hackish

There you have it - my nonexistant experience in the field had no way of knowing that lube was never used in the parachute industry. Also, my comments on this subject are definitely not a criticism of the author or the work, merely a desire to contribute toward the improvement of a work that has already imparted a lot of understanding for me. --- So this evening I managed to read another 50 pages. Found only one small ommission... Page 6-18 item #1 "There are three types of points—round, diamond, and twist. Round is used for cloth as it separates the fibers of the cloth as it passes through. The diamond is used for leather as it cuts the material." What is the twist point used for? -Michael

Thanks to steelyeye I was able to find the contact info for the author and forwarded the details to him so he can make the correct decision. The reason I'd be a stickler on the links is that from the photo they would appear to be a hard link between the riser and parachute thus failure would likely mean someone dying. The difference between dry and lubed threads (molybdenum disulfide as I use) can have as much as a 50% effect on the torque tension transfer. For maximum reliability and service life most fasteners are torqued to 80% of their yield. This is well within the elastic range and most likely to maintain it's torque. I have no idea if that is the case with these but if 30 ft/lbs is 80% yield then adding lubrication may very well cause the yield tension to be reached or exceeded. -Michael

Yes, every so often I come upstairs to the computer and reply for 10 minutes waiting for the TIG to cool down. Must have caught DSE before he edited his original post. The points were quoted and replied to in mine anyway... As for skybeergodd, you probably are correct. I threw out all the technical details that came to mind and it could probably be condensed to something to the effect of: When tightening the links it is important to ensure the threads are free of oil or contaminants and that they are not tightened beyond the manufacturer's specification. If the telltale marks have not been disturbed do not loosen and retighten the links as it may lead to premature wear and failure. If using the above someone would have to ensure the manufacturer calls for non-lubricated threads - which I did not. -Michael

Haha, yep, thanks... fixed. "Please fix this typo with my own carefully crafted typo!" -Michael

I don't half-ass anything I do and I'm pretty anal. Decide for yourself if that's a good attribute or not. Hell no! Not a book, a 1-2 page article. I have no time, interest or formal training to write a book. I'd rather not talk about this one as this winter I should be a patent application on something I've dreamed up. Once that's done I may have a black box for you to try out :P Wingsuit mode is merely an idea - free for any AAD manufacturer to construct. Took maybe an hour of time. Practise hook n' swoops? Hell no! Having read the stats I don't think I am interested in low hook turns. I'm not at that point yet! Again, no! Building a scale model - I thought it would be neat to make a toy that was a scale of a real ram-air canopy but ultimately not viable because it's too hard to make Already done but untested. No time. Yes I was a photographer. It is in a photographer's best interest to get the best quality lenses they can. Hardly - reading PD's packing instructions and posting about them because nobody I'd talked to seemed to know. I'm willing to bet you have a tracker to read every post I put up and bust my ass the second I spel something wrong. Someone even said you have a hate on for me :) Ran out of time this year - weather not being cooperative. Unless I can magically get a jump and make 3 good docks but that's going to take some doing. Scary skydiver or burned out one. I was the same with cars once upon a time. Started a business modifying them now I barely enjoy playing with or driving my own :( If anyone here has done a PhD thesis they understand how we're both very busy... Besides, doing mindless tasks like welding intercoolers or porting cylinder heads gives me time to think... -Michael

Pass along my thanks to the author - it's very well written and obviously a lot of time was spent being thorough. I should have made notes while reading the .pdf. Here are two points that came to mind. I'm using the 2005 revision. Page 5-7 under Pilot Chute and Bridle "Most current springs have between 20-30 pounds of tension, but some run as high as 40-45 pounds. Too strong a string is rarely an issue, but too weak often is a problem." I believe it should read "Too strong a spring is rarely an issue..." The second point I had is open to technical discussion. My knowledge of parachute links is minimal but I do have some experience in metallurgy, fasteners and machining. Page 5-9 under heading #4 "Most riggers do not possess a force gauge to measure this, so they use the quarter turn guide. After tightening the links, a "telltale" should be applied to the barrel. [Figure 5-15] A telltale is a marker, usually nail polish, that provides a breakable seal to show if the barrel has moved. If the seal is broken the rigger knows that link may be loose. In doing a repack, if the telltale is intact, the rigger should not loosen the link and retighten it because the continual tightening can strip the threads, causing the link to fail. I don't disagree with the advice to not touch a marked link but unless it is a torque to yield fastener repeated loosening and retightening should not strip the threads and cause the link to fail unless it is being overtorqued. Over time the threads do wear and will become more polished which in theory could eventually lead to yielding the fastener but I think wear should be the only reason cited. Finally, a lubricated fastener will have a different amount of tension than a dry one so it may be worthwhile to mention that the threads should be checked and perhaps cleaned with alcohol according to the manufacturer's recommendations. I don't know how the aviation industry works so someone will have to apply their expertise to this. In the engines I build, not adding moly lube to a fastener can easily make the difference between a reliable engine and one that suffers from a connecting rod through the block. I'll let the experts pick this apart and decide. I'll also make notes as I continue to read it. -Michael

So what you're suggesting is that if I've found an error that is indeed a typo you'll take back your comments. I mean a know-it all is just someone who thinks they know it all but really doesn't. So if that is the case then I must be wrong with what I've found. -Michael

Normally, yes I fly the planned pattern but my DZ is well known for taking off and when it's time to land have the wind coming from a completely different direction. I'm not consistent enough yet to have my approach perfect every time so sometimes I do need to sashay a bit to eat some altitude. The thing that often screws me up is the wind layers. I'll be coming down getting very little penetration then all of a sudden poof the lower wind is much lower and suddenly I am set up for overshooting. Being a small DZ there isn't often a lot of traffic but I usually don't need enough correction to screw any of that up. There is a guy who did compete in accuracy but he's not around very often. Next time I'll have to see if he can watch and criticize. -Michael

I've been reading the FAA Parachute Rigger Manual and have found a few significant typos. Someone on here had given me a link and I downloaded it a month or more ago. I tried to google it up but the only reference I found said to see your local FAA office. Not practical for me up in the frozen northland. Does anyone have an idea of whom to contact with a list of errors? This manual is a really good reference and I feel the errors should be corrected or clarified (if that's what they really meant). -Michael

Oh, so now you're slamming EVERYONE with their book ideas? The man has a dream! Actually, what came to mind was the scene from Airplane: If you think the response to a solicited opinion is slamming then so be it. I wouldn't want to risk causing you any extreme mental anguish and criticize your remarks by pointing out how helpful they were to the original poster. Here is why I don't think the book would fly: a) It will be difficult to come up with enough material to write an entire book on the subject - this is why I agree with billvon's suggestion of an article. b) It would be very difficult to convince a publisher that such a book would sell. There is considerable cost associated with publishing a book and the publisher will only do it if they feel that there will be a reasonable return on their investment. c) The skydiving audience is small. The skydiving population frustrated by a lost canopy and freebag is even smaller. When we went to look for my freebag - even at a small dropzone everyone there had a good idea on the physics behind where the bag would have landed and that's where it was. Agree or disagree - those are my opinions. -Michael

The main purpose of this was to see what other skydivers felt about the psychology part - in particular those with some psychology education. I've received a lot of PMs on this subject and can understand how the psychology part came about as well as where the material came from. I have also begun corresponding with Brian. The trouble is I didn't get the point of most of the psychology section so there wasn't really a specific question. All in all I forwarded my feelings on it and hopefully feedback and contribute to improving future revisions. -Michael

Brian's book said to start with direct front riser approaches but I wanted to know what pre-requisites needed to be solid before getting to that point. I'm already landing consistently around or on the target (oops it's slippery!) One thing mentioned that I haven't really done was cross wind landings so I'll definitely ask the appropriate people what they think about that idea plus any coaching they can give on it. My season is over in a week or so and I'm just trying to lay out what my objectives for next year will be. -Michael

I don't think a book would fly (haha) but definitely an article would be useful. -Michael

Usually clinical psych research is not on insects, but on people. ????? I second that thought!!! Believe it or not but animal behaviour is a very important part of psychology. Many of the primitive interactions are shared between different levels of organisms. Swat at a bee it retreats then maybe stings you. Swat at a person they pull back then maybe smack you back. Yes her thesis is more experimental and she is in the clinical program but this does not exclude the student from also having completed the human studies associated with being a clinical psychologist. Thanks to those who responded via PM I needed to know what psychologist-skydivers understood from reading the book. To a degree things have been packaged for the general population and not for the scientific community. As for the softness of psychology most statements can be made with only a degree of certainty. Some studies have not been repeatable, some have led to discoveries of additional variables. Let's face it humans aren't nearly as simple as insects. Suppose you were to run a study of tandem clients and have the cameraperson wearing a pink helmet with a big "look here" written on it. Ask them when they land what was on the cameraperson's helmet. I'm willing to bet that few first time tandems would remember it. I'm also willing to bet that a higher percentage of second timers would remember. Studies like that can show the effect of decreasing levels of adrenaline. That to me is the science of psychology. There are many papers out there on adrenaline and I'll be reading as many as I can before beginning to write any articles. When the time comes I'll do what I can to present a more research based article. This will take me some time as I've said that I'm no psychologist. I don't think my approach will be any better than the author's, just a different style. I think that the difference in approach explains why I had so much trouble with the book. Some people have taken this as an attack on Brian Germain and it was never intended to be. I still hold this book highly and definitely recommend it to anyone. When I have more experience and the opportunity exists I will definitely be interested in signing up for his canopy control course. -Michael

The contrast between the two parts was that the first part was very technical and technically accurate and complete. This is what I appreciated most about reading the book. The second part seemed so different one could almost believe it was written by a different author. Sorry about getting the title wrong. I read what was between the covers more than what was on the cover. As for the psychologist thing I again asked the opinions of the lady more in the "know". She said that it is a very grey area because someone can legitimately call themselves a "therapist" without any training. Someone may also call themselves a psychologist with only a Masters degree. To be a clinical psychologist or to put the letters after one's name requires them to be a PhD with the appropriate requirements satisfied, for example she has to do a year of supervised practice similar to a lawyer as they article. This is again specific to the country/province/state's requirements. Alas, the author's resume has little to do with the purpose of this discussion. I was unsure if the section of the book was intentionally watered down or just the author's personal feelings applied to his skydiving experience. Without any formal training I wasn't sure where it fit into things. I think bob.dino says it best that it is not a research oriented paper and not subject to peer review. I may order "Transcending Fear" and give it a read through as many have recommended it. -Michael

I'm working out the preliminary plans for a type of digital altimeter. The cost for a quality pressure sensing component alone is approx $40. In quantity of 1000+ it only drops to $30. If you're looking at an entire watch for this price then I would be concerned. You have to take temperature compensation, signal drift and a whole host of other things into account when looking at this problem. I decided my ass was worth at least the $300 I paid for my altimeter. -Michael

The jump to post ratio comes from working hard to educate myself on the subject. Part of this education is challenging what you're told and what you read. I really enjoyed the first half of the book and learned a lot. I didn't get the point of the second half and am hoping someone else with expertise on this subject can shed understanding. I don't have any psychology education and I'm interested to know if the details are just severely watered down or so specific to skydiving that they are not relevant in other areas of psychology. My better half certainly had her criticism but she is merely a PhD student not an experienced skydiver and her area of research is in insect behaviour, not stress. This post is about understanding what that section is really about - not chastising anyone as I definitely don't have the background or intention to do so. The second part of the book is written very differently from the first and was very hard for me to follow - that's all. -Michael

This weekend past I went on a nice long thanksgiving trip (Canadian Thanksgiving). During the 5h car ride I finished reading the Canopy and its Pilot. I really enjoyed the first half for its ease of reading, good technical content and humour. The second half was a bit puzzling. In fact I wondered if it was written by the same person. I had a lot of trouble following what was written. My better half is presently working on her PhD in Clinical Psychology so I asked her a lot of questions and she strongly disagreed with a lot of points written. She often said things like "that's not really true - maybe a higher percentage but you can't just state something like that as fact." Maybe it's just the science oriented part of me wanting something more technical rather than a really dumbed down psychology discussion without any references. I have no psychology education so I'm naturally at a disadvantage here. One comment made was "it sounds like he's trying to make up psychology buzz words" I'd like to write an article about the physiology and psychology of our adrenaline rush but being so uneducated in that domain it will take a lot of reading and research on my part. I had hoped to get a solid grounding from reading those chapters. I plan to re-read the whole psychology part again to see if I can better understand it. I'm wondering if any others more educated than myself have read this and what their evaluations were. I also don't want to take away from the excellent material on canopy control but I am curious if I'm the only one who had trouble with the second half. -Michael

I'm not anxious to do the hook turn thing but I do wonder what the best approach is to learn high performance landings? I know I've only got 40 odd jumps but I'm consistently landing very close to the target and I need more challenge. Is there a good intermediate step before starting to accelerate the approaches with a little front-riser input? -Michael

If a short recover arc means it returns to normal flight quicker after an input then why is a short recovery arc less forgiving? In my inexperienced opinion a longer recovery arc means it would require more opposite control to return to normal flight thus making it more susceptible to over-corrections. What am I missing here? -Michael

2 weekends ago I watched a student who was just off radio flare way too high. I mean like 50' up too high. He did as he had been instructed and held the toggles down for a standup landing. He was flying a Tutor 280. I've also wondered about the OP's question. I gave it some thought and did some reading. The height from which you apparently fall is going to be greatly impacted by what is still over your head. A collapsed parachute won't do that much, nor will one that is diving but it will still affect the speed at which you hit the ground. Another point is how you hit the ground. I know some people have hit the ground with a reasonably high forward speed (80-100mph) and ended up rolling a few times to just a few bruises. Someone else at a much lower speed (est 30-40mph) ended up in critical care for a long time. Difference - the second one went end over end. I know motorcycle crashes aren't exactly the same but it gives you an idea that height is only part of it. -Michael

I've been loosening the chest strap for a while now. The only thing I've found flying a sabre 210 is that I can get a very slight hip turn (I mean barely a 20-30 degree turn in 5 seconds of flight) with it loose but forget it if tight plus it's more comfortable. I tried datalogging the descent rates in full flight with the chest tight and not but couldn't record any difference. -Michael

I always set the brakes upon landing. What gets me is those who 1/2 set their brakes upon landing. Fortunately I've gotten in the habit of checking that they are correctly set and giving the brake line a tug to make sure. Caught one set on the wrong side of the ring that way - coule have been ugly. As for the posted illustrations that sort of thing has happened on the rig I rent/fly once. Had to do an under-canopy un-knotting to fly it. It has the type of toggles that attach top and bottom so the extra gets fed through the slot on the back of the riser then around to the front and under the bottom tab. I don't like it one bit. -Michael

A couple of weeks ago we spent an afternoon looking around to recover my free bag. When I get a rig I want a skyhook just for the fact it is more likely to attach my ass to an open reserve faster. The fact that the freebag stays attached is a great side-effect. -Michael

Funny similarity I've checked to make sure the pilot chute on my camera bag is in the right place about 50 times so far. True for learned actions- the camera bag feels like a rig on my shoulders. Lots of our tasks are limited by the license we have. Maybe an "A" license should be necessary to fly a sport /semi-eliptical/wingloading of X type chute. -Michael