riggerpaul

so in the Safety and Training Forum is that seriously the 1st thing your do when you canopy opens? Uh, yeah. Being able to reach the rears asap after deployment is generally considered to be a good thing. I can reach my risers with the arms zipped, and i do, which is how i was taught by my BMIs, because it wont matter a fuck if you unzip your arms if you smack into another canopy So that means you know any sort of wingsuit and are 100% certain you can reach backrisers with any wingsuit...that's funny cause I can't reach mine with my wingsuit. And to me it will matter a fuck that I can reach backrisers first. But don't we take a quick look around as the VERY VERY first thing? Don't we need to decide if there's time to unzip or if we should instead go for a wing cutaway? I've only been on a ws with maybe 7 or 8 people in the air with me. Mostly, I choose my deployment area for lack of traffic. But I still take a quick look to be sure I didn't get some company I hadn't expected. So, isn't "check for traffic" really the very first thing?

Of course, your conclusion is uncontestable. The safest thing is always to verify that you have a matched pair of batteries. Still, Aviacom has told me that we should not need to change batteries in factory-new units, unless we find the bad black-wrapped Argus-branded batteries. They have assured me that these batteries are no longer used by the factory, and that they should be out of the supply by now. The only case I have seen was purported to be factory new unit. It was in a sealed factory-looking bag. So the mixed battery came from the factory; I don't think it was done in the field. For the record, I always change the pair together.

It somewhat depends on the canopy. Maybe you'll always own this canopy and never want anything different. But - I know a number of people who still jump non-collapsible pilot chutes. I know some who wonder if a collapsible is worth the reserve rides they've had because of them. There are other ways to kill a pilot chute besides a kill line. Though some will deny it, a bungee collapsible can be quite acceptable. It is sort of like the dreaded velcro-stowed toggle, under the proper conditions either can work quite well. Then there's the CF rigs that don't use the 1" Type IV tape for a bridle. My point is that the ring was there for a reason. You might not need it now, but someone might have a need for it later. If you ever came to have a need or interest in another configuration on this canopy, it might be useful to know why the ring was there in the first place.

Just to be clear, depending on the configuration of the bag, the ring can be important if one wants to use a non-collapsible pilot chute on the canopy. A non-collapsible pilot chute usually has a loop at the bag-end of the bridle that is large enough to allow using a lark's head to attach it to the ring. In that configuration, the ring is what pulls against the bag grommet to lift the bag. Without the ring, some of the canopy fabric could be pulled though the bag grommet when the pilot chute is lifting the bag. Exactly what will happens depends on the size of the bridle grommet on the bag. If one ever wants to switch to using a non collapsible pilot chute, something may need to be done to make it function properly. It isn't hard; there are several things that can be done, but something should be done or damage to the canopy may be the result. Some bags have such a small grommet where the bridle goes through that it is not a problem. But some bags have quite a large grommet. These are the ones where you need to do something to make it work correctly.

Which brings us ONCE AGAIN to the question of fraud on the stolen gear list. A great deal of the trouble that this thread is all about would have been avoided if we had better procedures in place to be sure that the stolen gear is handled properly. Even without deliberate fraud, there is the matter of stale information and the effects thereof. Suppose a stolen CYPRES is recovered through some means, but the list is not purged properly. Then the CYPRES is sold. Still later, the CYPRES is sent to SSK and they find it on the (stale) stolen gear list, and they send it to the original victim of the theft. What a mess. Yes, not too difficult to remedy if everybody is honest, but a bitch if that's not the case. Again, I suggest that the authorities be involved in these matters and that the authorities are listed as the contacts when suspected stolen gear is discovered. Do YOU want to send gear to the contact on the list just because HE says it is stolen? Is there any reason not to insist that the authorities are involved when grand theft is the crime? Is there any reason why we shouldn't want to fix this right away? Couldn't we prevent problems and ensure equitable resolutions if we handled the lists better?

I'll counter your example with one of my own. The Nazis stole all sort of property, gold, jewels, art, from the victims of the holocaust. Sometimes some of it is found. Should an effort be made to return it to someone who is determined to be a rightful owner? I think it should.

Both parties are victims. Both thought they had done their due diligence. Neither had. This is bull shit. Suppose some guy sold his grandfathres crap, becuase grandpa died, found in the attic 30 years after grandpa got it by stealing. Do you think the company it was stolen from deserves compensation? The text you quoted only says 2 things. Which part is bull shit? That both parties are victims? That both had failed their due diligence?

Just for the record, I'd like to mention that to the best of my recollection, ALL my rigs came from Ralph, except for my very first used rig that I bought from another jumper at my home dz of that time. Ralph was always honest, and always delivered exactly as he said he would. As SStewart said, he gave me considerations I had not expected. I think Ralph is a fine fellow. If you look though the archives for the user paulvfries, you'll find that I always supported Ralph when posters cast aspersions on his conduct. I've bought containers and mains and reserves from Ralph over the years, and I've always been satisfied. I am not one of the people picking on Ralph. All I want is an EQUITABLE solution for both parties.

Both parties are victims. Both thought they had done their due diligence. Neither had. Let them share the loss. Moving on... I no longer care to argue about the rig being stolen or not. SStewart. you win. The gear was stolen. Can we now talk about something that might improve this sad situation? Sstewart, what do you say to the idea that the police and courts should have been involved in the disposition of stolen property? I proposed that the stolen gear lists should insist that the contact be the authorities, and that the person making the claim should not be mentioned at all. That way, the person who discovers the stolen property will contact the authorities and get instructions from them. A theft involving thousands of dollars is grand theft, and should be handled through the police. I believe that our stolen gear lists are an invitation for someone to commit his own fraud, especially if people just start sending allegedly stolen gear to the person who alleges the theft. If the authorities are involved, there is an opportunity for equitable adjudication of conflicting claims. Things like who got insurance compensation would be asked and answered. And there's always a chance that the original perpetrator might get caught. So, how do you feel about my proposal?

Just to be clear, was this deal with 'likestojump'? The post your replying to is about 'likestojump', but your reply is a little vauge as to if it's about 'likestojump' or just a guy from the classifieds. If it is 'likestojump' in your story, provided that your account is accurate and complete, would be surprising given the multiple endorsements 'likestojump' has recieved in this thread. If you're talking about some other guy from the classifieds, I'm not surprised at all. After all this whole thread is about the ups and downs of private party to private party transactions via the mail. This has absolutely nothing to do with 'likestojump'. I apologize if that was the impression. Oops! I too got the impression that you were talking about likestojump. Thanks davelepka for asking. Thanks martlet for clarifying. As I said, I never heard anything bad about likestojump, so I was surprised. My ragging on you was based on the idea you were talking about likestojump. Seems we were all miscommunicating. So, I'll retract all I said. Still, sorry you had an unpleasant experience. At least you didn't lose anything.

He told you that? If so, okay, that sounds like poor business practice. I'm surprised. I wouldn't have expected that. And I am sure neither did you. It sounds like you have justification to have a poor opinion of his business practices. But still, you strongly implied that you would worry if he had your check. The one does not necessarily imply the other. You've every right to complain. Complaining about what he did is one thing. Complaining about what he might have done given the chance seems like something else to me. If you truly didn't mean to question his honesty, I guess it was just a heat of the posting moment sort of thing. Sorry to rag on you.

Just because the deal went sour does not mean he would cheat you. You've every right to be annoyed that the deal fell through, but to imply that you are worried he would take your money seems a bit overboard to me. I've never heard anybody say he wasn't honest. Deals sometimes fall through. That doesn't make the people dishonest. I wasn't implying that he'd cheat me. However, if someone lacks the integrity to follow through on a deal they made, that's been well discussed, and that the money has been sent on, then it brings their integrity into question across the board. When you say "I'm glad the money was in the mail to a third party, so it's safe...", I cannot help but get the impression that you think your check in his hand might not be "safe". I don't know why the deal fell through. Did he tell you? Maybe he decided the gear was not in good enough condition. Maybe he did you a favor.

Just because the deal went sour does not mean he would cheat you. You've every right to be annoyed that the deal fell through, but to imply that you are worried he would take your money seems a bit overboard to me. I've never heard anybody say he wasn't honest. Deals sometimes fall through. That doesn't make the people dishonest.

That seems to just reflect the "Changeover" period. I know that they are still writting a final guidance. MEL Here's the pertinent text from the National Policy Notice. Even I have to admit that this National Policy Notice still does not directly answer the question, "Can I close a rig if the battery will expire before the next required inspection". However, neither did they say that such a rig must be removed from service from December 19th 2008 until the battery is replaced. If the final guidance was going to say that you may not close such a rig, I would have expected the guidance at this time to say that such a rig was not legal to jump until the battery had been replaced. After all, they know what the conflicting positions are. And all they continue to say is that there is no change. This policy says the rig whose 120-day inspection had expired may be returned to service until the previous repack is more than 180 days ago. It didn't say that it could be returned to service only if the battery will make it to the next inspection. Also, if the rig was not legal to jump, then why say that we must replace the battery "on schedule"? So, we now have a written document from the FAA that says you can still jump a rig even though the AAD battery will expire before the next inspection is required. MEL, do you agree that this policy says that? I am still guardedly optimistic that the final guidance will say that the AAD battery is like an ELT battery, which is already handled the way many of us think an AAD battery should be handled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7820311.stm

SSK is in LEBANON, OHIO, USA. AIRTEC is in Germany. If the stolen gear lists had the information for the police, that's where SSK would contact. Do you have a problem with the idea that involving the police in a theft? Don't you think it would help to avoid fraud in the stolen gear lists themselves? I dont have a problem with that at all. I think it would protect both parties. In this case if the police were involved I think the the dealer would get the gear back and Im not sure if that would be right or wrong. I wish the dealer in this case would work something out with the OPer . I mean its been four years. He had to get some money back from this I would think and it would be a get PR move if you ask me. But no one is asking me but you Actually, I think you might be surprised. At least with the authorities involved, there is a chance that some adjudication of claims would occur. In a case like this, I believe there would be consideration of the history of the property. If the claims were both found to have merit, then I expect the loss would be shared more equitably. Questions like what compensation the original dealer might have received would certainly be asked and answered before final resolution is reached. There's even a chance that the history could track back to the original perpetrator. That's certainly not going to happen unless the authorities are involved.

Okay, sorry. A case of posts passing like ships in the night.

No problem. So, what do you think about insisting the police are involved and that they are the only contacts? If you don't like it, why?

SSK is in LEBANON, OHIO, USA. AIRTEC is in Germany. If the stolen gear lists had the information for the police, that's where SSK would contact. I don't think the contact info for the person originating the listing should be included at all. Do you have a problem with the idea that the police should be involved when you allege theft? Don't you think it would help to avoid fraud in the stolen gear lists themselves?

You explain this well. However if I ever have gear stolen and I would like it returned I would post my "stolen gear ads" on as many websites as humanly possible so there are no excuses on why a buyer "could not find the stolen gear ad". Also the dealer didnt even take the time and effort to maintain his ad. In the dealers own words "The gear was on a USPA stolen list at one time...", therefore were they really concerned with trying to get the gear back?? Just because this jumper is nice enough to consider even sending the gear back to an unworthy company who didnt take the time to set up and maintain stolen gear ads is mindblowing to me. The gear company should lick their wounds and call it a loss. (cost of business with poor payment policies). 1. I hope if the company got insurence money they realize they would be hurting a fellow jumper by demanding the gear back. Therefore letting him keep the gear. 2. If the gear shop honestly recieved no insurence money then make a deal as to this guy will become a salesman for their gear store, or does another type of work publicising the store (in order to repay a small amount of the gear to the store, and keep the gear) In any case I see it as your gear! If it turns out you are forced to return the gear please post details on the gear store. I try to uphold the morals that if a company will nickle and dime you for something that is not your fault, I will do the same to them by negative publicity. None of my fellow jumpers will ever buy from this gear store. SSK already sent the CYPRES to the dealer. If the dealer was already compensated (insurance etc) he should send it back to the OP. Which brings up the question of what should be shown as the "contact" for the stolen gear listing. If gear was stolen, it should be reported to the police. When stolen property is discovered, it should be held or sent to the police, not to the person reporting the theft. In fact, you should hold the gear and contact the police as the first step in the process. They will tell you what to do next. It would be an easy thing for someone to list all kinds of gear on the stolen list, and if everybody just starts sending him the "stolen" gear we discover, we are just helping him commit his crime, which is unwittingly committing a crime ourselves. After all this discussion, how long do you think it will be before someone tries exactly that? Please don't tell me that only honest people use the stolen gear list. I already know that only honest people use credit cards. So I propose that we should insist that stolen gear be reported to the police, and that the police should be listed as the "contact" on the stolen gear list. That goes to protect all involved - the sellers, the buyers, and the people who discover the allegedly stolen gear.

What I am saying now is not to contradict anything you said above, but to further clarify. You say that you have held double front risers for a few hundred feet. That is much longer than the 3 to 5 seconds for the acceleration to complete. After those 5 seconds, the speed stabilized, and the force of lift again equaled the suspended weight. You held it for maybe another 10 or 15 seconds. At that point, it was arm strength that failed you. It was not a continuing increase in lift. As I said, different parachutes will take a different amount of time to complete that speed change. This is mostly about the drag of the parachute. Small, high performance, elliptical (including cross-braced) canopies have lower overall drag than my big 7 cell Spectre. They have a higher top speed, and take longer to complete the acceleration. But once the acceleration is complete, the forces balance, and the lift matches the suspended weight. In summary - The only thing that "powers" our parachutes is the suspended weight. When you increase wing loading by increasing the suspended weight, the parachute will fly faster, but it flies on the exact same line as it did with the lower weight. That line represents the L/D ratio of the wing, and is independent of the suspended weight. While flying on that line, the lift exactly matches the suspended weight. The suspended weight determines the speed at which you fly down that line, but it does not change the angle of the line. The only time the force of lift can exceed the suspended weight is during accelerated flight, like in turns or during the pull out from a dive. ( BTW - A landing flare is just a particular case of pulling out of a dive.) The amount of weight supported by the front risers versus the rear risers is a function of the design and trim of the wing and lineset. Some parachutes carry more of the load on the rear risers than others. These parachutes will have a lower front riser pressure, but the sum of the two will equal the suspended weight, except during accelerated flight. If you can do some chin-ups on a bar, you can pull your front risers. If you cannot do chin-ups on a bar, you will have trouble pulling front risers.

Better go check your aerodynamics texts. You cannot stall "at any angle of attack". From my pilot texts, "You can stall in any attitude at any airspeed if the angle of attack exceeds the critical angle as determined by the airfoil". A stall is all about angle of attack, and nothing else. A stall is defined as having the angle of attack exceed a critical angle. So you cannot stall "at any angle of attack". You can only stall if the angle of attack goes past the critical angle. If you are in unaccelerated flight, the force of lift is exactly balancing the weight of the craft. If this were not true, you would be accelerating. What is unaccelerated flight? Unaccelerated flight is steady state flight. It will be straight, not turning, and it can be at any angle of climb or descent, as long as the rate of climb or descent is a constant. If the path of the canopy is a straight line, it is unaccelerated flight. Since our parachutes are not powered, you will not be able to see steady state climbing, but you can absolutely see steady state descents. The weight of the craft is you and your gear. For that docile, stable canopy, the following will be true. When you pull the front risers, initially the riser pressure will be the amount of your weight that is supported by the front risers. As you decrease the angle of attack of the wing, the pressure will actually go down for a moment as the lift is reduced. The canopy will accelerate due to the reduced lift. During the acceleration, the force on the riser will increase as the lift builds to balance the new airspeed. This will take only a second, give or take. At that point, the force will stabilize to be exactly that portion of your weight that is now supported by the front risers. No more. If, at that point, you find you cannot hold it after a time, it is because your arms got tired. I don't fly extreme high perf canopies, so the explanation above will be a bit different for them. The important difference is how long it will take to reach the new trim speed. All else will be the same. Once the new trim speed is reached, the riser pressure will stay stable. You can test all this yourself. Get one of those digital altimeters that will report rate of descent. See how long it takes to get to a stable descent when you change the trim with risers. Once you reach the new trim speed, the force of lift is again in balance with your weight, and there will be no change in the force, or the rate of descent. If you cannot hold the riser steady, find someone who has a set of 2-fers on their front risers. These are leverage devices that allow lower riser forces at the cost of limiting how far the riser can be pulled. You can only pull the riser half as far with a 2-fer, but that will be plenty. With the extra leverage, even a weaker person can easily experiment with riser work.

I was trying to be gentle. That didn't work. Some of what you say is just wrong. When you pull down on the front risers, you do not increase your lift. Pulling on front risers makes you come down faster, right? Pulling on front risers increases your rate of descent, right? If, as you say, descending faster means more lift, where is that extra lift going? When you pull down the front risers, you decrease the angle of attack. Decreasing the angle of attack reduces the lift, so you come down faster. The canopy is moving faster, but the reduced angle of attack means less lift is being produced. If you pull evenly on both front risers and hold it steady, you will find that the force does not continue to increase. The only change in force is because you have transferred a bit of your weight off the rear risers and onto the fronts. Hold that steady and the force will not change any further. Go out and try it. Riser turns are a different matter because turning is an acceleration. When you are turning, your risers are experiencing a load greater than your weight. But when you are flying straight in a steady state, there is no acceleration, and the only weight there is to support is your body and gear. Some of the weight is supported by the front risers, and some is supported by the rears. When you pull the fronts together, and let it get to a steady state (which only takes a second), the only increase in force on the fronts is the weight you took off the rears. It will not change after that. Go out and try it.

Something's still not quite right. I have no problem with the center of lift being forward on a more stable canopy. I have no problem with that meaning the proportion of the weight being supported by the A and B lines is higher, and that this will mean greater strength required to pull the front risers. But you said "When this canopy increases speed more lift equals more pressure" and I'm having some trouble with that. If this is true, then pulling the front risers would make you go UP? (Pull riser = more speed. More speed = more lift. More lift = flatter glide, or, apparently going UP?) No, pulling front riser will decrease the angle of attack, making the canopy dive more. That's not increasing the lift. Yes, your speed increases, but your lift decreases. When you release the risers, you will be above the trim speed, and the canopy will glide flatter for a while, but that's not what you're talking about, is it? If you do a front riser turn, the riser pressure will go up due to higher G forces in the turn. As your turn tightens, the force to hold the riser goes up. But simply pulling down both fronts doesn't result in a force that builds. At least that's not what I feel on my Spectre when holding fronts while doing CF. Sure, given enough time, my arms get tired. But I can hold it for a while before that happens, and the forces don't seem to be building. When it comes down to it, if you cannot do chin-ups, you'll have some trouble with front risers.

You know, it's funny you say that. I slept with a guy that slept with a rigger (his wife) last night. And I also think nearly $100 for a Racer repack is insane. Racers are no harder than any other conatainer to repack. What do you mean? I have to use all my pullup cords when I pack a racer!