Hooknswoop

What is the worst design for a Velcro slider keeper you have seen? By worst, I mean the most likely to not release the slide in the vent of a cutaway after stowing the slider in the keeper. Please explain it in enough detail that I will be able to build it. It has to be able to fit on a Javelin top reserve flap. Hook

Why would the canopy deflate? Cutting away from spinning line twists or other fully inflated canopy, with the slider stowed, puts your entire weight times "G" forces on the velcro. Ever see the pic of the guy sitting on his slider, flying his canopy? His risers are completely slack, all the weight is being held by his slider. Tell ya what I'm gonna do. Decide on the design of a velcro slider keeper, that is in use today, that will hold the slider the best. I'll build one (brand new velcro) and go do an intentional cutaway with the slider stowed in the velcro, and video it. Hook

Have you seen the new 'stow-less' d-bag? Very loose locking stows could cause the canopy to inflate prior to line strectch, but this is very rare. I have asked for outside video of line dump and no one seems to have it. I have video of extremely hard openings that were not caused by line dump. Too tight of stows can cause a bag lock. I had a bag lock on a tandem, due to the packer double-stowing the lines. Hook

The advantage to hooking a large canopy is the speed never builds up all that high. The disadvantage to hooking really big canopies is that the recovery arc is very short (I'll cover that in a sec), and if hooked even a little too high, it planes out above the ground, bleeds off all the speed, down to below it's normal full flight speed, leaving the pilot at low altitude with little speed for the flare. So the pilot tends to always hook a little low to prevent this from happening. Let's say you can initiate a hook turn up to 10% low from the ideal altitude and not impact the ground. Let's also say the ideal hook altitude for canopy XXX is 150 feet. This means you have a 15 foot margin of error from ideal to too low. Since it is too easy to fall into the trap of always being in the corner, the pilot is always eating into that 15-foot margin, leaving even less than 15 feet of the ideal to too low 'window'. Eventually they will be off 15 feet, but since they are already eating into their window, there isn't enough margin for error and they hit. The advantage to hooking a smaller canopy is the longer recovery arc. The disadvantage is that the speed builds up fast and top speed is very high. That same 10% margin on an ideal hook altitude of 500 feet is 50 feet, a 35-foot increase. It is much easier to hit the window. Now this doesn't mean go buy a very small canopy and start learning to hook and you'll be fine. I believe that the ideal canopy to learn hook turns on is somewhere between the large/slow/short recovery arc canopy and the small/fast/long recovery arc canopy. And this is only after working down to this 'trade-off' or 'happy medium' canopy and being very proficient with it. Also, the mechanics of faster approaches under large canopies are the same as smaller canopies, except slower. Therefore it makes sense to learn the mechanics of high speed approaches with a forgiving canopy. Just stay away from any low-altitude aggressive front riser (and definitely stay away from low altitude toggle turns on any canopy) turns on large canopies. Now the fine print: All this may be 100% wrong. It is what I believe based on my experience and experiences. If you only listen to me and only take my advice, you would be a fool. A friend of mine said that in medical school, they told him "30% of what we are going to teach you is wring, we just don't know which 30% it is." I try for better than 30%, but I don't have any real way of knowing the exact percentage I am wrong on this. Hook

I consider my self a good tracker, so imagine my shock when a student took off like a banshee and I was only able to maintain and not gain on her. Hey Ann J., nice track!! I remember thinking, "I hope she stops". I think given enough altitude, I would have caught her, but man she rreally took off. Hook

Container: Javelin RS, S/N 20073 Reserve: PD-113R, S/N 022303 DOM AUG 00 Edit: These S/N's might be for the wrong gear. Hook

Is it possible the brakes weren't set? Hook

No injuries. My worst landing ever was under the Monarch. A hook turn over (and into) a pond at Murtle Beach, completely surrounded by condos, zero outs. Learned about making good decisions that day. Hook

The amunt of steering line between the brake loop and the toggle shouldn't affect the opening, as long as you set the brakes when you pack. Hook

Sure, Mostly a Monarch 135 (my first canopy, I put 501 jumps on it) @ 1.39:1 57 jumps on a Star-Trac I (Try-out for the USAPT in 96)@ 0.71:1 20 +/- on a Stiletto 120 @ 1.56:1 That is most of them. I jumped a few other canopys between 250 and 500. Hook

It might make the most sense to have the 3-4 smallest sizes as demos. I think that is where the biggest need is. Hook

This thread makes for great reading. My opinion (sorry for it being so discombobulated): Different people advance their canopy control skills at different rates. Different wing loadings, landing altitudes (DA), types of canopies, landing at different DZ's, all result in different levels and types of performance out of a canopy. The higher the performance the canopy, the better the pilot needs to be to safely fly it (maintain the same margin for error). 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. 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). Landing fatalities and injuries are bad for 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. 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. 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. 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' on wing loading, then either let the S & TA/Chief Instructor handle it, or don't run a DZ.) How many DZO's ground someone that shows up at their DZ and is obviously in over their head with their canopy, loosing their business? 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. Landing injuries usually only injure the pilot making the mistake, they rarely injure others. Tracking skill 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 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. 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? 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 down-sizing, making it unpopular. Even some people that wouldn't be affected would be against it, as they would be against any further regulation. Hook

This may take a bit, so bear with. It is the journey, not the destination that counts, right? My 'Zen' speech OK, imagine a tree (work with me here, this is going somewhere), there are leaves in the tree. A leaf falls out of the tree. If it is perfectly symmetrical, it will fall straight down, without any turns. If you pick up the leaf and bend the edge and drop it, it will spin as it falls. How does this help you? Good question. In free-fall, you have to make a turn happen. If you simply lay there, with you hips pushed forward a bit and relax, then you don't turn. You can make a turn happen a bunch of different ways, but they all have one thing in common. They all change the airflow around your body from symmetrical to asymmetrical, they all bend the corner of the leaf. The 'neutral' body position, as I teach it for initial free-falls: Hips forward. Chin up, looking towards the horizon. Legs out to almost a 45-degree angle, toes pointed so that the soles of the feet are parallel with the ceiling. Elbows level with or below the shoulders, forearms level with the ground or wrists slightly below elbows. Relax and breathe. The only tension should come from pushing your hips forward and your legs out, everything else should be fairly relaxed. Pick out a point on the horizon, actually identify what it is you are looking at. Most uncontrolled turns/spins I have dealt with were caused by either tension of the student was trying to 'balance' or working to hold a heading. Holding a heading shouldn't be work. Don't do anything and relax and you won't turn. You have to press down on the air to turn. Hook

Ditto what SkyMonkeyOne Said. Hook Same tandem ratings as the Monkey

If the DZO is incapable of determining what is reasonable, then all is lost, for they can make and enforce any rules they wish. Most Instructors can watch someone fly a canopy and determine what a reasonable wing loading the person should be under. There are rough guides, i.e. 100 jumps 1.1, 200 jumps 1.2, etc. I have a high wing loading (3.1:1) and have never failed to stand up the landing and have never been injured, so that makes 3.1:1 not un-reasonable, for some pilots. It can be done safely. I regularly make wing loading judgements with newer jumpers. It isn't all that difficult. Hook

And I think you have hit the nail on the head. I think most new jumpers understand the risks, they simply consider the rewards (or perceived rewards, fitting in, looking cool, etc), worth the risk. They are willing to take the chance, go for glory. Some don't see the amount of risk. Hook

I guess you can put me in the "bloddy murder' catagory on that one. I am all for DZO's enforcing regulations, IF they are reasonable. Hook

The faster the jump run, the faster the canopy opens and the less exposed the aircraft is. The lower they drop, the less time the trooper has their ass exposed to get shot. With so many people in the air, square canopys would cause more problems than they solve, plus require more training. Rounds are cheaper and the maintanence system is already in place, change costs money (lots of rounds in the U.S Army, riggers trained on them, troopers trained to jump them, schools set up to teach them ,etc). It really is the best tool for the job. If the main mals, there is no need to cutaway, simply deploy the reserve, rounds don't tend to entangle or down/plane like squares do. No sliders, brake settings, etc. Very simple system. Hook

Cross-ports. There should be two ribs w/o them. They allow the canopy to maintain even pressure. Hook

Focus and have fun. Hook

I don't understand how pressure makes it easier to hold your breath? Shallow water blackout is a danger, but you can't get Nitrogen Narcosis (Narked) free-diving. Nitrogen Narcosis is caused by breathing compressed air at depths of 100 feet or more. Hook

Icarus has said that inly the Omega and U.S built SAfire1's were measured differently, everything is measured same as PD now. The Crossfires were always measured the same as PD. I have jumped the Crossfire1, 116, 104 and the Crossfire2, 89, 108 and 149. I put one jump on a Heatwave 100. I didn't have any time to evaulate the Heatwave, it was an intentional cutaway jump. I found the Crossfire2 to be an amazing canopy. Light front riser pressure, long recovery arc, plenty of lift. Hook

Exactly, they don't have time to mess w/ skydiving. Last two times I went to the local FSDO I didn't need an appointment, but I did have to wait. DZ's will drop their GM and not erequire individual membership, and not allow any USPA rep's that can fine them on their DZ. USPA would go broke. I would show it to you. PM'd A long time. One person doesn't make a difference. Exactly my point. You are a DZ inspector, right. How many DZ's have you inspected? Why would a DZO want their DZ inspected? They KNOW what is happening at their DZ and they sure aren't going to pay for a USPA rep to come in and tell them how to run their business. Of course it died. DZO's do not want to be regulated, and they aren't. Hook

The FAA is content to leave skydiving alone, again under the illusion that USPA is taking care of it. The fAA has it's hands full, even before 9/11. as long as we aren't causing a big enough problem for the FAA, they have bigger fish to fry. I agree that it would be bad for skydiving if the FAA was forced to step in. 2 things will prevent that from happening, 1. Nothing happens that the FAA feels compelled to step in, or 2. The USPA steps up and actually enforces the BSR's. They 'chance' the revocation of the membership and/or ratings. A very small chance. Again, I can show you video of illegal AFF, and the RD didn't care. Compare the level of USPA's BSR enforcement to the APF's level of enforcement. No comparison. I disagree, the DZO makes and enforces the rules for their DZ. Some follow the BSR's some don't, most are a middle ground of mostly following the BSR's, most of the time. Right, implied safety. Any DZ can be a group member, sign the pledge and the check, and bing your a USPA GM DZ. For the GM program to mean anything, USPA would have to actually inspect DZ's at least annually to determine if they are following the BSR's and will be allowed to maintain their GM status. RD's are supposed to do this, but don't. Why? Simple, they can be banned from a DZ and don't want to be the bad guys. In my experience (and this has been only a small part of the country) RD's don't make sure all the DZ's in their region are following the BSR's and S & TA's go along with the DZO. At the DZ I learned at the RD never showed up once, in the 4 years I jumped out there. The system is broken. Hook

The type 17 webbing, (same material mini-risersare made of), is thick plus doubled. The buckle isn't all that big. Loose ends of harness webbing should be doubled back and sewn to prevent it from slipping though, but with mini chest straps, it isn't necessary. Some people un-do their chest straps under canopy. I figure as long as there isn't tension on it, lossening it further won't make any difference. Putting the fold in it may make it very diffficult to thread and un-thread. Hook