Hooknswoop

Did he freeze there?, died while trying to start a fire in the winter? Any impact wounds, like from a icicle? Hook

I am the rigger that packed Skymedic's Wings. I pre-stretch the reserve closing loop and replace the loop with a shorter one if after closing the reserve it isn't tight enough. Loops sometimes do stretch, the Cypres manuals says they will stretch no more than 3mm. I thin that number depends on the length of the loop. Pack jobs settle, especially when going from a low humidity to higher humidity environment. I try and run the humidifier when packing reserves here in CO, which usually has very low humidity. I have offered to either re-pack it for free, (which would cost him shipping, since he is out of state), or refund the $35.00 I charged him to re-pack it. If a reserve I pack ever has a problem, I will fix it for free, and throw in a benny if I can, such as a custom hook knife pouch, etc. Hook

Break off to pull altitudes have increased somewhat to get more separation on opening. A short track is no longer sufficient on high performance canopies. Research the number and results of canopy collisions after opening. Hook

For example, I have a PD-106R reserve. The max recommended weight is 128 lbs., exit weight. The max weight to be legal under the TSO is 220 lbs. A 92 lb. difference between recommended max and TSO max. The difference is flying and landing characteristics. Above 128 lbs., the canopy becomes more and more difficult to fly and land and is not recommended by PD. 128 lbs. is the max they recommend and that is only for very experienced jumpers. So why do I have such a small reserve? I can handle it. I have landed a similar, but more difficult to land, reserve 7 times, standing up, on target. I don't have a Cypres (that is another story, I would like one) so landing unconscious under my reserve is not a likely scenario. Any time you exceed the recommended maximum, you are dramatically increasing your risks and had better know what you are doing and be willing to accept those risks. It is not something to be taken lightly. Hook

There are generally two 'maximum' weights for a reserve. One is the TSO'd wieght limit the canopy is certified to, the other is the manufacturer's recommended maximum weight. The difference is above the recommended max, the canopy will be difficult to fly or flare. Above the TSO'd max, it may not hold together on deployment. Hook

Skydive Arizona has one. I believe there is one in Utah. Hook

Pull-out systems use a straight pin. Throw-out systems use a curved pin. Hook

What would the new job be? Add a paragraph to the SIM's? Ron's (and my) proposals don't affect the cost of the "A" license one cent. Ron's proposal doesn't have any mandatory canopy courses in it, costing the jumper more money. The class is an option if they wish to exceed the wingloading maximum for their number of jumps. The DZ would/could make money off the canopy courses. The S & TA position is not a paid position. Any 'policing' they do is free of cost to either USPA or the DZ. What costs? If anything the DZ will make more money from their cut of any canopy courses. You sound equally disappointed about the perceived demise fun-jumper oriented DZ's as you are about students with a 'death wish'. What costs? It is great you are still willing to learn, keep it up. I teach canopy skills and I am sure Ron does also. Obviously a few people (there are others) are not preventing the increase in landing incidents (injuries and fatalities) with jumpers in over their heads with their current canopy. Is flying a cross-braced canopy setting a bad example? I have two canopies, a Safire 189 and a VX-60. I can land both of them, but the VX is more spectacular. There is no way to make landing my Safire look better than my VX to spectators, not without injury anyway. The current system of peer pressure and advice with the occasional grounding or lecture isn't working. Again, I ask, what cost (what bill)? Hook

The thrid warning on the Pro-Track goes off at 29 m/s Vertical descent rate. 29 * 3.282 * 60 * 60 / 5280 = 64.89 mph vertical descent rate. (Someone check my math). 13.1 mph difference between third warning speed and Cypres speed. I have no problem getting the third warning to go off under a VX at 3.1:1. Which is why I put it on my ankle now. SSK couldn't tell me if the cypres would fire or not, at that wingloading. I have offered to test jump one (in a fanny pack) but haven't recieved a reply yet. I wouldn't worry about 2.6:1 or less. I have 831 jumps at that wingloading, some with weights, making it a bit higher, without the Cypres firing. Hook

Yep, the USAFA uses FXC's on the main and Cypres on the reserve. Loop ripcord for the main and SOS for the reserve. First jump is free-fall, alone. They use 3 super otters. Hook

A few open questions: What is the current system to prevent jumpers from flying canopys they can't handle? Is the current system for preventing jumpers from flying canopys they can't handle insufficient? What should our 'goal' be? How many injuries under good canopys per 1000 jumps is acceptable? How many fatalities under good canopies per 1000 jumps is acceptable? How would you (a hypothetical question), as an Instructor (you may be an Instructor, we haven’t gotten to the hypothetical part yet), take someone from 0 skydives to 1000, downsizing and progressing as a canopy pilot, with the eventual goal of high performance landings, with the goal of zero injuries along the way? Assume you can spend as much time as necessary in the classroom and jump with them as much as you need to reach this goal and your ‘student’ can afford to downsize/side step canopys as you see fit. Hook

The reserve packing data card. It is either under the reserve flap in a pocket, behind one of the 'mud flaps' (just below the 3-rings), in the reserve flap, or in a small pockeet behind an orange warning label on the back pad. The manuals for the ccontainer, main, reserve, and AAD (if it comes with one) would be nice to have. That's it. Hook

Is Ron’s proposal completely fair? No. If implemented it will cause some jumpers to jump at a lower wing loading than they are capable of for a while. What’s the harm in that? Err on the side of safety. Is my proposal completely fair? No. Same deal. Are the minimum pull altitudes completely fair? No. Can Ron pull at 1900 feet regularly and less of a chance of bouncing than someone with 50 jumps pulling at 3,500 feet? Yes, so should we not have the minimum pull altitude BSR because it is unfair? Of course not. It makes sense and if Ron (and others) have to pull a bit higher than they are capable of, so be it. It just isn’t that big of a deal. My proposal is more complicated and unwieldy. It is ‘fairer’, but more difficult to implement and use. If the max wing loading a jumper can have at sea level is 1.3:1 and they decide to go to CO and jump and are their limit and can’t jump at the higher landing altitude, is that so bad? If they are their limit and the altitude has the same effect as downsizing, then the altitude puts them in over their head, at an unfamiliar DZ. Seems like the landing altitude restriction would/could save jumpers from injury/death. The point is not just the low turn fatalities, but the far more serious injuries. No BSR will end all landing accidents. But isn’t there a need to bring the number of serious injuries and fatalities down? What is in place right now (DZO’s, Instructors and S & TA’s making judgement calls) is not preventing the numerous injuries and fatalities. The current system is broken. Ron and I (spurred by Ron’s idea) have made proposals. Others have voiced their opinions and dispelled myths. There really was a less than 40 jump wonder looking to load a canopy at 1.86+:1. We cannot deny that there is a problem. Any solution that is implemented will not be perfect. It will stifle some jumpers and still not prevent others from hammering in, but the problem needs to be fixed, perfect solution or no. Let’s agree that we need to fix the problem. If you don’t believe there is a problem, go back and re-read this thread and then the incidents forum. DZO’s decide whether or not to use the ISP or AFP programs, and these decision can be based on financial considerations. They will also either follow or not follow a wing loading BSR based on financial considerations. Having a bunch of jumpers grounded because they bought too small of a canopy isn’t going to go over well with a DZO with a lease payment on the horizon. Does anyone not think that the ISP is better than AFF? But all DZ’s don’t use the ISP, Why? Let’s take all the given ideas thrown in and come up with something that 51%+ of us can agree is a good idea and will help. Hook

Besides, even though there were proper justifications for a regulation (i don't deny this), the suggested solution (a table setting the max WL/number of jumps) is not efficient (except if you extend the regulation to 1000 jumps, with extreme limitations), it is a harsh and unfair constraint for a significant number of skydivers, and it doesn't promote any kind of training (except falsification of the logbook). Why 'or'? Why not both? Hook

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=458074;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; Hook

T-Handles are tough. I made my knee plate out of SS. Also my pos closing device out of SS, and longer so that it doesn't hang up on the edge of the rig. Packing weights, packing paddle (also SS, I like shiny things), small adjustable wrench w/ a SS straight pin, line guide for rounds, PC compression device for bail-out rigs, etc can all be made. Cheaper and I didn't like the tools I could buy. Hook

Use whoever is teaching you tools, then make your own to the specs you want. Hook

Slowing down before pull time does decrease opening shock, all other things being equal. Remember to not sacrafice stability or pull altitude slowing down to pull. I have found that a good, quick flare out of a flat track gives me the best openings and the slowest fall rate for pull time. Hook

“Fabric permeability does not change while a canopy is packed, it changes as a result of use and handling.” Pg 75, Vol II Best I could do. Hook

Have at it. Maybe you can put the parts you want into a 'read-able' form. I think I will send one too. Hook

I originally posted this under "Talking to a dead man". I have made changes and updates (the real meat is near the bottom). Sorry, again, for it being so discombobulated. Different people advance their canopy control skills at different rates. Different wing loadings, landing altitudes (Density Altitudes), and types of canopies, all result in different levels and types of performance a canopy produces. The landing areas are different from DZ to DZ. The higher the performance the canopy, the better the pilot needs to be to safely fly it (and maintain the same margin for error). Good reactions, an understanding of aerodynamics that apply to canopies (How a canopy flies, theory), good depth perception, the ability to accurately evaluate your skills, eye-hand coordination, dexterity, and good situation awareness are important attributes to becoming a good canopy pilot. The above skills aren't worth much without experience. Experience isn't worth much without the above skills. The higher the performance the canopy, the easier it is to get injured. The lower performance the canopy, the less likely the pilot will be injured. (An AFFI I knew would land his Manta 288 with the brakes release and not touch the toggles. He would PLF and get up.) Too many skydivers feel they are the exception, better than their jumps numbers would suggest they are. Too many skydivers want to be "the cool skydiver swooping down the beer line" before they are ready, in an effort to 'fit in' and be 'cool'. Just skydiving impresses 'whuffo' friends, to impress skydiving friends, you have to stand out, be better than your friends were when they had the number of jumps you do. A canopy control class can improve a pilot's skills, reduce the chances of an incident and possibly allow a pilot to learn at a faster rate. This is not universal, and the impact depends on the instructor, the syllabus, and the student. They can be difficult to attend (cost/travel/time/availability). Landing fatalities and injuries are bad for the jumper involved and the sport as a whole. Self-regulation is better for the sport than if the FAA where to step in to make and enforce regulations. (Not likely to happen). Fatalities and, to a lesser extent, injuries bring skydiving to the general public's and the FAA's attention, which is bad. A high profile incident or high number of incidents may force the FAA to step in. I don't see this as likely, they don't have the budget to hire more people to enforce skydiving regulations. A canopy regulation based solely on jump numbers would in some cases allow a jumper to progress too fast, some too slow (for their capabilities), and some just right. If such a system was adopted, there might be a rush to downsize and be 'grand fathered in', resulting in people flying canopies they are not ready for and resulting in the opposite goal than intended, i.e. more instead of less landing injuries/fatalities. A canopy regulation that allowed waivers would have to have designated, qualified people to sign off the waiver. Not all DZ"s have qualified people that can make this judgment. Also a 'Canopy I/E' would be forced to say "no" a lot, making them unpopular/disliked, similar to S & TA's today. (I know that not all S & TA's are disliked, but it does happen where an S & TA has to say "no" and the person holds it against them) Not a job I would volunteer for, BTDT. A DZO may choose to simply 'cap' the wing loading of their jumpers, avoiding having to make a decision about a pilot's skill and the suitability of the canopy they are/want to jump. (On this one, if a DZO doesn't want to address this issue and institutes a 'cap' (especially a ridiculously low cap) on wing loading, then either let the S & TA/Chief Instructor handle it, drop your GM ("Keeping skydivers skydiving"), or don't run a DZ.) How many DZO's/S &TA's ground someone that shows up at their DZ and is obviously in over their head with their canopy, loosing their business? How many S & TA's are over-ruled by the DZO so the DZ can sell jump tickets? Applying a fixed system to a range of people/abilities would be unfair to some. Jumping a canopy that is a size or two (or more) larger than the person can handle doesn't create an unsafe situation, jumping a canopy a size or two (or more) smaller than the person can handle does result in an unsafe situation. If you are bored on your canopy, get your pro-rating with it. See how good you really are with it. Landing injuries usually only injure the pilot making the mistake, they rarely injure others. Tracking skills are not keeping pace with canopy performance. Aircraft pilots are regulated because they can affect the public's safety. There is a big difference between a single seat and two seat ultra-light. Creating a flexible system requires qualified evaluators and can be more work as people challenge it believing they are the exception. This is basically what happens now, and varies from DZ to DZ, but is informal with no guidelines. Also, the Instructor, DZO, S &TA, I/E, Chief Instructor, etc, must first watch the jumper fly and land to make a call on the pilot's abilities. I may not be possible for someone to watch the pilot for a few jumps and by then may be too late. The more downsizing is regulated and restricted the less injuries/fatalities there will be. The more regulations and restrictions there are, the more they cut into the freedom and enjoyment and personal responsibility of skydiving. There has to be a happy medium between freedom and regulation. I think this issue parallels the much larger National Security/Personal Freedom debates sparked by 9/11. How much personal freedom are we willing to sacrifice in the name of security? The United States accepts 50,000 deaths each year on the roadways as acceptable for the freedom of travel and the speeds allowed. How many little crosses do you see on the sides of roads? How many serious accidents have you slowly driven past? How much more are you willing to pay for a safer car? Is what we have now insufficient? If yes, is a good solution to write some guidelines for DZO's/S & TA's/Instructors, etc. to help make these decisions and guide jumper's decisions on canopy choices? What should our 'goal' be? How many injuries per jumps is acceptable? How many fatalities under good canopies per jumps is acceptable? How do we achieve that goal without eliminating/significantly reducing the freedoms that help make skydiving what it is? Any sort of change will restrict some people from downsizing, making it unpopular with the people affected. Even some people that wouldn't be affected would be against it, as they would be against any further regulation. A first jump student focuses on the free-fall, which they perceive as the dangerous part of the skydive (hitting the ground at 120 mph), and put less emphasis on the canopy flight portion of the skydive (which has proven to be more dangerous than free-fall for injuries and fatalities). Initial Basic canopy training is very important and sets the tone for a skydiver’s advancement as a canopy pilot. I have done numerous “learning tandems”, that focused equally on free-fall skills and canopy skills. These initial tandems, if done correctly, combined with a program that puts at least 50% of the training emphasis on canopy control, produces a student that is better equipped to continue learning at a faster pace. They are also safer than a student that was talked down on the radio a few times, then allowed to fly the canopy unassisted. Additionally, downsizing while under the supervision of an Instructor to within one size of their first canopy closes the gap between the large F-11 student canopy and what skydivers generally buy for their first canopy. The FAA draws parallels between skydiving and flying, i.e. “Pilot in Command, Parachutist in Command”. The number of hours a pilot has is considered an indication of their abilities and experience. Flight time is logged under many different categories. Flying a multi-engine aircraft in actual Instrument conditions (in the clouds) demonstrates a higher level of proficiency and capability than flying a single engine VFR (in clear weather). 2000 hours of buzzing around (pleasure flying) in a Cessna 172 VFR isn’t the same as 2000 hours flying a King Air for a charter company. Having 2000 hours in a Cessna 172 doesn’t mean a pilot is ready to hop in a King Air and go fly. 100 skydives over 2 years isn’t the same as 100 skydives over 6 months. To be licensed to go fly a Cessna 172 around takes a minimum of 40 flight hours, a medical (that has to be kept current) and a written test. Then an oral and practical test with a Designated Examiner. The test isn’t a 20 question test that you can keep taking (for free) over and over until you pass, it is something like 60 questions from a bank of 700-ish questions and it costs $60.00 (usually) to take it. If you fail, you have to get signed off by a CFI to take it again, and there is a minimum time between tests. If a pilot wishes to fl a complex airplane (retractable gear, flaps, and a constant speed propeller, Driver, correct any of this that is wrong), they must receive additional training from a CFI and get an endorsement from said CFI in their logbook. If a pilot wishes to fly a High performance, multi-engine aircraft, or fly under IFR flight rules, etc, it requires additional training to reflex the additional complexity/speed/environment that the pilot will be operating in. In addition the Instructor must have additional training to teach other pilots thee more advanced skills. The USPA “A” license card has spaces for certain canopy drills/maneuvers, that must be performed prior to getting an “A” license. Until these maneuvers are completed, the skydiver is limited to jumping with a Coach or Instructor, or solo. This is a change from the old “A” license requirements, which were limited to accuracy requirements. USPA recognized the need for additional initial canopy training. The requirement was implemented (initially the ISP was mandatory, but DZO’s protested and the USPA folded and made the ISP optional). Once the “A” license is complete, the only additional license requirements for canopy control is accuracy. The 1-20 jump canopy training gap was identified and fixed. The 20+ canopy training gap has been identified (it is hard to argue that canopy skills are keeping pace with canopy development and use) but has not been fixed. I believe a combination of regulations and education is the solution to reducing the number of injuries and fatalities caused by mistakes made while flying fully functional canopys I propose USPA develop a series of canopy skills requirements for the “B”, “C”, and “D” licenses. These requirements would need to be flex-able enough to allow for aggressive canopy pilots and conservative canopy pilots alike. They would include canopy class room training, practical exercises, a written and practical test. I also propose USPA implement (grand-fathering in current license holders), canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license. As each license is obtained, the skydiver may jump higher performance canopys. These restrictions would have to be well researched, taking into account canopy type, landing altitude, wing loading, etc. The canopy matrix restrictions could be waiver-able to a certain, defined degree to allow a skydiver that wishes to advance more quickly, puts in the effort, and demonstrates the ability. A skydiver could also earn a ‘canopy restricted “B” through “D” license if they choose not to demonstrate the proficiency required for the next license, similar to a VFR commercial pilots license, for example. When USPA implemented the “A” license canopy skills requirements, they correctly figured that Instructors were qualified to teach these basic canopy skills, without further training or certification of the Instructor. As a skydiver progresses through their skydiving careers, their initial Instructor that taught them their basic canopy control skills may not be qualified or have the skills to teach more advance canopy control without further training and/or certification. Therefore, I further propose the creation of the Canopy Instructor rating (USPA should like this, more $$$ for them). This rating would be similar to the I rating (but without reducing the standard when DZO’s need more staff). Whereas the AFFI/ SLI rating courses focus on free-fall skills and instruction, the CI rating would focus on canopy skills and Instruction. A weekend course attended after completing a pre-course card, where a Canopy Instructor Candidate learns how to teach advanced canopy control (any instruction post-AFF is advanced in my book), and must demonstrate the ability to perform and teach advanced canopy control. A thought would be to simply add canopy piloting skills and canopy instruction skills to the current I rating courses. This brings up the dilemma of a great free-fall Instructor and flyer that can’t fly a canopy or teach canopy piloting very well not being able to teach free-fall skills, what a waste. Also, a CI would not be working with pre “A” license students, but licensed skydivers, and don’t require the free-fall skills and teaching ability to teach advance canopy skills. So the CI rating would be similar to the Coach rating, except focusing on canopy skills, not free-fall skills, and be as difficult to earn as the AFFI rating used to be. Thinking about this from another angle, how would you (a hypothetical question), as an Instructor (you may be an Instructor, we haven’t gotten to the hypothetical part yet), take someone from 0 skydives to 1000, downsizing and progressing as a canopy pilot, with the eventual goal of high performance landings, with the goal of zero injuries along the way? Assume you can spend as much time as necessary in the classroom and jump with them as much as you need to reach this goal. Your ‘student’ can afford to downsize/side step canopys as you see fit. In response to an earlier post: I watched Rhino (Rob) fly recently in CA, last time I have seen him fly before that was several years ago in TX. He tried to toggle hook a Tri 150. It didn't go so good. I berated him, he got mad, then he calmed down, realized that high speed landings aren't easy and set about learning. He currently flys very well, with his first reaction is to abort or bail out of a hook turn, instead of pushing a marginal situation. I never saw him get in the corner or show any signs that he is in over his head on his canopy. He has put in the effort to fly the canopy he does. He accepts criticism without letting ego get in the way, heck he asks for people to point out his mistakes. He has really calmed down and focused, if he continues with his current attitude and enthusiasm, I think he will continue to do very well. That is the key most people lack, they don't invest the tremendous amount of effort required. This is a tremendously difficult, emotional, and complicated issue. Hook

You beat me on the second one, let's call it even Hook

Very nice work. Hook

I spent a year as a Safety Diver at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory. 533 hours underwater in 10 1/2 months on 46% NITROX. Hook

400 feet for a cross braced canopy? I disagree. Having flown several cross braced canopys, I have never hooked one below 500 feet. I regularly hook from 1000+ feet, and not a very slow hardly swung out turn either. I snatch it around 180 degrees and dive. Two notes: 1) I sacrifice distance for speed with at my wingloading, except in higher winds, when I go farther than lighter-loaded canopys. 2) I fly a VX-60 at 3.1:1, landing at 5400 ft MSL. Hook