markbaur

Tight sequential I agree, although even then you have to retrain from looking at your teammate's relative position to looking at your student's body position. At least you start out comfortable flying close enough to lifeguard. Camera I disagree. It's better than freefly freefall or tandem droguefall, but under stress we tend to revert to what's comfortable. A typical camera flier's comfort position is a few feet away from (and often slightly below) his or her subject -- out of position for lifeguarding, and in less than optimal position for freefall instruction. Mark

Is there a way to filter or automatically delete email with a blank subject line? Mark

?? From my Webster's dictionary: "sycophantic: adjectival form of sycophant: a servile self-seeking flatterer." Sick, perhaps, but not sycophantic. Mark

More on evaluators: The usual progression is Instructor - Evaluator - Course Director, which assumes that the qualities that make for a good instructor are the same that make for a good evaluator, and later a good CD. But a good Evaluator is not necessarily a good Instructor. An AFF Instructor has to skydive well; an AFF Evaluator has to fly like a student. An AFF-I has to be able to analyze his student's body position; an AFF-E has to keep track of his candidates' relative position in the sky. What are the qualities that make for a good evaluator, and how will we make sure the evaluators possess them? More on standards: At the most recent annual AFF Standardization Meeting, much was discussed about standardization of procedures. Nothing was said about standardization of performance requirements. It is possible that all the Course Directors require the same level of performance for a successful ground prep and skydive, but we have no way of knowing. If we cannot know now that all new Instructors meet the same standards, how will we be able to ensure fairness in any future recertification scheme? Mark

High-performance aircraft: A-7, F-4U Corsair (Altitude Shop harness/container) A-12 Avenger (National main; the aircraft came afterwards) A-37 Dragonfly (Django main) F-3H Demon (Parachutes Canada main; Performance Variable main) F-4 Phantom (National's line of round and square reserves) F-14 Tomcat ( F-15 Eagle (Strong harness/container) F-16 Falcon (Precision main) F-18 Hornet (PISA main, Pioneer main) F-22 Viper (Lockheed-Boeing's designation, also known as F-22 Rapier; also XP-13; also kit jet)(what Cobalts were before) F-89 Scorpion (National reserve) F-101 Voodoo (Rigging Innovations harness/container) V-22 Osprey (Pioneer main, which came before the aircraft) X-9 Shrike (Sew-it-yourself main parachute) X-? Aurora(?) (Parachutes Canada main) X-31 Vector (RWS harness/container) C-130 Hercules (National reserve) EC-130E Clipper (Glidepath main) MC-130E Talon (Rigging Innovations harness/container) S-3 Viking (Pioneer main) RQ-1 Predator (PISA main) T-44A Pegasus (also rocket; also ultralight) (Django main) EH-101 Merlin (Pioneer main) MH-68A Stingray (National main) A-26 Douglas Invader (Parachutes Australia parachute system; PISA main) B-26 Marauder (National main) C-125 Raider (Glidepath main) P-## Pursuit (what fighters were before they were F-) (Para-Flite CRW canopy) P-38 Lightning (also English Electric Lightning jet) (PD CRW canopy) Supermarine Spitfire (on floats once held the air speed record) (National reserve) Avro MK-2-B2 Vulcan (National reserve) BAe Hawk, P-1, P-2, P-3 Curtiss Hawk (and anti-aircraft missle) (Para-Innovators main; Strong harness/container) Gloster Javelin (and anti-tank missle) (Sunpath harness/container) Gloster Meteor (Parachutes Australia main) GR1 Jaguar (PdF harness/container) F1 Mirage (Mirage Systems harness/container) An-124 Condor (NAA harness/container) DHC Comet (Bill Gargano main/reserve. Bill sold his parachute business to Strong, which continued production; Bill currently makes the Quantum series powered parachute canopies.) Fairchild Merlin commuter prop-jet (and ultralight) (Pioneer main) K-250 Kestrel (Pioneer main; the aircraft company is much more recent) Titan (rocket; also ultralight) (Pioneer main) AGM-65 Maverick missle (also experimental; also Top Gun contender) (Glidepath main and reserve) Space shuttle Challenger (also Apollo 17 lunar module; also ultralight) (New England Parachute Company accuracy canopy) There's a lot of sharing going on. Mark

And another one: http://www.velocityaircraft.com/. And another one: http://www.excaliburaircraft.com/. Google comes through. The competition must use the same branding service: How about: www.ravenaircraft.com And: http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/icarus.htm. Taras was a 7th-grade friend of mine. A stretch: http://www.full-lotus.com/. This one's a little different. First the Para-Flite canopy, then the airplane: http://www.cirrusdesign.com/. On the other hand, first the airplane, then the Para-Flite canopy and container: http://www.napanet.net/~arbeau/swift/. Are we done yet? Mark

Phantom 24: From acid-mesh era. Also, this canopy should have the Kevlar reinforcing bands added. Jetstream: made it into the list of manufacturers in Poynter's 2, but not into the text. 300sf? I'd jump it. It would have to be better than the DC-5 I tried last year. Mark

IIRC, the Para-Flite Swift container had a two-pin reserve. Is your de-mil rig similar? It may be possible to treat your rig like a Swift on steroids, the way a Tandem Vector is basically a very large sport rig. Ask Para-Flite if they have drawings for an FXC installation on a Swift. Mark

The tape covering the end of the ripcord pin on a Talon limits the reserve pin to heel-on-grommet insertion. I suspect on some other rigs with a tape pin-end cover (some Javelins?) you'd have to insert a reserve pin at an angle to the ripcord pull to get it to heel-on-loop, which would make for a harder pull. In cases where it doesn't affect the pull angle, I can't see that it would make much difference. When did the Army and Navy part ways? Is it only on sport-derived gear? When did they quit using locking cones? Mark

If you call FXC, they'll say to plan on 3 months. My experience is like masterrig's: the last couple batches I've sent have been back in about 6 weeks. Mark

Action Air will do the chamber test required at every repack, but they don't do the 2-year factory check. They charge $36. You pay for shipping, insurance, removal, and reinstallation -- at every repack. The FAA is explicit about installed AADs meeting manufacturer's maintenance requirements; the FXC owner's manual is explicit about requiring the chamber test at every repack. The plastic bag test is no substitute; all it tells you is that the unit will fire at impact. Mark

The best text is an old canopy. Take it apart, make copies of the pieces, make a new canopy (or at least a couple of cells, perhaps including a stabilizer, perhaps the pilot chute attachment point). Your reproduction canopy is unlikely to be jumpable, but the exercise will give you an understanding of the construction process and materials, which in turn will be the basis of your design(s). Mark

Two observations: First, we would like our instructors to be proficient, but I think you are assuming that current and proficient are the same thing. Rick Horn told me, "It isn't true that practice makes perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect." (I don't think that idea was original with him, but he's the one I remember.) All we know about someone who claims to have made 15, 50 or 500 AFF jumps last year is that they might have done so. We don't know how good a job he or she did on any of them. Being current helps proficiency, but is no substitute. Second, this thread has focused largely on AFF air skills. There needs to be an equal focus on ground skills. Mark

I recently shipped a brand-new rig UPS overnight across the country. The total was $112: $95 for shipping 25 pounds, just $17 for $5000 insurance. If you are able to plan ahead, UPS 3-day or ground might be the ticket. Mark

This sort of installation is quite common. The pin spacing is critical; the end pin must clear at the same time or very slightly before the pin where the puller is attached. Pin spacing varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. If your ripcord is not original, checking pin spacing is doubly important. FXC does not make a 2-pin adapter that pulls parallel with a typical 2-pin ripcord (both pins swaged to the same cable), because they'd need to make adapters for every conceivable pin spacing -- and because there's no need to. Their 2-pin "Y" puller is intended for a 2-pin 2-cable ripcord like one used by a Strong Eagle or Hawk. Two things to try when the reserve is repacked: -- When the reserve is finally closed, insert the ripcord pins without taking out the temporary pins. Pull the ripcord slowly, and watch which pin releases first. -- If you aren't satisfied with the slow ripcord pull test you just tried, finish the pack job with the FXC installed. Fire the FXC using the plastic bag method, and see if the ripcord is pulled the way it needs to be. Mark

I could not support video as a substitute for an air evaluation. The goal of an evaluation is to see how well a candidate or instructor performs on some particular jump. We use that information to guess how that candidate or instructor will perform on typical jumps and interesting jumps. Substituting video allows a candidate or instructor to submit his best jumps, instead of representative jumps. Not much useful information there. Mark

This is the problem with CIA: it gives priority to the least important element. I don't think there are any instructors who want to apply the 5-second rule to altitude awareness, and yet that is exactly what is said above -- even though you didn't intend it, you taught it. Try instead AIR: Altitude aware. You can see your altimeter and you know it's working. In control. If not, and altitude permits, 5 seconds to get that way. Relaxed and comfortable. You don't have to continue freefall if you don't want to. You could make your explanation even simpler by stopping after "In control." Where in the SIM or IRM is CIA? Mark

Is there evidence of a problem other than anecdotal? If there is non-anecdotal evidence of a problem, is it a problem with all disciplines, or just with AFF and everybody else would have to do check jumps in the name of equity? Where would the evaluators come from? I suspect the proliferation of AFF Course Directors and AFF IRCs has led to a number of small courses not requiring use of AFF Evaluators or Designated Evaluators. How many AFF-DEs are current? Even if the program is not set up as a money-maker for USPA, I can see it developing into a bonanza for some of the folks most strongly advocating it. I'd like to be proven wrong. Could you run some numbers? ------------------ At a dropzone I visited -- not my home dropzone! -- I observed a very senior instructor doing the gear orientation portion of his FJC, early in the first hour of the course as is typical in most FJCs I've seen. As the instructor stretched out the canopy, I was inwardly horrified by the amount of time he spent describing how things could go horribly wrong. I know instructors who can stretch a static-line FJC to 8 or 10 hours. What do they find to talk about? What would a "check ride jump" do to improve their teaching skills? I ask because we rarely have a chance to see another instructor in the air, so we form our opinions about their teaching ability from seeing them interact with their students on the ground. ------------------ As to the issue of "check jump failure," wherever one sets the standards, and whoever evaluates, some good instructors will have off days and will not meet the standards on a test jump. I don't think we want to suspend their instructor tickets, and we don't have to if there is some system of "train to standard," that is, like airplane pilot Flight Reviews, there is the option of considering each "check jump" as a training jump until the instructor demonstrates performance to standard. That might be just one jump, but it might also require a series of jumps before the instructor is proficient again. ------------------ The FAA BFR has an alternative, the "Wings" program. I think I could support a continuing education program like that. I wouldn't support a "check jump" requirement without a continuing education alternative. Mark

1993 was the year the FAA certified a BRS system for Cessna 150/152s. BRS and Second Chantz were in the ultra-light recovery parachute business starting in the early 80's. Mark

The letter says a whole bunch more about Karel Goortz than it does about Vigil. Based just on the letter, I'd say the company is more stable, not less, without him. Mark

One of my rigging customers has a Talon T7. The Raven 3 reserve and Monarch 215 main pack nicely in it. Mark

It's time to switch from CIA to AIR --Altitude aware --In control --Relaxed and comfortable AIR puts the priorities in the correct order. More on acronyms: the acronym is for the instructor, so he or she can more easily remember sequence and content of instruction. If you teach, "If you are alone in freefall, remember CIA," then when the student is alone in freefall he or she will have to first remember there is an acronym, then select the correct acronym from among the many, then decode the acronym. I can imagine a student spinning down through pull altitude thinking, "FBI? CIA? KGB? ... HARM? GASP?..." > If not CIA at pull altitude PULL STABLE OR UNSTABLE How about "If you are at or below pull altitude, pull." CIA has nothing to do with it. And when you associate pulling with stability, your student will too -- even if, or especially if, you tell him not to. Pink elephants. Mark

Oops! Not yet, not for me, at least. Thanks, Mark

Brian: At Z-hills a couple months ago I saw a rig with your Slocks installed, but neglected to see exactly how they were made. Do you have a short description (Type 8, Type 12; stiffener if any; if doubled; how folded; how sewn; size/width; etc.) that a guy could use to fabricate his own? Mark

I like Chuting Star's idea about using Slinks™. I'm curious about the condition of the grommet. It's hard to tell from the pictures, but it looks as if it has "coned" up from repeated banging against the link, and the grommet edge looks like it is slightly unseated -- a snag point for canopy fabric. Mark