Hooknswoop

The lead singer of "Great White" and some of his band members and roadies came out and did tandem jumps in 1997-1998 ish in S.C. I would have to go back through my log books to get the exact time frame. He and his crew were a blast, hanging out, funny as hell, good people. Mr. Russell liked it so much, he immediately went back up for a second jump. Hook

Hook

Relax. Spend some time on the ground prior to tthe jump planning and visualizing your landing approach and the actual landing. Consider possible traffic conflicts, turbulence, landing surface, etc when planning the approach. See yourself performing a smooth, well time flare and transitioning, smoothly, from being under canopy to being on the ground. On short final, take a deep breathe, relax, and execute what you have already visualized. Sound like the same thing you do for free-fall? It should be

I have seen 5 simulated cutaways wearing the tadenm rig, suspended used to meet the requirements for the tandem rating. it was for an Eclipse rating. I'm not a tandem I/E, so I don't know the specifics. Hook

Then I think we are in total agreement, that student gear should be as close as possible to what they will be jumping after student status, within reason, and students need quality canopy instruction, and Cobalts don't make good student canopies. Agree? Hook

Why aren't you an instructor? How many of those were under fully elliptical canopies? You are if you are saying the Cobalt 170 makes a good sstudent canopy. 1st jupm students aren't getting any better at canopy control, we have updated training and equipment, but there is a limit. I think we have reached that limit with lightly loaded, lightly tapered semi-ellipticals after 3 working tandems. I agree with the concept, the closer we can make student gear to the gear they will be jumping after student status, the better, but again, I think we have reached the maximum, without going fully elliptical. if a fully elliptical canopy came out that demonstrated forgiving enough traits, then OK, but I haven't seen/jumped one. I think we agree, except for the fully elliptical part. There has to be a point when a canopy is simply not forgiving enough to be a student canopy. Students make mistakes, that is a given, the canopy needs to be forgiving enough that these mistakes don't injure or kill them. Hook

Where do you draw the line? ZP squares? Lightly tapered Semi-Ellipticals? Fully Ellipticals? Crossbraced Tri-cells? At what wing loading? After all, that is what they will be jumping, right? At some point the first jump student is no longer going to be able to handle the canopy. I draw the line at lightly tapered semi-elliptical (Sabre2/Safire2) at 1:1 or less AFTER 3 learning/working tandems. Or .8:1 or less for AFF 1st jump students. I base this on my experience teaching using F-111 mains for AFF and ZP squares for AFP (3 tandems first). Students don't need the turn perfomance that fully ellipticals give, or the higher rocovery arc. The Stiletto, Cobalt, Crossfire, Heatwave, etc are not choices for student canopies. How many students have you talked down on the radio? Hook

I have taught students, after 3 learning tandems, with Sabre mains. I have seen former students not listen to advice and get an elliptical too soon and pay the price for it. Remember, the largest Cobalt is a 170, so it can't be a medium to large person to have a light loading under a Cobalt. I am medium build and my exit weight is 187. That puts me over 1:1 on a 170. I base my opinion of low experience jumpers and elliptical canopies on years of Instructing. New jumpers don't understand things like: body position and holding a heading at pull time is very important, leaving enough excess line between the bottom of the reserve tray and the first stow, their tracking abilities are tuned to the point where they get a lot of seperation (which is critical for HP canopies), they aren't knowledgeable about gear maintenance. Newer jumpers make mistakes from lack of experience, low turns landing off, etc. I think it is better to make those mistakes under a more forgiving canopy. 8 years ago there was no such thing as a learning tandem, they were rides, that's it. I agree with ZP student canopies, at light loadings, after good tandem training. It has to be done correctly or the student is at risk. I don't see the value in fully elliptical student canopies. Hook

If I said the Velocity makes a great student canopy, at 1.2:1, because it has lots of lift, would I get slammed? Would I deserve it? Would I be asked to justify that opinion? What if I dodged the question several times, but asserted the Velocity makes a good student canopy, then said if I said student, I meant to say beginner. What if I wouldn't answer about my qualifications, for example, am I an instructor? How much weight would my opinion that the Velocity makes a good student canopy carry? Would you are if someone said, no it doesn't make a good student canopy? Such as? In every post, irregardless if it is revelent to the thread or not? Mr. Boothe responded thoughtfully and completely to every question that was given him. I haven't seen those claims from the manufacturer's as they post here, especially not in almost every post they make. Do you believe Dan accidentally interchanged "beginner" with "student" four times? He would answer that "yes, the cobalt is a student canopy", but ignore the question of where Cobalts are used as student canopies. "Your student canopy, do you mean the Cobalt? yes i mean the cobalt and previously the space/alpha. we are also offering our 'indigo' canopy for this season in sizes 170, 190 & 210. it is slightly less tapered than a cobalt, and the openings are tuned for lighter wingloadings. Do you recommend putting students under Cobalts at a 1.2 wing loading? yes, anyone you would consider safe under a sabre, safire or hornet is equally safe on a cobalt. Has this been done? yes " He said "better is to simply view a chart of a canopy's perfromance vs wing loading" I asked if Atair had a "chart of a canopy's perfromance vs wing loading" He said " check out our web site faq page. " Atair does not have a "chart of a canopy's perfromance vs wing loading" on their web page. They have a recommended wing loading chart like everyone else, except Dan claims Atair's is realistic. I have to ask several times, because he doesn't answer the questions, he dodges them. Hook

Yep, I have 838 tandems and counting. Vector, Eclipse and Sigmas. Hook

And I have not said otherwise, in fact I have, twice, said that the Cobalt is a good canopy. I used to own a predecessor of the Cobalt, the Alpha and liked it. But exactly what I liked about it ( and I have jumoed themn at lighter wingloadings) makes it un-suitable for students or beginers. That is my opinion. I have 3,200 skydives, AFFI, TDMI, PRO, and SLI ratings, I am a senior rigger with back and chest ratings, and a pilot. I have been jumping for over 8 years, teaching for 7 of those years. I fly a small, high performance canopy, and have more jumps on canopies under 100 sq. ft. than Dan does total. I have never been injured. I teach a Canopy Control Course. A 221 lb exit weight under a Cobalt 170 with 64 jumps puts you in a high risk area. It can be done, but is very risky. A lot of jumpers in the same risk area have discovered that it was too risky, the hard way. Again, I haven't attacked him. If I don't directly spell out the questions, and point out that he is not answering them, he will wait until this thread hits page 2 and goes away, then he will be back to his old tricks. This is the only way, that I can see, to get him to actually answer the questions he is being asked about statements he has made. He will respond to a post container several questions and only answer the easy one, or not actually answer the questions. I agree that having a manufacturer post information here is a great thing, if the information is good. Is this directed towards me? Hook

Yep, that's me. Hook

I have not attacked cobaltdan personally. I have challenged statements he has made and he repeatedly dodges the questions with Atair rhetoric. No I do not have stock in PD, nor do I have anything against Atair. I used to own an Alpha 94 and I thought it was a good canopy. I do have issues with his claims, claims that he does not/can not back up. When called on them, he dodges the questions, answering without answering. He claimed to have video of a pilot chute producing 20+ "g's" with the canopy still in the bag. When I looked at the video, it clearly showed the canopy out of the bag before the "G" spike. After asking him several times, he finally said, "you can't see the spike on the downloadable video". He contradicts himself constantly. If it appears that I am being harsh w/ cobaltdan, it is because any other way and he simply won't answer to his claims. Read his posts and his replies to questions. If any of us that are asking Dan to answer questions regarding his claims appear to have it in personally for cobaltdan, the moderators would have said something. We are simply showing that his claims are not correct. For example, he said Atair recommends using Cobalt 170's (the largest Cobalt canopy currently being built) for student use. He either used the word student or answered in the affirmative that the Cobalt was an acceptable student canopy four times. He finally said he had mistakenly used the word student instead of beginner, four times. So what if a jumper with 15 jumps or so read that the Cobalt is a good student/beginner canopy loaded at 1.2:1 and buys one at that wing loading, after jumping large student-type canopies? As for being aggressive, I have had to ask many times without getting solid answers to my questions, it gets frustrating after a while. Even you recognize that he is not being straight forward, and requesting him to [qoute] pleeeease dont repost the same shi!@# that you have reposted again and again, or admit a mistake for false claims. I don't have stock in PD, I take stock in the truth. Hook

I know you didn't write that, I was saying how I read your post, paraphrasing. You said, you ment lets not make it more expensive. You are complaining about the current cost, and I didn't suggest making the rating more expensive. Hook

"already answered. " No you didn't. I asked: "What DZ uses Cobalt 170's (and possibly smaller? Cobalts) as student canopies? " I asked you: "Does Atair have a chart showing performance vs. wing loading for the Cobalt?, not a recommended wing loading chart, most manufactures have those, PD has it right on the label. " You answered: "check out our web site faq page. " I responded: "I did, you have a "recommended wing loading" chart, same as every other manufacturer. I asked if you have "a chart showing performance vs. wing loading for the Cobalt" So where is Atair's chart showing performance vs. wing loading for the Cobalt?, after all "with dataloggers 1 jump per wingloading (although more is better) is all that is needed to gather the data required for a super performance chart. the pilot must fly a general routine" I asked you: "Why do you say a square canopy (Sabre) will have more forward speed at the same wing loading as the Cobalt, but the Cobalt has less drag and is more efficient? Isn't this contradictory? " You responded: "no it isn't. " I still do not understand this, and you still have not explained it to me. I understand that planform is only one variable. But a tapered canopy is more efficient than a square canopy. If the Sabre has more airspeed than a Cobalt, at the same wing loading, then the Sabre must have a steeper line trim, more efficient airfoil or some other characteristic that makes it faster. I asked: "Are you an Instructor?" I asked: "Have you used Cobalt 170's as student canopies, or for beginners?" You said: "and btw we have always used pia standards of measure." I asked: "Like your definition of a cell?" http://www.pia.com/piapubs/TS%20Documents/ts-100.pdf So, no, you have not already answered. If you are going to make these claims, I am going to call you on them. I already got you to admit the Cobalt does not make a good student canopy, after you "accidentally" interchanged "STUDENT" with "BEGINNER" FOUR times. So we have a few more questions before we get to "answered". Hook

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=366457;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Hook

I agree they should be paid, never ment to imply they shouldn't. Just like you said, eased into the job. My first live AFF student was a Level 4 repeat dive, with a history of spinning. Talk about trial by fire..... Hook

Is this the guy? Pilots Database Search Result Name : DOW, JEFFREY WELLINGTON Pilot's Address : 14719 275TH ST E GRAHAM, WA, 98338-8752 FAA Region : Northwest/Mountain Date of Medical : Apr, 2002 Class of Medical : 2 Expiration : Apr, 2003 Pilot Certificates : Commercial Pilot Airplane Single Engine Land Airplane Multiengine Land Instrument Airplane : Flight Engineer Turbojet Powered : Mechanic Airframe Powerplant Hook

*Bump* Waiting................ Hook

A lot of experienced jumpers track, but either speed up or maintain their fall rates, this is tracking. Good trackers slow their fall rate for the track, this is flat tracking. Hook

wow. how easy it is for people to get things mixed up. Nowhere did i say that the requirments should be lessened. nowhere did i say that the price should be lowered, I made no suggestions at all. simply stated a fact that an aff rating is cost prohibitive to many ppl. *** Then what did you mean by?: ***Thats right, lets make it so that only those that have plenty of disposable income can become aff instructors. The only reason I dont have an aff rating is the fact that I am unwilling to take food off the table for a rating that will not create a return on the initial investment. figure the cost of taking 2 weeks off work and the course fee and what you are paid per jump as an aff instructor. Do it for the love of the sport? I would like to do that, however that is impossible, There are others such as myself and my wife that work in the sport for the sole purpose of being able to afford skydiving in the first place. It also is supplemental income to sustain us through the offseason when we rely on our pitiful small checks from our real jobs. the joy of teaching students is a great offshoot but without the income from doing it we wouldnt be able to teach in the first place. Seems to me you were complaining about the cost of the AFFI rating and suggesting that it should be lower. You responded to my statement that there should be AFF Mentors, complaining that it would put the AFFI rating out of reach of anyone that didn't have "plenty of disposable income". A AFF Mentoring program would not change the cost of the rating nor change how much the new instructor earns, only limit the new instructor to 2 jumpmaster dives until ready to handle single jumpmaster dives. Are you against this idea? If so, why? I don't think we got things all mixed up, we all read your post the same way; "The course is expensive and you are suggesting to make the rating more expensive (I wasn't), I would have my rating if it wasn't so expensive. I just want to give back to the sport, it shuld be cheaper, so I can get my rating. If it was cheaper, I would have my rating". That is what I took your post to mena, and I beleive others did too. Hook

Mach 1 = 573 kts at 36,000 ft. http://www.januranusjaymartin.de/air/aircraftspeedsatmachspeeds.html Hook

I just put a scale to two rigs (both J4's) with snug pins. 7 ish pounds is what I measured. I would have to look at it to be sure, but as long as the pin is snug (to prevent pre-mature deployments & horse-shoes) I don't see a problem with it. I have seen "filler" pads sewn to the back pad inside the main pack tray to compensate for a low-volume canopy in a high volume container. Hook

So I guess you are not going to answer my questions? BTW- I have and read "Theory of Wing Sections" by Ira H. Abbott and Albert E. Von Doenhoff. This is not the last time for me. As long as you continue to make these absurd claims, I will contest them. I ask you pointed questions and you dodge them. You state several times that the Cobalt makes a good STUDENT canopy, then when I call you on it, several times, you finally admit that it was a mistake to say that. You harsh on other manufacturers for their marketing tactics and yet you are at least more guilty than they are. Your claim that the Cobalt is an excellent student, oops, I mean beginner canopy loaded at 1.2 is ridiculous. I jumped a Space 2000 at a loading of 1.44:1. It was definitely not suitable for beginners. You may take this as a compliment, the Cobalt out-performs the Safire2/Hornet/Sabre2, even at light wing loading, and therefore is too high performance for beginners. What qualifications give you the ability to make such a recommendation? Oops, another question you won't answer. See ya around, Hook

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/AccList.asp?month=2&year=2003 Aas you can see, it takes at least 5 days usually for the prelim report to get posted. It can take longer than that, easily. Hook