alan

I do not have any published material on stresses put on an envelope specifically from skydiving, but one can easily find a lot on related topics and make some correlations. The weight limits and operating manual tell you most of what you need to know, along with a very basic understanding of some simple physics. I do know that tethering a balloon on a hot day with winds at or near the max limit for that activity is very hard on it. Warm temps mean higher envelope temp, that is hard on the materials. The wind stresses the gore material, loading tapes, anchor points, uprights........nearly every component of the balloon. Dropping skydivers? Depends. What is the ambient temp? What is the rated gross weight of the balloon? How close does the load bring it to gross? How hot do you have to get the envelope, different balloons/fabrics have different ratings? How many hours are on the envelope? How many jumpers are leaving at the same time? What is the field elevation and density altitude? The closer you operate a balloon to the limits in its' operations manual, the more you are stressing it by both temperature and load.

About the balloon jump, I own a balloon and have around 25 or more jumps. It's a blast. Some things to know. Just step or fall off, no need to push off, jump or launch really hard. 1st time or two, if you want to stay stable and face to earth, step off and arch but try to stay a little head high at first, otherwise you will flip over. Back first lauches are REAL fun, especially if you add in a flip or two. You may not be comfortable with this on the first jump, especially if it from only 3500'. If you are not going alone, be sure to plan for some kind of separation on opening. You may not be stable immediately and that may affect the time and altitude you have for tracking, as well as your airspeed if you have less than a 10 sec delay. Be aware of the wind direction on the ground where you intend to land before you exit. Be aware that there may be hidden obstacles/hazards in the landing area. Electric fences, barb wire in a tuft of grass, telephone lines, cactus, etc. Be careful climbing out of the basket, there are a lot of things on you and the balloon that can be snag hazards. A cell phone may come in handy in case your chase crew has trouble finding you. Use a lot of common sense, a little caution and be prepared for one of the most fun times of your life. alan

An older Rigging Innovations Talon owner's manual has very good instructions that can be adapted for use on the Vector and Mirage and a picture of the locking pull-up chord used. The big ugly slip knot referred to in several of the posts is usually called a figure 8 knot. alan

Thank you, I sincerely appreciate that. You better be careful with going public with that, though, it could put you on thin ice. I think you will find that even FAA reprentatives will give inconsistent "interpretations". I know that in the past, cordura pouches were attributed to having contributed to horse shoe malfunctions, which could be interpreted as interferring with the operation of the approved system (inhibiting or preventing full deployment of the reserve). As councilman24 stated, they do have to be installed properly and may have tighter tolerances. If a Sr. Rigger does the work and a horse shoe mal ensues witha fatality, then I would guess that the FAA official doing the investigation would use a pretty strict interpretation, even if the work was deemed to be within mfgr specs. I've done work where I e-mail the mfgr with my order for the part(s). I include a request for the instructions and that request includes my credentials and I specifically ask if I am qualified to do the work. I print and keep the reply. alan

Poor/inadequate instruction? Poor/unmotivated students? A philosophical debate that would be pointless and could go on forever. Let's just say that for whatever reason, the learning was inadequate, that doesn't mean "it" doesn't work well. "It" works just fine when taught and then executed properly. So have I. I never claimed you do in an airplane. I was trying to make an analogy, that is why I said "roughly equivalent to raising the nose of an airplane on final as it approaches ground effect just prior to touching down." The key words being "roughly equivalent". This sounds very much like what I described. The gradual addition of back pressure is what I reffered to as bumping the toggles. It is a relatively quicker and shorter movement than the added pressure needed to keep the canopy/airplane slightly off the ground, but still should be done smoothly, if not it could mean you are "in the corner" or not flying as efficiently as you could be. Perhaps it is a poor term and is misleading. I apologize for its use with respect to landing a canopy, I simply picked it up from guys like Brian Germain and John LeBlanc. Neither have I. Again, I was attempting to make an analogy, you seem intent on putting words in my mouth. I have heard several CFI's say "get the nose up, now keep it up and hold it off, hold it off." I've also heard them say "don't jerk the yoke/stick, do it smoothly, just add pressure, in between the get your nose up hold it off parts. Sorta like landing a canopy. Yes, I wonder where the problem lies, with the instructors, the students, or the terminology. My guess would be that to varying degrees, it would generally be some blend of all three. In reality, we are all students, or should be. Maybe the tendency to be in the sport two or three years, then leave is a big factor. People don't stick around long enough to learn much past the basics. Landing is a basic, but we should learn how to refine the technique. Keep the wings level. That is great, but after a while it is nice to learn how to maintain altitude in a carving turn while landing, it could be a survival skill for a more advanced pilot yet could kill a novice attempting it. At any rate "two stage flare" seems to work well here in WI. Maybe it is just because we are a little backwards here yet and the I's take the time to ensure that the "students" have a clear understanding of the information being presented. I'm sure I'll run into an exception. Maybe it is just because we don't deal with the numbers you do. BTW was that at least 10 newbies out of 10 or 10 out of 1000 that didn't understand it? alan

We had a thread a while back about who can alter a main canopy and I stated only a Master Rigger could and you asked me where it said that in the FARs, so I responded with the obsolete information contained in PPM and an obsolete reference in the FAA Field Inspectors' Handbook. You were able to find the current and accurate information in the FAA website and posted the link to it, but I can't find it now and don't have time to keep looking. I can't recall if it would apply in this case or not, my memory seems to be that what you referenced was specific to the main canopy. At any rate, it was good information and worthy of reposting if you can find it. alan

I've never seen the two stage flare taught as just putting your hands in two positions and hoping it flares. The two stage flare does require the pilot to fly the canopy through the flare, it is just more descriptive in the technique used to do this. It refers to a "bump" of the toggles to increase the angle of attack of the canopy and pendulum the jumper under it, roughly equivalent to raising the nose of an airplane on final as it approaches ground effect just prior to touching down It is generally a shorter, quicker movement of the toggles. The height this is done at will vary with many factors interacting. The type of canopy, wing loading, density altitude, wind, pilot skill and experience, and type of desired landing are among the factors. As the canopy "planes out" from the initial bump, the pilot continues to fly through the flare, keeping the wings level and maintaining an altitude above the ground that should allow the pilot to extend their legs and "unload" the canopy by contacting the ground. This part is very similar to the pilot of an airplane holding the nose up and keeping the wheels a few inches off the ground and letting airspeed bleed off until the planes settles onto the runway. By this point the pilot should have completed the full toggle stroke but never so deep that the canopy stalls before the forward and vertical motion of the jumper have stopped. Some canopies under certain conditions, may require a fews steps or even sliding to completely stop the forward movement, but the pilot should continue to fly the canopy even during this part of the second stage. Remeber, when you unload the canopy (put your feet on the ground), it now has a much lighter wing loading because you have transferred your weight from the harness (and consequently the canopy) to the ground and the canopy will now want to continue flying. I'm just from the backwoods of WI, so maybe we teach the two stage flare differently here, best is to ask a qualified canopy pilot/Instructor from your DZ about it. I don't agree about the two stage flare being included in thess examples, but I would think the advice about flying in 1/2 or 1/3 brakes when landing in turbulence fits in nicely. alan

Contact the mfgr. They will most likely have you send the canopy back for evaluation. If it is defective, they will probably offer you a replacement. alan

The CYPRES may have fired on the ground as the jumper in question was walking back to the hangar. Did you send it in to have the internal data analyzed? They used to have an RF shield on the control unit because of several similar incidents. alan

You can use my name. It is Alan. My dirty laundry? I am of the opinion that it is your dirty laundry........must have been too close to home. You cleaned it very nicely. alan

All good info Phree. I'll add that the Nitro/Nitron is indeed in the same class as the Samurai. Somewhere in Dropzone.com there may still be a copy of the artyicle/review I did on the Samurai over a year go, maybe two. I loved the canopy. I have had the ooportunity to jump a couple of Nitrons (120 and 135) over this last summer. My exit weight is about 220 - 225#. Those Nitrons open sweet and have great flare, you can really shut them down. Main difference with the Samurai is the recivery arc. The Sam wants you to bump the brakes a little and the Nitron has a fairly short arc and will plane out on its own. Which is better? All I can say is demo and see which one fits your individual preferences the best. alan

THANK YOU JOHN! I've been away for awhile, but is is nice to come back and see something intelligent from someone who understands what he is talking about. Well, that doesn't apply to only you here, but you did find a very simple, concise and accurate statement that conveys very clearly what I was trying to get across way back when I started this whole debate with billvon and Franck102. alan

Geez, that is exactly the point I was trying to make with billvon in that other thread that started all of this. I'll say it again here. The old advice of flying in 1/2 or 3/4 brakes in turbulence is not good on todays newer high performance designs. That may not be an exact quote, but I'm sure it is pretty close. alan

I'll back Chris on this. I've been getting some jumps on a 120 and 135 with an exit weight of 220 to 225# and they are just the nicest general purpose HP canopies. You probably won't see anyone winning the big swoop competitions under them, but they are superb for everyday fun jumping for an experienced canopy pilot that wants performance without going to an x-braced class canopy. alan

I don't know about the specific canopy you are referring to, but i do know that you can have your FX/VX re-lined by Precision Aerodynamics with HMA. They do what they call an X-Mod to the canopy. It consists of non-cascaded HMS lines, replacement of the stabilizers with their "stabilrib" and replace the slider with one that has lighter brass grommets. I had the X-Mod on my VX and cannot say enough good things about it. Opens better, flares better, more speed (well, at least a little) and seems to glide better. I've probably got over 100 jumps on it now and the lines are showing no appreciable signs of wear. alan

This would ordinarily seem to settle the question, but if you are to read the entire section, there is something contrdictory and confusing it it as well. ther is also a part : A. At the time of original certification, each parachute rigger will be assigned an identifcation seal and symbol and issued a tempoary airman certificate. B. A certificated senior rigger parachute rigger may pack and maintain and supervise the packing of the types of parachute for which the rigger is rated. C. A certificate master parachute rigger may pack, maintain, or alter the type(s) of parachute for which the rigger is rated.supervise the packing of the types of parachutes for which the rigger is rated. Thr master parachute rigger may also supervise other persons in packing, maintain,or altering any type of parachute for which a rating is held. Now here is the odd one. D. A certificated parachute rigger, without respect to ratings may pack, maintain, or alter the main parachute of a dual parachute pack to be used for intentional jumping." B. clearly states the rights and priveleges of the senior rigger. D. Seems to just give carte blanch with the main to any rigger. I wonder which takes preference. It just muddies it up even more. When does one handbook supercede another? What authority does the handbook have? Do they have the effect of a FAR, even they don't go through the nprm or get passed br congress. Guidelines, interpretations, and clarifications. Are they really the law? Funny, I got you to dig this deep, but on my written exam for the senior ticket had a question appears as written in the Parachute Rigger Study Guide by Blackmon. 3032. Which of the following states the priveleges of a Senior Parachute Rgger Certificate? The correct anaswer was:3- Pack and maintain (except for major repair)any type of parachute for which he/she is rated. Incorrect was 1- Maintain, pack,inspect, and perform alteration on any type of parachute for which he is rated. Also refer to questions 3040 and 3041 on page 11 of the manual. It may be out of date as well, but those questions appeared on my FAA written exam taken after 1996. Those questions imply that a senior rigger can't replace a line set or alter the lenght of a bridle and the answers are referenced to the relevant FARS. So according to what you have found, a SR Rigger can alter but not make major repairs? Where do we draw that line. According to the exam and referenced FARs in the study guide, changing lines is a major repair and cannot be performed by a SR Rigger. Hmmmm... you can change them to alter a canopy, but not to repair it!!! Well it looks as if you have me, the FAA has added a privelege and didn't even bother to notify me or ask my input (NPRM). Maybe it is about time for Mr. Poynter to come out with a Vol. III. I sure have to hand it to you, you dug deep and knew where to dig. I wonder if the FAA test questions will be changed to relect this latest change? alan

Odd choice for a BASE canopy but convenient. So you are saying that the FARS are a little behind the industry. I agree, as a matter of fact, I think I already stated that opinion. Technically it would seem to be the case, but it seems you have found yet a newer version that changes things dramatically. I'm not sure what it is you have found, but will certainly study it when ther site is up. Looks like you may have found the end of the trail on this one, I'll review it though just in case you are trying to slip one by me. Nice digging, maybe now a whole bunch of people can be better informed with current information. alan

Buried in there is the phrase "Specific approval is not needed for the method of altering a main parachute." The FAA apparently interprets that to mean that the who part applies, just not the how part. Try reading page 25 of PPM Vol 1 after re-reading page 375 Altering. Page 25 is from the FAA Inspectors Handbook (8440.5A). 4065. ALTERATIONS OF THE MAIN PARACHUTE. The main parachute of a dual parachute pack to be used for intentional jumping may be altered by a master parachute rigger, a parachute loft, the manufacturer, or any other manufacturer the Administrator considers to be competent. The alterations are not required to be made in accordance with approved manuals and specifications (Ref. FAR 149.9(b)). You may want to inform the FAA of this as the above is from their General Aviation Operations Inspectors Handbook (8440.5A) SECTION 1. PARACHUTE EQUIPMENT AND PARACHUTING (INTENTIONAL PARACHUTE JUMPING - 105) Kewl, apparently they don't know the rules either. Good thing it came up.

I would hope so, since...... That was the exact point I was trying to make. If your Instructor had not been complacent about his own training, the world would be a better place because he would still be with us and sharing his knowledge and devotion to the sport. Time heals all wounds if you will let it. alan

I'm surprised that you have to ask, but then maybe I shouldn't be, knowing that you have been doing a performance upgrade on Safire canopies. Might want to update your profile to reflect the Master Rigger rating. Anyway, FARs 65.125(b) and 65.129(a),(d) and (e) are relevant and AC 105-2 (5.b.(3)(e) further clarifies and explains that a Master Rigger may make alterations to the non-certificated main parachute without approval by the manufacturer or Adminisatrator. You could also find what you need to know in PPM Vol 1, page 375. I hope this helps. alan

Ramon gave you a pretty fair and detailed run down on the canopies. Given what you have stated, I agree the Velocity may be the better choice for you, but you really should demo. Xaos 27 at 2.45 for me was a very nice canopy. Good glide, great openings.......nicer than my VX at about the same loading (88' vs 89' on the VX). Haven't jumped the Xaos 21 yet. Now for the kicker, I had the X-mod on my VX and it is now the sweetest canopy (although it always was one of the "good ones"). Smooth, soft, consistent openings. Even better glide. Better flare. My personal choices would lean towards the Xaos 27 or X-mod VX over the Velocity (I think they both open nicer and more consistently and have better glide) although PD is just simply an outstanding company with great products and great service. HMA lines seem to have some controversy, which in my opinion is unfounded and mostly based on lack of knowledge. I believe they will soon be the standard for high performance canopies in the x-braced class. alan

As a jumpmaster, if he had been as safe and detailed in his own progression to a BOC, you would still have him as well. The CYPRES, while a valuable safety device, is not a substitute for proper training. alan

I may be wrong on this because I haven't looked it up, but if my memory is correct there is something in the FARs that refers to IAW the mfgr's instructions. My interpretation would be that if the mfgr says 40 repacks/20 jumps, then it would fall into the same category as the CYPRES. As a rigger, I would not repack and return it to the customer. Here is something to think about along the same lines. PD has a placard sewn onto the reserve canopy with the insrtuctions and a table to check off the repacks and indicate if it was a repack after use. More often than not, the number of sign offs on the data card does not coincide with the number of repacks indicated on the check off table. Did a rigger simply forget to check the box or is it evidence of a "pencil pack"? Both, I would guess. So, what am I supposed to do, check off the boxes to coincide with the number off sign offs or let someone else worry about it? What if there are 41 sign offs and only 20 boxes checked? Do I refuse to pack it? alan

No problem, you didn't seem sharp in your reply, just got off on some celebrity thing, prolly cuz your dad is one. I think your observations are well founded, as it is my understanding that they are very adept at identifying the personal needs of the student and adapting the course to fit those needs. I think I clarified all this in a previous response......I didn't pass judgement on the course, just made an observation based on Lawndarts comments. I don't write very well, so I think you just perceived my post in a way other than I intended. No biggy, it happens all the time.

That is reassuring and a credit to the school. I was worried, although now I'm disappointed that he admittedly didn't have a clear recollection of something so important. However, it must have left some impression on him because his non-instructor opinion, as he put it, concurred with what you were clearly taught. That is wonderful news, especially since it also happens to agree with what I have been attempting to preach here for some time now. I'm not sure why you wouldn't take some personal pride in having been fortunate enough to have been coached by one of the best in the business, but I sure am proud of the fact that I have been given personal advice from people like John LeBlanc....I have confidence in it and am confident enough to share it. You seem to have read something negative into it, at least based on your comments about celebrity status. I don't believe I made any comments determining the worth of the money, I simply made an observation based in Lawndarts statements. He stated he had no real recollection of canopy control in turbulence being taught. My observation was if that was true, it was a shame and perhaps the course wasn't so valuable after all. Wouldn't you agree that it is an extremely relevant and important topic? No, need to defend Lawndart BTW, he clearly gave is personal opinion as a non-instuctor and was in agreement with what you say was taught, which BTW, concurred with the advice I have been trying to promote here for quite some time now, in several old threads. All is well that ends well, and once again for the less experienced canopy pilots out there, take the time and jumps to learn your canopy and how it flies, don't just accept sage old advice as the gospel, give it its' due and try it out and compare with new ideas. alan