markbaur

Hmmm. "New" implies Cypres II, but the picture on the website is of the original Cypres, which is no longer being made, and could be "new" only in the sense that it hadn't been previously installed. Mark

20 jumps within 5 meters is a _C_ license requirement. Your D license requires 25 within 2 meters. Mark

Here is the text of a letter published in Parachutist a few years ago: "I am compelled to bring to light what I consider to be the most serious safety problem facing the sport parachuting community today. "Over the past few years, out-of-sight main pilot chute extraction devices have become increasingly popular... I refer, of course, to the various devices known as 'puds,' 'bunny tails,' and other behind-the-back pilot chute deployment systems. "First, let me state that I feel hand-deployed pilot chutes were one of the most significant safety advancements to ever assist the sport of parachuting... I also feel that locating a hand-deployed pilot chute in an out-of-sight location has got to be the most positive step backwards that this sport has ever suffered. Simply put, my contention is this: If you cannot see your deployment device, it is in the wrong place. And, as nearly as I can tell, if jump stories are any indication, a flurry of 'bunny tail in tow' malfunctions has been occuring since the inception of these sorts of devices. "Personally, I am no longer satisfied that malfunctions involving loss of the bunny tail, 'can't get the bunny tail out of the rubber band,' 'can't find my pilot chute behind my back,' 'I lost the velcro toggle attached to my pilot chute,' etc. etc. are isolated incidents. I believe these incidents must be occuring on a daily basis throughout the country. I also feel that the time has arrived for USPA and the sport parachuting community as a whole to consider the relative advantages and disadvantages of such a deployment system. "The sport of parachuting is horribly unforgiving for those who make a sequence of mistakes. By locating your main pilot chute in an area not visible or easily accessible, you are increasing the chances of beginning the first step of the chain of sequences which leads to a fatality -- getting low and wasting time." The writer was a the operator of a well-known US DZ at the time. How about a BSR? Mark

(Showing my age...) I can remember when snaps (B-12s or quick-ejects) were the standard way to hook up leg straps and chest straps. That was acceptable because, after all, folks used similar snaps to connect their reserves to their harnesses. (Great idea! If you had a malfunction and used your reserve, you could just borrow someone elses to snap to your harness, and continue jumping!) Who was it posting here recently about wanting to jump a Stylemaster? Mark

The design is intended to prevent the flap from being dislodged by a push from any direction. Mark

Possibly because the minimum pull altitude for "A" license holders is still 3000 feet? Mark

Could you repost a link to the proposed education syllabus and proposed test standards (written, oral, performance)? I know you've done this before, somewhere. Sorry about being lazy, but there are so many threads on this topic right now. Mark

I just looked at a couple Racers on the rack. The main lift web and front reserve risers are Type 13, but the rear reserve risers are Type 8 -- and checking the photo, it looks like there's a guide ring on the riser. Mark

When the barrel is closed, it is off-center. The better choice is to orient the link with the long end toward the riser, lines on the short end. The photo shows the probable orientation upside-down. Slider bumpers would have helped maintain orientation, but the riser can be also be tacked to prevent link rotation. Mark

Why not? I don't recall grandfathering anybody with respect to pull altitudes. If some jumpers are using canopies unsuited to their weight and experience, why let them continue? Because it would be too expensive for them to be safe? Statistically, they are more likely to be injured or killed on their next jump than to go any number of jumps and then get killed or injured. How expensive is that? Mark

You'll see elsewhere in this thread I reposted with the whole quote, which takes up space, but doesn't change the meaning. He quoted me: [Quote] BUT... Would you support a WL regulation that required you to buy a different canopy? Or one that made swooping and swoop contests less glamorous? Would you support a WL regulation that required you to do something different than you're doing now? And here is his response: >No I wouldn't, but not for the reason that you are getting at. >I wouldn't because I have 1400 jumps and I wouldn't support >regulation that would say that someone with 1400 jumps >doesn't know enough to make up their own mind. I will >support regulation that says that someone with 200 jumps >doesn't know enough to make up their own mind, because for >the most part they don't. >As long as there is a way for them to prove they are >competent and test out, than a regulation such as this can only >help the situation. There is no denying that someone with 100 > jumps should not be jumping a 1.5 to 1 wingload without >serious training and even then it is still risky. >I can sit in a classroom with you all day and teach you about >how to safely take my motorcycle out on the track, but until >you have done a lot of laps around that track, you are a >danger to yourself and the others around you. All we are >saying is start out on a small manageable bike before you take >an open class unforgiving sport bike out there. >Lots of people have talked about regulations taking away your > personal right to choose as a low timer, but nobody has come >up with any substantial negatives to making people wait until >they know a little more before they get in over their head. Taking classes does not represent a change in his behavior. He's doing it without the pressure of regulation. The bold print in his reply is my emphasis. I want to be in the "regulation for thee but not for me" camp with you. Mark

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. I have 1400 jumps and jump a heavily loaded velocity and I have just organized a group of 6 people INCLUDING MYSELF from my dz to go to Deland and take Scott Miller's canopy class. Do I feel I need to change what I am doing....no, but there is always more to learn. I don't think my condensation of your post affected its thrust, but I include it now in its entirety. In all of these related threads, I can recall only one person saying he would give up the canopy he was jumping in order to comply with a new regulation. There may be others, but my point still remains: of all the folks who are in favor of regulation, how many would have to change something they are doing now in order to comply? Ron says no one would have to -- they'd all be grandfathered, because it wouldn't be fair to make them buy canopies more suited to their education and experience. If you are going to a canopy class now, it isn't because a regulation requires it, it's because you think it is a good idea. You are doing what you want to do, and you don't want to change (and I wouldn't want you to change, either!). Is there more to learn? Absolutely! You and I agree on that. BUT... Would you support a WL regulation that required you to buy a different canopy? Or one that made swooping and swoop contests less glamorous? Would you support a WL regulation that required you to do something different than you're doing now? Mark

Thanks for reinforcing my point a second time. Mark

Thanks for reinforcing my point. You want other people to change what they are doing; you don't want to change what you are doing yourself. Mark

The really curious thing is the number of people who are for a regulation that doesn't affect their own behavior. Mark

Not at all. My post was in response to the regulationists' attempts to make an analogy between minimum pull altitudes (in the BSRs), and maximum wingloadings (a proposed BSR). A case can be made for minimum pull altitudes based on physiological reaction times and canopy opening times. These are measurable parameters. The same case has not been made for wing loading. I agree with your argument that restricting wing loading will probably reduce landing injuries and fatalities, but you need to say what measurable flight/canopy and physiological/psychological parameters you've used to calculate the wing loadings you propose. Mark

Not to worry. The amount of forward throw is near enough the same for RW and FF that it can usually be ignored when figuring go-to-go times. There are much greater errors caused by mis-estimating ground speed, fast exit counts, and unintended freefall drift. Mark

Not quite. We have recommended numbers for CRW, water, night, and high altitude jumps. We do have required minimum pull altitudes, but a calculated case can be made for these, based on opening time and reaction time. If you would like the USPA to make "official" WL and other canopy recommendations (in SIM Section 6), I'd be all for that. But you still need to reveal the calculations (in terms of speed and reaction times) you use to arrive at your proposed regulation. Speed...Too many low timers are hooking it in. Reaction times...They are not hooking it in. Just respond, please, if you are able, in terms of physiological reaction times, canopy speeds and approach angles. Please also say why "education is not working" if it hasn't been tried yet, that is, there isn't a section on canopy progression in the SIM. Mark

Not quite. We have recommended numbers for CRW, water, night, and high altitude jumps. We do have required minimum pull altitudes, but a calculated case can be made for these, based on opening time and reaction time. If you would like the USPA to make "official" WL and other canopy recommendations (in SIM Section 6), I'd be all for that. But you still need to reveal the calculations (in terms of speed and reaction times) you use to arrive at your proposed regulation. Mark

Part of the problem with peer pressure not working is that folks who should be role models set bad examples. Putting a swoop pond close to the spectator and packing area says "Cool people swoop; the coolest swoop the most." Every time someone swoops that pond, he or she encourages less experienced jumpers to try it, too. How about moving swoop courses to the far side of the landing area, or to some place out of sight, like behind the hangar? It's time for leaders in our sport to recognize the part they are playing, to change their own behavior, and to lead by example. Mark

What were they? Mark

None of these super-accurate measurements take into account uneven terrain, trees, buildings, wires, and other obstacles. Precision swoopers might be able to take advantage of the extra accuracy, but for the rest of us the extra accuracy is lost in experimental error. Mark

The typical analog skydiving altimeter can have an error of +- 250 feet. Digital altimeters show more digits, some indicating altitude to the nearest 100 feet, others to the nearest 10. The number of displayed digits does not necessarily mean increased accuracy; I don't know how accurate they are. The drawback to all the digital altimeters is there is no one-step method to see if you are in the "red zone." Before there were skydiving altimeters, there were aircraft altimeters, installed on an instrument panel mounted on a belly-wart reserve. Aircraft altimeters depend on engine vibration to keep them from sticking, and so are not as reliable in skydiving applications. I don't know of any two-needle skydiving altimeters. The problem is one of engineering, tolerances, and reliability. The aneroid bellows cannot move much, so translating very small bellows movements into enough energy to turn the 100's needle at 100 rpm (6 seconds per 1000 feet = 6 seconds for 10 revolutions = 60 seconds for 100 revolutions) would require a delicate almost friction-free series of gears that would fail the ruggedness test. To get a two-needle altimeter with simple face markings also means a change of presentation, from the standard 12K clock-like face, to a 10K face, more like an aircraft altimeter. There are a few 10K Northstar altimeters still around -- I have one for sale -- but it's been years since I've seen one in actual use. Perhaps one of our mountain-climbing friends can tell us of a two-needle climbing altimeter. Trying to fly a canopy approach using precision instruments is a lot like trying to fly an instrument approach in a glider. It's possible, but it's easier to use visual cues (ground speed and angles). Mark

=240+ pounds. The usual definition of exit weight is what the scale would show if you were fully geared up and stepped on one just before boarding the aircraft. Is that what you mean, too? Mark

A blast handle mounted on the hip, especially with a downward pull, would be very unusual, almost certainly retro-fitted custom, not standard. Routed over the shoulder to the left main lift web near the chest strap was quite common. Mark