Hooknswoop

Expert Cypres: Fires at 750 feet at 78 mph (114.4 fps) or more Student Cypres: Fires at 750 feet at 29 mph (42.5fps) or more (However, should the rate of descent be lower than that of free-fall but still above the limit of 29 mph, then student Cypres activates the EOS (cutter) when the altitude decreases below 1000 feet above ground level.) Tandem Cypres: Fires at 1900 feet at 78 mph (114.4 fps) or more A student or expert Cypres will not work if the aircraft is exited before it reaches 1500 feet and the Tandem Cypres will not work if the aircraft is exited before reaching 3000 feet. The Cypres ceases operation below approximately 130 feet AGL. Hook

But you still encounter the problem of not throwing the handle, unless like you mention in #3, you have them trow the ripcord. And you have the problem of the PC having to get through the burble, which causes a lot of hesitations. An unstable student pulling a ripcord is going to fire off the PC in a random direction also. I don't think there is a difference for un-stable students. I haven't had very many unstable students pull (maybe 2 or 3), either ripcord or throw-out. Same thing, I think if they are throwing a BOC ripcord or throwing a BOC throw-out PC it is the same, except it costs the DZ money in ripcords. Seems like most schools using ripcords either don't want to spend the money to change their rigs or simply are resistant to change. I have 500+ AFF jumps using BOC throw-out without a single problem that a spring loaded PC would have fixed. The only one was caused by being trained on BOC ripcord, and he let go of the PC after 2-3 seconds. I would like to hear the opinion of an Instructor at Skydive Chicago, I think they have been using BOC throw-outs the longest. Hook

I have taught AFF using both ripcords and BOC's. BOC is better. No burble to worry about, except I have seen two PC's thrown into the burble. No more problems, actually less problems with the student finding the handle than ripcord. No de-arching at pull time as the student trys to 'see' the handle. How many transition jump horror stories have you heard?, "I pulled the handle nothing happened so I dropped it and pulled my reserve, and both my main and reserve deployed." The one student I have had hang onto the PC (for about 3 seconds) had learned at a different DZ that used ripcords. All the transition traiining in the world didn't change his initial training of not to throw the handle. BOC or Ripcord must be 'done correctly'. I don't think it make a difference make a mistake with a BOC or ripcord. I have never had a student wrap the PC around their arm. With a BOC all they have to do is throw the handle, which, from what I've seen, most people do on their AFF level one with ripcords anyway. Hook

OK, everyone loves Wingnut. But the real question is who does Wingnut love the most? Oh lookie here, a Vector with a Swift plus reserve. Who does that belong to? Oh ya, that's Wingnut's rig......... So who do you love Wingnut??????? No pressure or anything. Dave is cool. Hook

I originally posted this under "Talking to a dead man". I have made changes and updates. 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. This is a tremendously difficult, emotional, and complicated issue. Hook

But can't we stop (or at least advise against, when asked) people from downsizing too fast 100%? Hook

www.stuntsae.com is what it used to be, but that site is down. They no longer manufacture sport rigs. The only Eclipse information I can find on the web is for Eclipse tandem instructors at: http://www.skydivemontereybay.com/home.html E-mail Skydive Monterey Bay or Call them would be your best bet. I zeroxed a manual from a customer before they stopped making sport rigs. If you can't find anything else, shoot me a PM. Hook

That technique is used for Dacron lines on reserves because a knot wold be so bulky. So it could have been a rigger. Applying that technique to thinner lines doesn't work, obviously. I prefer to finger-trap the loop for attaching toogles and sew. No knot to hang up and is very clean. Hook

Mini (type 17) risers without the re-inforcement tape between the webbing at the grommet. Throw them away. Hook

Dropping glow sticks from under canopy also has the tendancy to scare the hell out of the people on the ground. Then piss them off when they realize you didn't hook it in or bounce. I have a few jumps w/ a chem light tied to the base of my PC and no problems. I don't think it would cause the PC to mal. Hook

I have packed a few intentional line-overs on a PD-170 loaded at just over 1:1. They were quite violent. I pro-packed them and then pull the upper control lines around in front of the nose, between the 4th cell and center cell. Out of 3 attempts, I got 2 line-overs. Kinda embarrassing to pack a line-over and get a good opening.. The last one I half-hitched a rubber band around the upper control lines and center "A" line to prevent the line-over from clearing. Like everyone said, keep the steering lines centered, away from the nose to keep your odds of getting a line-over low. Hook

You don't need the strobe (light visible for 3 miles) until you are under a good canopy. I really like tying a chem light to the base of my PC for night jumps. It allows me to see where the PC is on deployment. It is visible from many different angles, including from above. In the event of a cutaway, it would make finding my main easier. I put a strobe light on my left leg strap, so that it won't blind me when I turn it on under canopy. I also put a dive light in a pocket with a fast-tex clip on it and the other half of the clip on my chest strap. After opening, I flip on the strobe, pull out the flashlight and clip it to my chest strap and shine it up at my main. It lights it up and makes the canopy very visible to other jumpers. Don't wear tinted goggles and don't let your shadow spook you. Hook

FAR part 105 now says that an AAD, if installed, must be, maintained according to the manufacturer's specs. Airtec says every 2 years/500 jumps for the battery replacement, making it law. Hook

You also need a "C" license (your profile says "A".) Without the materials, you won't be allowed to attend the course, including a current SIM and IRM. Have you looked over the Coach Rating Course Profiency Card? If you aren't serious about it, don't do it. Hook

The bumpers don't fit on large risers. Hook

Also could be you weigh more than these other people, decreasing the power to weight ratio, and increasing wind resistance. Skycat weighs 110-ish and doesn't present a whole lot of drag. Hook

On your AFF Level one, you will probably be busy making sure you have a good canopy (controllability check) finding the DZ and getting there. I would recommend doing some practice flares on the way to your holding/staging area. Talk to your Instructors about this. Riserr turns/flare turns/stalls, etc can come later. Here is some information on different AAD's: FXC 12000: 40 feet per second (27.3 mph) NO FIRE and 65 feet per second (44.3 mph) ALWAYS FIRE (WILL OPERATE IF the parachutist is at, or below, the altitude setting and his rate-of-fall increases from less than 40 to more than 65 feet per second. ) Expert Cypres: Fires at 750 feet at 78 mph or more Student Cypres: Fires at 750 feet at 29 mph or more (However, should the rate of descent be lower than that of freefall but still above the limit of 29 mph, then student Cypres activates the EOS (cutter) when the altitude decreases below 1000 feet above ground level.) *Tandem Cypres: Fires at 1900 feet at 78 mph or more A student or expert Cypres will not work if the aircraft is exited before it reaches 1500 feet and the Tandem Cypres will not work if the aircraft is exited before reaching 3000 feet. The Cypres ceases operation below aproximately 130 feet AGL. Sentinal MK 2000: Fires at 1000 feet at a velocity greater than 40% of terminal falling speed. (After 60 seconds of passing 1000 feet, the unit dis-arms itself). Astra: Fires at 1000 feet at 130 fps (88.6 mph) or more. (It won't fire above 1,400 feet or below 115 fps (78.4 mph) *You don't have to worry about the Tandem Cypres, I'm sure you won't be wearing one anytime soon. Hook

If this is a joke, it is funny. If this is a pack job you actually intended to jump, go see you rigger and get some packing instruction, seriously. Hook

First, why do you want to downsize? Hook

A slider hanging up on camera hemlet and a velcro slider keeper supporting the weight of a jumper are 2 very different things. I believe a camera helmet can snag a main slider and support the wieght of a jumper, but i don't believe a velcro slider keeper will. Hook

There is a discussion about wether or not a velcro slider keeper on the reserve flap will prevent the main from releasing in the event of a cutaway. I could either take my design and go do an intentional cutaway with the slider stowed, or up the ante and take the worst design and go do an intentional cutaway. At this point I think I will go with my design and give it a shot. I'll post the design and the results after the jump, hopefully Monday. Hook

I would agree with that and add 1.5. slider down very fast = very hard and possible damage. Hook

I really don't want to go permantally or even semi-permantally attaching a keeper to my Javelin. Something that I can slide onto the reserve flap or velcro on to the resrve flap. Thanks though, Hook

I think that as long as the lines play out smoothly (tail pocket, rubber bands/tube stows/sky-bands, stow-less D-bag, etc) and the bag stays shut until the lines are taut, then it makes no difference in how hard the canopy opens. It may take more or less altitude to open because the canopy may take longer to come to get to line stretch, but the opening forces should be the same. I have packed a Stiletto 120 and a PD-170 in a free-bag style bag, with a velcro pouch and two rubber band (sky-bands actually, testing them too) locking stows. They open nicely. Hook

I don't think the altitude estimation (sight picture) error is a straight-line graph, meaning that at 150 feet you may be accurate to 10-15 feet and at 500 feet you may be accurate to 40-60 feet. Also, I think the amount that is 'fixable' from the higher altitude is more than at the lower altitudes. Hook