voltage

To the OP: Do you have a tracking number? Even if not, you might try to give the local UPS (if that is how it was sent) place at port of entry (main international airport mostly) a call to see if they know anything about a package being held up in customs. I had a package held up in customs in your part of the world and had to drive to the airport to finally get it "delivered". I had to make a stand though.

Thanks, good find. It's a bit flashy tough with all these fancy graphics. I think I will use it to make my own 1 page checklist.

Recently I did my first weekend of skydiving in about 6 months. To get current again, I went over all my equipment and repacked the canopy, donned (nearly, see below) all the equipment and visualised a successfull deployment, mal above hard deck, mal below hard deck, EP's, after-opening procedures and pattern flying. After that I got on the airplane and forgot to take along my googles. On the pilots seat there was a spare pair, and I had an uneventful solo skydive, and some more good ones after that. Guess I want to know how other people handle medium-length breaks from skydiving? Anygot got a checklist of sorts for that? Do you use some written material to re-familiarize yourself? Is the SIM any use for that? Great to be back in the air.

pchapman Thanks for bringing this up, this is indeed what the aussie pilot was referring to. Here is the direct link to the spreadsheet: http://www.apf.asn.au/documents/pdf/CloudJumping/CJPMuncontrolled_Airspace_Model.xls Very interesting to play around with. I have to admit that I'm too lazy right now to dive into the mathematic model, maybe later. I hope Tom Buchanan will see this topic, I would be very interested to hear his opinion on that model.

stratostar Do you know more details about (1), the collision with the C-130? Reginald It matters if in FF or under canopy... as I am trying to make sense of said theory that only applies for freefall. If that theory is sound, then freefalling through clouds would be acceptable. Its no way acceptable under canopy in my opinion. Your other point is about acceptable losses. It may sound strange, but I can understand the concept. For example, the aircraft you fly to altitude with has certainly been build with similar considerations in mind. The wings I think are only designed to bear 1.5 times the maximum allowable load. Beyond that, they might snap off. To prevent this they would have to be sturdier and the aircraft would be heavier, therefore need stronger engines, consume more fuel, ... so the question is in my opinion not if it is acceptable, but what the chances are. If it is a 1 in a billion chance, I might be inclined to take the risk, a 1:100,000 chance might keep me from jumping through clouds for that reason. BMFin Agreed, I have only 300 jumps so far and yet have had some scary moments where it surely helped to see all my fellow jumpers. mrbiceps We might well have been at the same dropzone last weekend. I didn't mean to slack off Aussie rules, just chose some pointed words to stimulate responses I've learned that from today's news media haha billvon I have spotted airplanes that way too, but I have also been surprised by aircraft although there was someone, me or others, spotting. What I want to say is that one will probably miss at least some planes due to speed, direction, light conditions etc. Apart from the jump plane I have only been aware of other planes oncer under canopy, so far. Thanks all participants for this discussion, I've already learned something so far.

It appears that most of these accidents happened with jumpers UNDER CANOPY and aircraft. The only confirmed freefall collision seems to be the one with the Cherokee. About the glider accident, I guess at 2000ft the skydiver was under canopy already? Following the theory of that Australian jump pilot the chance of actually hitting an aircraft in FREEFALL is extremely remote. Near hits or close misses would be more common but still rare. I'd like to see a report of the simulation they ran. He told me they had to put thousands and thousands of skydivers and many planes flying through the same airspace in their simulation to reach unacceptable levels of accidents. The question is if the simulation was realistic.

From jumping in the U.S. I know that it is illegal there to jump through clouds, because jumpers have to adhere to the same regulations as VFR aircraft, and thus technically have to remain clear of clouds by a certain margin. In the real world this isn't seen that strict, and jumping with anything between clear skies and broken clouds is common. I have never personally seen intentional jumping through a solid overcast layer, though. Further I know that at least some people spot for airplanes before jumping and some people (Tom Buchanan for example) are putting a lot of effort into raising awareness for jump operations for the bigger pilot population. Now I had the chance to jump in Australia for a change and was quite amazed that not only it is legal here to jump through clouds (there is a waiver), but I have seen jump operations commence all day when there where several overcast layers, the lowest down to about 2000ft. Procedure is to fall in place (no tracking, turning points, ...) when in freefall in the clouds and to do slow braked 360's when under canopy in the clouds. But this still leaves separation from aircraft to be addressed. I was told by a caravan pilot well-known in the jump scene here that the APF has researched prior incidents of jumpers in freefall colliding with aircraft and they allegedly came up with only one accident of such nature, in the U.S. Further they allegedly conducted a study where they ran simulations with jumpers and aircraft and said study came to the conclusion that spotting for aircraft and awareness of such was not necessary, because the chance of them hitting each other was so remote that it is deemed an "acceptable risk". Now there obviously is a different attitude here than there, altough I suspect there also is less GA traffic here in Australia. Also the airspace structure is different, and parachute drops (almost?) always happen in controlled airspace anyway. But underneath still is uncontrolled airspace where technically an aircraft could fly without need to talk to anybody. So, this has sparked my curiosity. Are the folks in the U.S. just over-careful and restrict themselves when there really is no need, or are the Aussies reckless in their jumping, or lies the truth somewhere in between? Who can come up with documented cases of jumpers in freefall a) hitting and b) nearly missing an aircraft?

Final update, reply from NZ AVSEC follows, users of models of AAD's other than Cypres please be aware: Thank you for your inquiries. I am replying to you as a group as your inquiries/expressions of concern were all as representatives of the parachuting industry. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of New Zealand is the competent authority in this country with regards to the carriage of dangerous goods by air. Max Evans is a representative of the CAA. His letter represents the stance of the CAA. In regard to the CYPRES product, it is the determination of the CAA that according to the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) supplied; the product does not meet the classification criteria for a Dangerous Good and is therefore permitted to travel on both passenger and cargo aircraft. In regard to other brands of this item/product, the responsibility for verifying that the AAD is not subject to the Dangerous Goods Regulations rests with the shipper of the item (in other words the passenger). If the Shipper/passenger can provide manufacturer or other technical information/documentation that states that the item is not a Dangerous Good and therefore not subject to the Dangerous Goods Regulations and may be carried by air, it is the CAA position that this documentation may be accepted. In addition the airline also has a responsibility to determine whether or not they would accept these items for carriage. Aviation Security Service (AVSEC) will not prevent the carriage of the Cypres AAD based on the recent decision by the CAA; AVSEC will not prevent the carriage of other brand/s of AAD where appropriate and valid information is provided to verify that they are safe for transport. I trust that this clarifies the New Zealand position now. Kind regards XXX

Thanks, wasn't keen on a repack on departure out of NZ. I'll be jumping and flying on the northern island in April, so any recommendations for places to go there are appreciated

Looks like this is finally resolved. Today I received a message from Airtec GmbH that they have in turn received a clearance for Cypres cutters to be transported on NZ passenger airplanes. http://www.cypres.cc/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=89&func=fileinfo&id=127&lang=en So everybody with a Cypres in their rig should be fine, glad to have chosen a Cypres myself. I did also sent an e-mail to the above mentioned personnel at NZ AVSEC to make sure the message got passed on to them.

Update: Keith Gallaher from the NZ PIA has responded, and he indicated that they know about and are working on this issue. I made him aware of the letter which DSE received in response to his enquiry. I have a Cypres2 in my rig, so I also contacted Airtec at their German HQ, and they have been helpful and want to look into this also. I don't want to cancel my jumping holiday for s**t like this

I am a jumper who wants to travel to NZ next month, and am a bit irritated about this issue - just sent the following message to the NZ PIA, and hopefully somebody is going to investigate this affair. Thanks for making this public Feeblemind.

Thanks for the help guys

I've recorded a few tapes worth of footage in the last few months, but mostly used it for immediate review directly off the camera. Now I sit on my computer and try to cut the footage and produce something nice. Being a newbie, I am not sure what output to choose. I've read up on interlacing and stuff, understand that. My HC28 records NTSC interlaced, which means 29,97 x 2 half-frames per second. I understand this is how it gets to my computer via firewire. Now it doesn't look very nice when I play it back as such (on fast movement a lot of mismatched lines), so for producing computer video (youtube format and AVI) I want to de-interlace first. But what framerate to choose and which compression codec? Just keep it at the present framerate? Appreciate any advice on how to make it look best on the computer with reasonable filesize. My first try was to convert the framerate to 25 fps, resize the image to 640x480 and compress with Xvid, and it looses a lot of its crisp quality in that step. Another thing is, being back in PAL land at the moment, how to produce a PAL DVD from NTSC footage. Is that even possible with reasonable quality?

To add another opinion, your initial idea seems quite reasonable to me. Of course you save by having your own gear, and it also will deepen your knowledge over jumping a lot of different gear. And there is time to try different gear later anyway (demos, ...). I did the same thing, got my stuff early in my jumping career and have since jumped the same rig and canopy. There is a lot to learn about gear, canopy flight in general and in special conditions. For example it wasn't until a couple hundred jumps that I got a chance to do more serious canopy formation flight, or jump at higher altitude dropzones. Learn a different packing method, etc. etc. While it seems that many people try to downsize as fast as possible I have found written nowhere that you are required to do so beside peer pressure. Depends wholly on you. I personally am very conservative in this regard as I try my best not to aquire any metal in my body.

In a thunderstorm the updrafts are usually followed by downdrafts when it has reached the mature stage. These mixed up- and downdrafts create strong turbulance (windshear) in the air and gusty strong winds on the ground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderstorm#Life_cycle I really enjoy watching thunderstorms from the ground, they are a big spectacle and an impressive demonstration what mother nature is capable of. And in the summer its nice and cool after the thunderstorm has passed

I wonder why no one has mentioned that joke that you can pull off with "door fear". Just get yourself a tandem jumpsuit and a nice student-looking helmet and make a fuss in the door NOOOO I NOT WANNA JUMP Then have your friend push you out while you scream as if you are going to die. The tandem students LOVE IT On the serious side: please keep the door closed at least until 1000 ft, better 1500 ft. I'm not very long in this sport but I have seen some loose pins and loose pilot chutes. Another reason are seatbelts. I'd hate to die in a freak airplane accident.

Thanks for your first hand information. Obviously if seatbelts are there they should be on of course and as tight as possible. Was one of the crashes you experienced in a Cessna? How did the seatbelts help or not?

My point for asking this question was: where do you draw the line? In the beginning of my jumping career I have boarded any plane regardless of seatbelts. Today after having considerably more knowledge I would not board a bigger plane without effective seatbelts anymore, especially a KingAir. But what about 182s and 206s ? I did most of my initial training in Germany, out of a 206 without seatbelts. I have jumped from at least one other 182 (also in Germany) without seatbelts. So if I decide to always insist on seatbelts in Cessnas that would rule out two of the nearest dropzones to my home. Opinions, please? Would you stop jumping the Cessnas without belts even if it means to considerably reduce your skydiving? Not jumping at a dropzone where many of your friends are jumping? Or are you not happy but "tolerate" flying in Cessnas without seatbelts? If so, just because you want to jump and take your chances or do consider the use of seatbelts in Cessnas not absolutely necessary? Agree with you on always keeping the seatbelts tight! edit because of spelling

I have been following the discussion about the King Air forced landing in Canada. Seatbelts in that case would probably have made a huge difference in the degree of injuries for the passengers (skydivers). I've always felt uneasy to take the seatbelts of at 1000 feet AGL because I am not sure I want to leave the aircraft at that altitude (which is most probably lower when I really get out, because of delays getting out, aircraft lossing altitude fast in engine-out cases etc.) The other issue is that as soon as the door opens all seatbelts should be off I've seen door open on takeoff with everybody strapped in. A few weeks ago I have been sitting right beside the door with seatbelts off when an instructor opened the door some inches (for farting or airconditioning, I don't know). My pilotchute handle (freefly handle) was about 2 inches from the door opening and flapping in the wind the way I was sitting. I was polite and kept my hand on my handle for the while time the door was opened only that little crack, because I didn't like the idea of my PC potentially escaping and me having to follow through a door open only a few inches Recently the place where I jump at the moment (Skydive Orange) has placed a sign in the aircraft that seatbelts are to stay on until 1500 feet. Of course the door has to be closed until then, too. Great move, thank you! Maybe other DZ might consider that, too? A question to close: While in a King Air or Otter seatbelts are an absolute must for obvious reasons (lots of room to accelerate in case of crash) what do you think of seatbelts in Cessna 182 / 206? There is not that much room to accelerate especially when it is packed, so for the seatbelts to be bring any advantage they would surely have to be donned tightly? Have there been any accidents where seatbelts or lack of them (would) have changed the outcome of the accident on that jumpships?

I jump alot with normal street clothing. Not necessarily shorts because I prefer a bit of skin protection in case of rougher than normal landings. As others have said it is important to protect the handles. I have found out that simple tugging in even with a belt is not enough, I've had the shirt come out and flap around. A tip I got from an experienced upjumper was to pull the shirt through the leg straps and secure it with a packing stow (double wrap probably). It keeps the shirt down while still giving great airconditioning on hot summer days Looks a bit funny. As for the flying, I really like it. I am learning to freefly and have taken a lot of different streeth cloth in the air. I have found it does make a difference what clothing you have, but still the main thing is how you fly your body. I think it is a good learning expierence to try out different clothing like baggy trousers and shirt, baggy shirt and tight trousers and so on. If you are unsure of your flying abilities or are inexperienced please take it carefull. Tracking and/or other control might not be best with some cloth, so be careful when doing jumps with multiple people etc.

As a videot wannabee... How about launching from the camera step? I suppose its possible to hit the tail that way even on an Otter.

I like to do them, too. But with high winds how do you manage to get back to the DZ? Do you have detailed information about winds at different altitudes beforehand and make a flight plan? Or do you accept the possibility to land out?

There is a good book around called JUMP! : Skydiving Made Fun & Easy The author of this book contributes here a lot and I think it should answer your questions and also provide more helpful information. What I think matters most is a good connection to your instructor as well as overall atmosphere. Maybe visit each place that you consider and get talking with an instructor. Does he listen to you? Ask him questions about the gear, things you don't understand. Is he good in explaining things? ... and so on ... Maybe have a look at the student gear - if it is very old it may still be safe (probably is) but I personally would prefer newer gear if nothing else helps me decide which school to choose. There are other things like aircraft safety to consider, but these are probably not so easy to evaluate. HTH Andreas