Hooknswoop

I agree, but that is the way the sport is going. Skydiving is becoming more like other sports, money oriented. Again, I don't agree with the practice, but look at the flip side of the coin, the S & TA is providing a service, should they get paid or provide this service for free? Try and get an FAA Designated Evaluator to sign off your Private Pilot's License (or any other rating/endorsement), "For the love of flying"." Your perception/opinion that it is wrong for an S & TA to charge a fee probably comes from the same place my opinion that it is wrong to charge does, as long as I have been jumping, the S & TA was an experienced Instructor that helped other skydivers, did paperwork, signed off on rating re-newels, etc, for free. What if the S & TA in question makes their entire living from skydiving and feels justified in charging for their time and efforts? What if a DZ charged a $20.00 (fill in the fee) fee for processing a license application? What if a DZ charged a $10.00 fee to re-pack a rig or a $20.00 fee to assemble and pack a new rig on the DZ property? Hook

Does the DZ in NV that doesn't let fun jumpers that didn't learn there jump there violating, in spirit, their Group Membership? If USPA won't/can't regulate/enforce out-right violations of their BSR's, I don't expect them to address a violation, in spirit, of an S & TA's responsibilites. Again, I don't agree with the practice, but from what I have seen of USPA's track record of enforcement, I don't see them doing anything. Hook

1) You have to be an USPA Instructor or an USPA Coach to jump w/ someone w/o an USPA License. 2) DZO's realized they can make more $$$, charging for these coach jumps. 3) The sport is becoming more and more commercialized and less and less "club" oriented. 4) DZO's make little $$$ of new USPA "A" license holders, maybe selling them gear/renting gear, so they tend to focus th DZ where the $$$ is, students and mass quanties of fun jumpers that make 5-10 jumps/day. Hook

i have a bunch, but my favorite is exiting on a tandem before a tandem video pair. This works extra well if the tandem following us is related/known to my passenger. After I open, I point out the other tandem in free-fall. As the other tandem opens, and the video guy continues in free-fall, I yell, "OH MY GOD, THEY FELL OFF!". Hook

How to Adjust Steering Line Length for Optimal Performance The length of the steering lines can drastically affect how a canopy flies. High performance canopies are affected much more than lower performance canopies. All canopies should have some slack or a slight bow in the steering lines. If the steering lines are too short and pull down the tail of the canopy during full flight, even slightly, the canopy is flying in brakes. If the canopy is flying in brakes, it will not have as much speed to trade for lift during the landing flare. Over time the steering lines shrink as a result of friction from the slider during opening, as much as 6 inches in extreme cases. New canopies or line sets adjusted to have no slack in the steering lines will begin to fly in brakes as the control lines shrink. To maximize the performance of your canopy it is necessary to understand the construction of the steering lines. The steering lines on a canopy are made of several parts. The upper control lines, usually four or five lines cascade or split at the top of the central control line and attach to the tail. The central control line attaches the upper control lines to the lower control line. The lower control line attaches from the finger-trapped loop (for setting the brakes) at the bottom of the central control line to the toggle. The lower control line is where your rigger can make adjustments. If you do not use your front risers, adjusting steering line length is a fairly simple process. To check your control lines, pull one toggle down an inch or two while watching the tail of the canopy in flight. The tail should not move and the canopy should not turn. If it does, your lower steering lines need to be lengthened. Make small adjustments, no more than an inch at a time. This may require several adjustments. It is better to be an inch too long than an inch too short. Once you find the correct length, have your rigger finger-trap and bar-tack the lower steering line to eliminate the knot next to the toggle which can hang up on the guide ring. Periodically check the steering lines to see if they have shrunk and need to be lengthened again. Micro-line can shrink 4 to 6 inches or more over its life span. Vectran tends not to shrink with wear but is not as durable as Micro-line. If you use your front risers, adjusting steering line length is more complicated. Having enough slack in the lower steering lines on a high performance canopy is more critical to how the canopy will fly. In a front riser turn you are pulling the toggle down a little with the riser and there has to be some slack to prevent pulling down the tail. If the tail of a high performance canopy is pulled down even a little when front risering, the riser pressure will be much higher and the recovery arc (the amount of altitude required to get back under the canopy) will be shortened. To check if the steering line is long enough, clear your airspace, do a full 360 degree front riser turn (keeping the toggles in your hands), and watch the tail of the canopy. As the speed increases, the drag on the control line increases and if there isn’t enough slack, the tail will be pulled down. You need enough slack so that the tail won’t be pulled down while pulling the toggle and the riser down at the maximum speed of the canopy. Again, make small adjustments no more than an inch at a time and have your rigger finger-trap and bar-tack the lower control line once you have them adjusted correctly. With the steering lines correctly set, your canopy will dive longer and faster and you can get the most out of your canopy. Hook

A Horse shoe can also occur if the main pin is dis-lodged and the main D-bag falls out, gets knocked out, etc, from the container while the PC remains in the BOC/ROL. Hook

Not that I agree with the practice (and I have never charged for signing something off), but reporting them to USPA? What BSR(s) are they violating? Besides, USPA has no regulatory power, a DZ can charge as much as they want for whatever they want. That would be USPA's response, "we don't/can't interfere with a drop zones business practices." Look at Skydive Las Vegas. USPA takes their money even though they discriminate against fun jumpers from other DZ's. I brought up an issue where a DZ was way over-charging new jumpers for gear and the response I got was "It is a business and it isn't a crime to have high prices". Again, even though I don't think it is right, I don't think there is anything USPA can do about it and jumpers aren't going to boycott a DZ over something like this. So your options are, 1)pay them and get the signature, and 2) go somewhere else. Hook

Only if the canopy is hooked up backwards. Hook

Trust me, the stuff works great. I've used several different lubricants and Ace Pure Silicone Lubricant has been by far the best. Very slick and the cutaway cables don't get as dirty in the 30 days between cleanings. Hook

RIO=Radar Intercept Officer. GIB= Guy In Back JAFO= Just Another Fu**ing Observer Hook

I recommend opening the main and reserve and putting everything in a large plastic garbage bag. Keep everything connected. Be careful not to store anything on top of the bag, because of the reserve spring and possibly the AAD. When the season opens again, just take the whole bag to your rigger. Hook

If only that was how it gets done. I pack it and sign off the pack job. Her job is to tell me it is due. Hook

But I thought the GM program's interests didn't compete w/ individual jumpers' interests.. I thought USPA was for the individual jumper and there wasn't a conflict of interest. That is what USPA tells me So if there is a conflict of interest between the individual jumper and DZs. and USPA is in the middle, who wins out? Hook

Well the DZ's "pledged" to follow the BSR's and USPA thinks that is good enough, why can't each GM DZ "pledge" to accurately report the # of students/jumps, whatever for the previous year to determine dues? Of course, I think the GM program should go away. If PIA or another organization took over the responsibilites that USPA GM program has, that would leave USPa seperate from DZ's and concerned w/ jumpers only. DZO's shouldn't notice any difference and when lobbying is required, USPA backs the PIA w/ numbers to protect our interests. Hook

Well you have been presented w/ two options. you must decide for yourself what you would do. If you have a specific question as to why I recommend the method I do, I will do my best to answer it. If the brakes are released on one or both canopies it may or may not make a difference. I released the brakes on the Stiletto 97, and left the brakes stowed on the PD-170 and they still fly together just fine. Too many variables. Hook

Right, walk away. Might be worth telling the seller to not sell it as a reserve. Hook

Find out if it had a tail pocket installed. Hook

Right, my point was, why would they have to spend more time than they do now. The organization would do all that. They fill out the paper-work, send in the check and they are done for the year, same as now. So I wasn't buying that excuse either. Hook

I've had canopies open hard. I have video of a couple of Sabre opeings that were downright brutal, but in none of those could the hard opening be attributed to "line dump". On the video of the Sabre openings, you can see the lines un-stow normally, then WHAM! I have seen video of a rubber band breaking (I was the TDM-I and Pablo was shooting the video), but it wasn't a locking stow and the opening was normal and we wouldn't have even known the rubber band broke unless there had been video. I woud really like to see, out of the thousands + (guessing here) of video'd deployments, canopy coming out of the bag and inflating w/ slack lines from the lines, including the locking stows, "line dumping". I just don't believe in "line dump", except in extreme cases, very wide bag, very wide locking stows, big PC, loose stows, small stows, and heavy lines. Hook

You are exactly correct. I had this discussion w/ a RD recently and that is exactly what I got out of the conversation. USPA presented the FAA w/ the GM program and the SIM's to keep us skydiving. Telling the FAA, we will be "self-regulating". Wy back, I guess. But he admitted USPA does not regulate skydiving, but tells the FAA they do. That was his argument for keeping the GM program, that and DZO's don't have the time to make their own organization for DZ's. Hook

Since the delay between throwing out and getting opening shock took longer than normal, I think you can discount "line dump". If the lines had fallen out of their stows, and that would have to include the locking stows, the time from throw-out to opening shock would be a lot less. Without having to pull the lines out of the stows anymore, the canopy would have come out of the bag and you would have experienced opening shock in the length of time it take to fall the length of your lines. Depoending on how far apart the final two stows are on the D-bag, it is very difficult to actually get line dump. Both stows would have to break or the weight of the lines between the locking stows would have to be greater than the weight of the line outside the locking stows. If the locking stows are 4 inches apart and you make 2 inch line bites, then there is 4 inches outside of EACH stow and only 4 inches btween the stows. 8 inches total outside the stows and 4 inches inside the stows. Even with loose stows (not recommended) weight alone should keep the lines inside the rubber bands. Take a look at reserve free-bags. The entire line set could "dump" out of the stowage pouch (on most designs), because the only line stows are the two locking stows. As long as they hold, no line dump. How often do you hear of people blaming "line dump" for a hard reserve opening? Fall rate, body position, keeping the slider against the stops while packing, canopy design, and pilot chute size all play a larger role in hard openings. I posted a request for anyone w/ video of line dump. I think I got 2 responses, one for old gear and the other couldn't produce the video. With all the deployments on video, where are all the videos of line dump? Hook

I would recommend landing what you have, Bi-plane or Side-by-side, obviously chop in a downplane situation. Steering a bi-plane is simple enough, use the rear risers of the lead canopy. Make only small inputs and the trailing canopy will "follow the leader". Since the brakes are not released you can't use them to flare with. The trailing canopy will be acting like a brake, sitting way back because the nose is hitting the tail of the lead canopy. If both canopies are in brakes, and too small, it should be a very soft landing. For a side-by-side (who came up with the names for this stuff anyway?) I recommend steering with the rear risers of the dominant (more over your head, most likely the main) canopy. Turns away from the other canopy should be especially gentle so as not to put yourself into a downplane. turns into the other canopy sholdn't present a problem, as the turn will keep the ends cells pushed together. I wathed a biplane after a very low pull/cypres fire. The jumper released the brakes on the reserve (trail canopy in the bi-plane) and spiraled down after the free-bag. I couldn't believe it worked out and the jumper walked away. How the jumper lost altitude awareness from a 6k H & P I'll never know. Best advice I have is to avoid the situation entirely, pull at a reasonable altitude. Hook

Now that my Sidewinder and PC-101 are on-line, I'll do some more 2-out test jumps and post the video. Hook

Not necessarily true. I have experimented w/ 2 canopy out scenarios. W/ a PD-170 and a Safire 189 out, they transitioned to a side-by-side w/o input from me. I could fly the combintaion around and they were very stable, even in gusty, turbulent conditions. I put them into a downplane, using rear risers and toggles (seperate times), and could not keep them in a downplane. They would return to a side-by-side. I'm sure I put in enough input because on one attempt to maintain a downplane, they came out of the downplane into a side-by-side, flying backwards. Both canopies had 180 line twists. I was able to put them back into a downplane and a foward flying side-by-side. If your main and reserve are compatable and behaving in a bi-plane or side-by-side, I would recommend not risking an entanglement by cutting away the main. For in-compatable main and reserves (and I'm not totally sure what that means, yet) it is a toss up between the risk of entanglement and the risk of the pair downplaning at low altitude. I would like to see more research on dual deployments. The only formal test jumps I have read about involved large, similar canopies, aimed at a student 2-out situation. I had (intentionally) a PD-170 and a Stiletto 97 fly great together in a two-out situation and a Safire 189 and a Stiletto 97 immediately downplane, then entange. Chopping the Stiletto 97 resulted in an entanglement. I believe compatability between mains and reserves is a complicated question involving wingloading, fabric, planform, line length, line trim, and which canopy deploys first. Hook

I was looking at that and it didn't look right. Let me do math correctly this time. That would make it anything below 88.5 degrees F on the ground, USPA suggests gloves are essential. That sounds a lot better. I had done the math a long time ago and remebered it being something aroung 85-90 degrees F. Thanks for keeping me honest. Hook