it. Maybe later, with more experience and the opportunity to practice some rear-riser flying and landing, you'll make a different decision next time, but that sounded pretty severe to me (spinning vs. turning), and riding it below 1800, trying to clear it, is what gets people killed. I say good job.

Okay, be careful. I'm betting you have it figured out by then.

You sure the shrinkage described isn't due to the slider initially coming down the lines during deployment where the spreading force is huge, and the slider flapping is so minor that it can be ignored? My belief is that the nylon has to reach a pretty high friction/temperature before it's going to shrink, and your slider flapping a little bit has nowhere near the energy associated with it to even be CLOSE to causing friction-induced line damage. And exactly why wouldn't they melt? Enlighten me.

Exactly the same experience I had, plus I got one opening so hard it laid me up for a month (actually, my neck still is somewhat screwed up). If you got to avoid that little treat, you're lucky. So how did a ragged-out PD-210 fly? I'm thinking it didn't stall easily like he's describing, because I jumped some pretty ragged out student canopies, and they had a normal toggle stroke, I always thought.