Hooknswoop

The twist is removed before making the first stow, so it has no effect. Even with the twist in the lines, it should not cause a bag lock. I do agree that Psycho packing tends to create off headsing openings. Derek

OK, clarified. You do need the 8610-2 and photo ID. That means you do have to have the 20 pack jobs. Derek

I'm with SkymonkeyONE. I only know of one person that has hammered because of dive loops and it was because they were incorrectly manufactured (retrofitted by handtacking). Not to say it can't happen, but it almost doesn't happen. Derek

It's only perception. You are a pilot, think of it this way: You are in a C-172 and bring the power to idle and maintain 70 kts. That will give you a steady descent rate, somewhere near 500 fpm. It doesn't matter if you are bucking a 70 kts headwind or have a 70 kts tailwind, the 500 fpm won't be affected. Wind only affects groundspeed. Derek

I'll double check on this. Derek

Yes, it would stabalize into a belly-to-earth orientation. Think early NASA re-entry vehicles. Derek

Does the canopy turn left the entire time? Also, check the length of your steering lines, they should be exactly even. Derek

About 50 of them Derek

RSL1, definately. Derek

Seems to me that your question has been answered, and the answer is "no", there are not people that refuse to jump, work, or associate, etc. w/ Mike Mullins. Seems to be the opposite actually. Seeing as Mike does frequent these forums, you may be able to better answers to any other questions you have by going to the source and PM'ing him. Derek

Guessing he means a double malfinction. Derek

Look at it as 2 tables. The second one for those that don't meet the jump requirements, but have demonstrated the ability. A CI would simply be following published guidelines. If they demonstrate the ability following these guidelines, they are signed off. If there is a lawsuit, the defense is industry guidelines were followed. i.e. he had X number of jumps so he had to demonstrate abc before being allowed to jump y wingloading, which he did. standard practice. If it were written as 2 tables, and not one table with waivers, wouldn't that eliminate the liability, or at least keep it the same as signing off licenses, etc? I can't believe there is sentiment that we would rather do nothing than risk liability. Is seems that if liabaility is a real concern, then that only affects allowing people to exceed the table. What is more important, the percieved liability or the flexibility of allowing people to exceed 'table1 of the WL BSR'. Are we faced with the choice of either increased liability or a non-flexable WL BSR? (Or, of course, the status quo). Derek

You can never have too much power or too much fuel, unless you are on fire. Derek

Since we will never have these numbers, we shouldn't do anything? Since we can't prove that a problem exists through statistics, a problem doesn't exist? How many lives and how many injuries before you would support it? It wouldn't set them up for further liability if all they did was administer a test per USPA's written guidelines, and allowed a higher WL per USPA's written guidelines. This would be the same as signing off an A license card or PRO rating card per USPA's written guidelines. Same liability. There are waiver-able BSR on the books now. How many is based upon their integrity, something I can't predict. Integrity is currently the only thing preventing S&TA's and I/E's from signing off people's rating renewals, licenses, PRO ratings, etc that haven't met the requirements. And those that think they don't need the training, or don't realize they need it are the ones that especially do and won't get the education. It is also unfair to increase membership dues or possibly lose insurance coverage for everyone because of a few incidents. But that is exactly what is about to happen. The actions of a few impact everyone. If someone can't learn until they are hurt, they really don't belong on a small canopy. We should not let them learn by getting hurt. How many times must the same lesson be learned? How many hard cutaway were there before riser insert use became widespread? How many pre-mature deployments before no ROL's for free flying policies were implemented? The education would benefit everyone and demonstrating ability in order to exceed the table would not be a big inconvenience at all. Derek

The number of incidents I hear about and have seen from people obviously jumping too small of a canopy. I would really like to have data to support this, but, like I mentioned, the proposed change to Part 105 that would have required incident reporting was shot down by the USPA. They are a lot and the skydivers that are ahead of the table safely would therefore have no problem demonstrating it. Also, they would be required to demonstrate it unless they downsized again (over the WL table) before having their D license. I really do not want to inconvenience or penalize a safe canopy pilot regardless of their WL. ( ) Q: A: Answered your own question. Small price to pay to curb an "ugly" accident rate. Isn't it worth it to save the lives of a handful of people? If not then how many lives must we lose a year to canopy incidents and how many injuries from canopy incidents must there be before the inconvenience is worth it? I am looking at the entire scope. Keeping low experience jumpers off high WL canopies until they are ready and canopy training that will benefit all experience levels. That would be great if we could get it to work. How can education prevent a jumper with 50 jumps from hammering in under a Stiletto 120 loaded at 1.6:1? Education can't replace experience. Education can't replace the inability to demonstrate ability. I am a licensed pilot. You can't put me in a classroom , educate me on the Lear jet, then expect me to go fly one. I'll crash, especially if there is a problem. If I don't crash, it would not because of the classroom education. I would definitely crash if I went out without any education and tried to fly a Lear jet. Fortunately, there is required training, required experience, and required tests before a pilot is allowed to fly such a high performance aircraft. They still crash, but not nearly as often as they would without those requirements. Derek

Yes, the 45-degree theory is worthless. Do a search, this has been debated a lot. Derek

The skydivers that exceed the limits and cannot demonstrate the ability to handle that high of a WL at that low of jump numbers. Exceeding the WL table w/o the ability to safely do so. USPA opposed mandatory incident reports, so accurate data is not, and will not be available. This is in spite of the FAA believing that just such a system could prevent future incidents. (I believe that the museum money would have better served USPA members by used to create an incident reporting system.) Let's say the table is too conservative, then more people would be required to demonstrate the ability to exceed it. No big deal and it can be adjusted if that is found to be the case. If the table turns out to not be restrictive enough, then again it can be adjusted. A pilot program, similar to how the ISP was researched, would bee the testing ground for a WL BSR. The combination of inexperience and high WL's are a deadly combination. The idea of the WL BSR is too allow a newer jumper time to gain experience in flying a canopy and experience in choosing an appropriate WL. This allows them to survive long enough to become experienced jumpers. Along the way, the education also ensures their longevity in the sport. The current system does not work. The proposal is a change to the system. If a pilot program demonstrates that it doesn't work, then it's back to the drawing board, but a fix must be found and implemented. Derek

So the situation is: 1) There is not enough education past the A license 2) People are hammering in under good canopies that are too small for them. 3) A rule that limits wing loadings across the board based on jump numbers or licenses is unfair to those that are more capable than their jump numbers suggest. 4) A rule that allows for exceptions for better than average pilots requires some sort of test and test administrator. No one will want to accept the responsibility for signing someone off to a higher wing loading, Which effectively makes it a rule without exceptions. It has been said that at least one jumper would rather quit skydiving that be forced to jump a larger canopy. If they can handle the canopy, they should be allowed to jump it. If they can't, they should not. A WL BSR must be flex-able enough to allow those that are capable to exceed the BSR. The result: People fly canopies outside their abilities and even conservative canopies pilots do not receive enough education to help make them a safe canopy pilot. The only thing stopping someone that is jumping too small of a canopy from jumping it is first being identified before they are a statistic by the S & TA, being grounded, having that grounding backed up by the DZO (who stands to lose money because of it), and having this grounding enforced by any other DZ they may go to (where the DZO stands to lose money). We allow people to jump too small of canopies (moral liability) because we are unwilling to accept the liability of allowing those that can handle the more aggressive wing loadings to do so. By not accepting responsibility we are allowing it to happen, for which we should be ashamed. It is time for USPA to do it's job: "Keep skydivers skydiving" and out of the hospital or morgue. We are letting down skydivers by not making available the canopy training that is out there. We are letting skydivers down by not preventing them from jumping canopies they shouldn't be. I don't expect the incidents to drop to zero, but they can easily be lowered through a WL BSR and education. Derek

My concern is that 1) that abunched up area could be the starting oint for a failure on deployment, and 2) with too many bunched up areas, the porosity can increase to the point that the openings are unacceptably long and the landings are too hard. Derek

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I remember reading that SSE was seriously in debt at the time of his death. Derek

Once we are terminal, we weight the same. Once the elevator stops acclerating (which doesn't take very long), the scale would read our body weight. Derek

I recommend not releasing the brakes on either canopy and to steer with the rear risers of the main. Determine if it is flying stable and/or if the main would clear if you cutaway. then decide to either land what you have or cutaway the main. Releasing the brakes on either canopy (you can't release both canopy's brakes at the same time) may take a stable side-by-side into a downplane or spinning, uncontrollable-able entangled mess. Derek

PD requires their reserves be sent back to the factory after 40 re-packs or 25 deployments, whichever comes first. That is just over 13 years if it is re-packed every 4 moths with no deployments. My theory on why re-packs cause more wear that deployments is deployments load the fabric evenly whereas packing does not. F-111 (not really F-111 but is the common term in use) is a weave of nylon. These fibers can be 'bunched up', leaving space between the fibers next to the 'bunch'. A Javelin reserve PC is a great example of this. Even when treated like they are made of tissue paper, they still show 'bunches' and lighter areas when held up to the light. A reserve that is inflating or inflated is loading the fabric evenly, or at least fairly evenly. This equal loading doesn't tend to create these bunches and shows less wear than packing. When packing a reserve, the fabric gets loaded unevenly. The rigger deals with one small area at a time, pulling the fabric tight and neat. Oils from the rigger's hands get on the fabric, etc. This results in a stress area, or an area that is more likely to fail when loaded. It also increases the porosity (permeability) of the material, allowing more air to pas through the material. This can increase the amount of time it takes the reserve to open and decrease it's ability to flare for landing. I think PD's requirements are fine. 13 years is a long time to have a reserve. That is a lot of packing of the fabric. Having them inspect it after 40 re-packs / 25 deployments is a good idea. Derek

The proposal will, eventually, affect all jumpers through the education. It does not neglect the incidents of more experienced jumpers with lower WL'. The concept is to teach all jumpers canopy control beyond what they receive in AFF and prevent those that want to downsize too aggressively from doing so. What it won't do is stop all canopy control incidents. Nothing will do that. How can more education be bad? How can preventing someone without the experience, skill, and knowledge from downsizing to a WL that will likely result in an incident bad? The problem is two-fold. Lower experienced skydivers flying at too high of a WL and high experienced skydivers that fly an appropriate canopy that never received canopy training beyond their AFF training. The proposal is two-fold. 1) Reign in the fringe that are downsizing too quickly and educated everyone. Then there is the incidents that WL or experience simply wouldn't have helped. They had a bad day. They made a poor decision. They got 'theshowmustgoon-itus'. They tried to impress someone. Etc. Derek

I have purposelly left things incomplete. I had no intentions of designing a CICC, exact canopy training course for each license, specific criteria to exceed the table, etc. That would all have to be worked out. I am trying to get the concept worked out. Derek