Hooknswoop

Everybody already gave you great advice, only thng I can add is, is either aircraft the same price? If it wouldn't hurt your currency to wait to jump out of the King Air, why pay the same for less altitude? Hook

Sorry, I guess I really didn't make a point :-) Regardless of the BSR's, I think it is unwise to take up a student w/o and altimeter. It is an important tool for them to learn to use. Even w/ S/L & IAD, where initially anyway, they don't have to pull, if their main has line twists or whatever, they need to have an altimeter to know what altitude they are at so they know how much altitude they have to fix it. It also serves as good reference for starting their landing pattern. W/ every tandem jump I have done, the passenger was trained to wave-off at 5,500 ft and pull and throw. If I managed to knock myself out on exit or the cameraman managed to nail me, it would be very possible that the passenger would pull for us and we wouldn't have to rely on a battery operated eloctronic device to save our collective butts. I don't think I have to cover AFF. "Remember, wave off and pull at 5,500 Feet, OK?". "Sure, but how do I know when I am at 5,500 feet?". "Door!" I don't see any advantages for the student not wearing an altimeter. If the DZ is worried about altimeters being taken as souviners, require a drivers license or keys as collateral. I have seen that done. Hook

I would not take a student up w/o them being equipped w/ an altimeter. Be it Tandem, S/L, or AFF. No altimeter, no jump. Of course I usually don't wear one, unless I am w/ a student or doing something weird. Hook

My opinion: Digital is easier to read exactly what it is trying to tell you 4,100 from 4,000 ft (Bill already explained how accurate it is). You have to really look at it and read it. Analog is easier to read at a glance and get an idea +/- what altitude you are at. What would be cool is to have a combination digital/analog altimeter like they have some instruments (and altimeters) in aircraft, analog for when you need to know general info (top part half of skydive) and digital for when you want to know what it is reading exactly. A combo digital/analog altimter would probably cost more than twice tha amount of a digital or an anolog though. Last thought, your eyes are your best altitude reference. I saw a video where the tandem I's altimeter stuck and the cypres fired. If you can't tell 4500 from 1900 ft or realized from looking down that you are very low................. Hook

Don't worry Bill, she isn't strong enough to get a zip-tie on me and I don't bother w/ them on her :-) This whole Zip-Tie thing started because I told her that at work (I am a diver at the Neutral Bouyancy Laboratory), when the dive is slow, one of our games is to zip-tie someone to a mock-up, or zip-tie their tank manifold. or fill in the blank. Ever since she has had zip-ties on the brain. Hook

Just like everything else, it is a trade-off. When you pull "G's" from a snap turn, you slow down, lose energy, but you swing out from under the canopy farther, giving you a longer recovery arc, and the chance to build more speed. In a slow carving turn, you don't pull much in the way of "G's", but you don't pendulum out from under the canopy as much, resulting in a shorter recovery arc. What is the best method? Well, it depends. What is the effect you are trying to get w/ the manuever? what do you consider more important? What is easier for you to accomplish routinely, the same way, every time? What canopy are you jumping, at what wing loading. There isn't a blanket right answer. A hard deep, front riser to deep double fronts requires more upper body strength. I know someone that starts w/ a front riser and because they can't pull it down for a long time, uses harness steering to complete the turn. Personally, I don't like the carving turn. I find it too complicated to vary the turn rate and decent rate in a carving turn and come out exactly on the heading I want, at the altitude I want. If you are high in your approach, you have to pull down more front riser, but then you run the risk of turning too far past your intended swoop heading. You can use the other front riser to vary your decent rate while using the other to vary (correct) your turn rate. Too much for my peanut brain to handle. I hammer one front riser, stop the 180 degree turn w/ the other front riser and dive like crazy. Then I smoothly put the front risers back where I found them and swoop w/ the toggles. I drop out of the sky, using a vertical sliver of airspace, a lot less than a carving turn uses. It is also obvious to others where I am going, no guessing on where I will roll-out of my turn. I think part of the reason I do it this way is because that is the way I learned to do it. If I learned a carving approach, I would probably feel that it was better for me. I guess it is similar to the whole high wing, low- wing aircraft debate. Pilots that learn in one or the other tend to prefer that design. Which is better? You have to decide which is better for you. Hook

PPSEL Hook

"The "performance" they were looking for seemed to be achieved at lower wingloadings. I just think we have to keep in mind that the "performance" envelope is on a curved line that drops off at a certain point when the wing loading is too high, just like when it is not high enough, for any given design. Just a thought." At the competeions, they need a canopy that will do different things, only one event is speed. Distance and accuracy require lighter wingloadings. Classic accuracy canopy wingloading is around .5:1. So competetors comprimise to get the best for each event. Right now, wing loading is limited by two things, how fast can the pilot run/slide and will the canopy plane out. I jump a high wing loading and haven't experienced or seen anyone else experience a performance drop off. As the wingloading increases, the normal full flight speed, top speed, turn rate, and stall speeds of the canopy will increase until you either cannot run fast enough or if you can run very fast, the canopy cannot generate lift equal to your weight and plane out. It would be cool to start a new thread and pool our thoughts and define canopy performance. Hook.

The only thing I can think of it that it was an old two pin system (w/ the pins on the back of the rig)and he dislodged one pin. Some bridle snaked out along w/ part of the PC. As he stood up after pitching his main PC, the wind caught his reserve PC, deploying the reserve.....Wild speculation on my part, but it is the only thing I can think of. I haven't seen a two-pin reserve (except for the Racer and the pins are against the jumpers back on that rig) in a long time. Bill, can you help? Hook

I'm almost there. Nothing, including the PC came out until he was in freefall? How long after exit did something, and what was it, come off his back? What was his body position when it did come off his back? Where was the reserve PC in freefall? Was anything out of the container besides the reserve PC? How did your instructor exit, diving, float inside the plane, next to you? What was your exit? Do you know what kind/size rig he was wearing? Again, I can't visualize what happened. I don't know what would make a reserve pin come out of the loop in freefall, create a horse shoe mal (so much for the wide bridle/free-bag concept) w/o an instructor noticing. If the pin gets dislodged, the spring loaded PC fires, which is pretty noticable and it is pretty difficult to make a reserve hore shoe. I hope you can understand my sincere confusion. Hook

Sorry- I misunderstood. To make sure I understand (this time :-), your instructor dislodged his reserve pin, launching his spring loaded reserve PC, walked to the door w/ you (dragging his PC), exited, and pulled his main to get two chutes out while you went on a solo AFF level 7. I am almost positive I still do not have it right. I am not trying to be sarcastic, but show you how I am (mis)interpreting story so you know where I am confused at. Thanks, Hook

Again, it sounds like your instructor dislodged his/her pin on exit. I wasn't there but if it was, then again a pin check wouldn't have made a difference. I teach students that w/ enough moving around, the pins will be dislodged. So limit movement, be aware of what you are leaning against, and treat the rig very carefully. I make a big deal about it if they slam thier reserve pin against the aircraft when they sit down or rub it on the bar above the door on exit. If the pins are correct on the ground and you pay attention, pin checks are unnecessary unless something unusual happens. I have hit my rig against something in the plane and checked my pin to make sure I didn't dislodge it. I had a friend that set it up w/ me to always look w/o touching at his reserve pin. He would turn so I could see between the flap and the container and see the pin. I use the look but don't touch method of giving pin checks as much as possible and only if the person asks for a pin check. I do spend time in the aircraft glancing around at three rings, chest straps, RSL's, pin covers, etc looking for problems and have caught quite a few. Hook

Bill- Thanks for the education. Hook

"Personally though I prefer for someone to not give me a gear/pin check unless I ask for it, or they ask me if I need one first." You replied: "When you get into that plane not you're just putting your own life at risk, you're also putting MY life at risk, and I don't give a rats ass if you're insecure about me checking your pin." and: "I didn't say I was just going to go do it, I said I think it should be standard procedure at the DZ." You implied that you don't care if someone does not want to get their pin checked, you would do it anyway. If you started opening my flaps and poking around, you would not like my response. I guarantee that you do not know as much about my rig as I do. I am extremely careful w/ my rig. I don't feel the need for pin checks unless I bump my rig hard enough to move a pin, then I will check it myself. I have watched pin protection flaps get opened and then closed less securely than they were before the pin check. I have seen people get on the plane w/ their reserve flap open. I do not want these people checking my pins. I was under the impression the Australia incident was caused by popping the reserve pin on climb-out. A pin check in the plane would not have changed anything in that was the case. Only being very careful w/ your rig (and tight pins and good pin protection) will prevent that. Constantly opening and closing flaps wears them out and makes them less secure. Has anyone ever noticed on the older style Javelins that some of them the reserve flap is bent at almost a 90-degree angle away from the rig? How did it get that way? When the jumper sits down and jams the flap against the windowsill or airframe every time they sit down, it eventually gets bent. Hook

Barn- The kill line in most kill-line PC's is made of Spectra. Spectra has a fairly low melting point and shrinks when heated from the friction between the bridle and the kill line as the bridle slides up the kill-line after the canopy come out of the bag. On canopys, the slider gromments are the source of the friction. If the window no longer shows the colored section of kill-line, your kill line has shrunk and may need to be lengthened or replaced. "Because the change is so gradual it often goes unnoticed until you begin to experience hesitations on deployment. To check for correct kill line length, cock the pilot chute and watch the kill line. Does it become taunt before the two white ribbons that run from the apex (the top of the pilot chute) to the bridle? If it does, then the kill line is too short, not allowing the pilot chute to completely inflate. When cocked, the two white ribbons should be taunt and there should be some slack on the kill line. Also, if the handle of the pilot chute being pulled through the small opening at the base of the pilot chute on deployment, the kill line is too short." Hook

From Performance Textiles on Soar Coat material: "Do not pack your canopy when it is wet or damp. Exacta-Chute & Soar-Coat do not support mildew but dust and grass stains can cause mildew to grow." To clean it, clean the smallest area possible w/ clean water and an absorbant cloth. I've never had to deal w/ mildew on a reserve. I would be very hesitant to pack a reserve that had mildew cleaned off of it. I would send it to the manufacturer for a porosity test. Hook

(Re-Post) Understanding wing loading will help you become a better canopy pilot. It is an important tool in advancing your canopy skills and increasing your knowledge of canopy performance. Wing loading is defined as total exit weight divided by the square footage of the canopy and is expressed as a ratio of how many pounds of suspended weight per square foot of canopy. To find your wing loading, gear up as if you are going to the plane and weigh yourself, (weighing yourself on the way to the plane is the most accurate). Divide your exit weight by the square footage of your canopy. The resulting number is your wing loading. For example, a jumper with a 180 pound exit weight flying a 130 square foot canopy has a wing loading of 1.4:1. What does this number really mean to you? It is difficult for a canopy pilot to place numbers on canopy performance. Factors such as forward speed, descent rate, turn rate, toggle/riser pressure, and recovery arc are each subject to the individual pilot’s perceptions. One jumper may find a particular canopy sluggish, while another jumper flying the identical canopy feels as if he has been fired out of a cannon. However, wing loading is the only measurement the skydiving community has to predict a canopy you are downsizing or for that matter, upsizing to before actually flying it. If you change the type of canopy, square to elliptical, F-11 to Zero-Porosity, you have to take that into consideration also. Generally, as wing loading increases, the performance factors increase, for the same type of canopy. This general rule does have some limitations. Canopy manufactures test their products through a wide range of wing loadings. They publish recommended minimum and maximum wing loading for each model canopy. If you fly a canopy at less than the manufacturer’s minimum recommended wing loading, it may not deliver the advertised performance for the canopy. Canopy performance cannot be defined on a linear scale. A common misconception is to assume that downsizing from a 169 to a 149 will result in the same increase in wing loading as downsizing from a 189 to a 169. This is not true, even though you are decreasing the canopy size by the same amount; the 20 square foot reduction represents a 10.6% of the total canopy square footage of the 189 but 11.8% of the 169. This means that downsizing from the 169 to the 149 would result in a larger increase in wing loading than downsizing from the 189 to the 169. As you downsize canopies, the same decrease in square footage results in a higher increase in wing loading and therefore, performance. For example, downsizing from a 110 to a 90 (the same 20 sq. ft.) represents 18.1% of the total canopy. As the wing loading gets higher, the same increase in wing loading results in a more dramatic increase in speed and performance. For example, an increase of 0.3, from a wing loading of 1.8 to 2.1 will result in a higher performance gain than the same 0.3 increase from a wing loading of 0.8 to 1.1. A 169 with a wing loading of 1.4 lbs./sq. ft. will not have the same performance as a 109 loaded at 1.4 lbs./ sq. ft. This is due to the reduced drag from the smaller size of the canopy, reduced surface drag of the smaller jumper under the 109 and the shorter lines of the smaller canopy. Also the shorter lines on the 109 will allow the canopy to turn faster because the pilot isn’t swung out from under the canopy as far and less lines mean less drag. A canopy’s design also affects performance, for example, a cross braced canopy with a wing loading of 1.6 lbs. / sq. ft. will fly radically faster than an F-111 seven cell of the same size loaded at 1.6 lbs. / sq. ft. Other factors that can affect performance are line type, aspect ratio, canopy material (F-111, Zero Porosity) and the shape of the canopy, (elliptical, semi-elliptical, and square). An elliptical canopy will out-perform a square canopy at the same wing loading, all other factors being equal. Another factor is your exit weight. The heavier you are, the more your wing loading will increase as you downsize. A lighter jumper’s wing loading will not increase as fast as a heavier jumper’s will. This disparity increases as wing loadings increase. wing loading also affects stall speed and speed. An increase in wing loading will increase the stall speed and increase the cruise and maximum airspeeds your canopy will achieve. By calculating your wing loading for all the canopies you have jumped, you can put a number to the performance you felt while flying the canopy and use that information to predict how an unfamiliar canopy size will fly. This is a great tool in the decision process of buying a new canopy. Don’t forget to consider any differences in shape and design. If you are considering a new, smaller canopy or a faster design of the same size canopy, first ask yourself, “Have I learned everything my current canopy has to teach me?” This includes being able to fly the canopy fast, slow, and your landing accuracy under different conditions. If you can honestly answer “Yes”, then the next step is to figure out your current wing loading and what your wing loading would be under the new canopy you are considering. Armed with this information, discuss your options with an Instructor or Safety & Training Advisor. Also discuss your intentions with your rigger. You will need to decide if your new main will fit in your current container or if buying a new container, what size? Also, will your new main be compatable with your reserve? As part of your decision making process you need to honestly ask yourself why you want to downsize. Peer pessure and wanting to be cool are poor reasons to buy a smaller main. Some manufacturers will build a canopy to the exact size you want, allowing you to pick your wing loading and not have to just be close. Figuring out your current wing loading and tracking your past wing loading as you fly different sizes and types of canopies will help make the decision of what to buy for your next canopy easier. Be cautious combining downsizing and changing to a higher performance type of canopy in a single step. You may be the one feeling like you have been shot out of a cannon. Hook

The Safire performance option is something I came up w/ for another application (my BASE canopy) and applied it to Safires. By the same lines you could say the H-mod (is that the correct name?) for the Cobalt is necessary to make a Cobalt swoop. I think anyone would argue against that concept. Aftermarket options do not mean that the original design is bad. My Safire flew and landed great before, now it is a little better. My idea was looked at by Icarus and they liked it. As for Sabre's being "fixed", I have watched students have the slider hit the links in approximately 100ft. They were unable to jump for several weeks due to the opening. They would sometime open very hard. These Sabres were manufactured in early 2000. I have put pockets on the sliders of a number of Sabre's w/ very good results. Hook

Understanding wing loading will help you become a better canopy pilot. It is an important tool in advancing your canopy skills and increasing your knowledge of canopy performance. Wing loading is defined as total exit weight divided by the square footage of the canopy and is expressed as a ratio of how many pounds of suspended weight per square foot of canopy. To find your wing loading, gear up as if you are going to the plane and weigh yourself, (weighing yourself on the way to the plane is the most accurate). Divide your exit weight by the square footage of your canopy. The resulting number is your wing loading. For example, a jumper with a 180 pound exit weight flying a 130 square foot canopy has a wing loading of 1.4:1. What does this number really mean to you? It is difficult for a canopy pilot to place numbers on canopy performance. Factors such as forward speed, descent rate, turn rate, toggle/riser pressure, and recovery arc are each subject to the individual pilot’s perceptions. One jumper may find a particular canopy sluggish, while another jumper flying the identical canopy feels as if he has been fired out of a cannon. However, wing loading is the only measurement the skydiving community has to predict a canopy you are downsizing or for that matter, upsizing to before actually flying it. If you change the type of canopy, square to elliptical, F-11 to Zero-Porosity, you have to take that into consideration also. Generally, as wing loading increases, the performance factors increase, for the same type of canopy. This general rule does have some limitations. Canopy manufactures test their products through a wide range of wing loadings. They publish recommended minimum and maximum wing loading for each model canopy. If you fly a canopy at less than the manufacturer’s minimum recommended wing loading, it may not deliver the advertised performance for the canopy. Canopy performance cannot be defined on a linear scale. A common misconception is to assume that downsizing from a 169 to a 149 will result in the same increase in wing loading as downsizing from a 189 to a 169. This is not true, even though you are decreasing the canopy size by the same amount; the 20 square foot reduction represents a 10.6% of the total canopy square footage of the 189 but 11.8% of the 169. This means that downsizing from the 169 to the 149 would result in a larger increase in wing loading than downsizing from the 189 to the 169. As you downsize canopies, the same decrease in square footage results in a higher increase in wing loading and therefore, performance. For example, downsizing from a 110 to a 90 (the same 20 sq. ft.) represents 18.1% of the total canopy. As the wing loading gets higher, the same increase in wing loading results in a more dramatic increase in speed and performance. For example, an increase of 0.3, from a wing loading of 1.8 to 2.1 will result in a higher performance gain than the same 0.3 increase from a wing loading of 0.8 to 1.1. A 169 with a wing loading of 1.4 lbs./sq. ft. will not have the same performance as a 109 loaded at 1.4 lbs./ sq. ft. This is due to the reduced drag from the smaller size of the canopy, reduced surface drag of the smaller jumper under the 109 and the shorter lines of the smaller canopy. Also the shorter lines on the 109 will allow the canopy to turn faster because the pilot isn’t swung out from under the canopy as far and less lines mean less drag. A canopy’s design also affects performance, for example, a cross braced canopy with a wing loading of 1.6 lbs. / sq. ft. will fly radically faster than an F-111 seven cell of the same size loaded at 1.6 lbs. / sq. ft. Other factors that can affect performance are line type, aspect ratio, canopy material (F-111, Zero Porosity) and the shape of the canopy, (elliptical, semi-elliptical, and square). An elliptical canopy will out-perform a square canopy at the same wing loading, all other factors being equal. Another factor is your exit weight. The heavier you are, the more your wing loading will increase as you downsize. A lighter jumper’s wing loading will not increase as fast as a heavier jumper’s will. This disparity increases as wing loadings increase. Wing loading also affects stall speed and speed. An increase in wing loading will increase the stall speed and increase the cruise and maximum airspeeds your canopy will achieve. By calculating your wing loading for all the canopies you have jumped, you can put a number to the performance you felt while flying the canopy and use that information to predict how an unfamiliar canopy size will fly. This is a great tool in the decision process of buying a new canopy. Don’t forget to consider any differences in shape and design. If you are considering a new, smaller canopy or a faster design of the same size canopy, first ask yourself, “Have I learned everything my current canopy has to teach me?” This includes being able to fly the canopy fast, slow, and your landing accuracy under different conditions. If you can honestly answer “Yes”, then the next step is to figure out your current wing loading and what your wing loading would be under the new canopy you are considering. Armed with this information, discuss your options with an Instructor or Safety & Training Advisor. Also discuss your intentions with your rigger. You will need to decide if your new main will fit in your current container or if buying a new container, what size? Also, will your new main be compatable with your reserve? As part of your decision making process you need to honestly ask yourself why you want to downsize. Peer pessure and wanting to be cool are poor reasons to buy a smaller main. Some manufacturers will build a canopy to the exact size you want, allowing you to pick your wing loading and not have to just be close. Figuring out your current wing loading and tracking your past wing loading as you fly different sizes and types of canopies will help make the decision of what to buy for your next canopy easier. Be cautious combining downsizing and changing to a higher performance type of canopy in a single step. You may be the one feeling like you have been shot out of a cannon. Hook

I heard that "they" went from a single flex pin to a doulbe flex pin to reduce the amount of single cable in contact w/ the closing loop to reduce the possibility of stripping the cable and creating a PC/Drougue in tow situation. W/ 2 cables there is less chance of stripping the cables. I wonder why manufacturers don't offer it as an option to have a flex pin instead of a curved pin on sport rigs? Anyone know of any downsides to flex pins on sport rigs? Hook

Ann- why no kittys for me? Hook

For some strange reason, Ann doesn't seem to think I would make a good pet owner........... Hook

I can see your point, but I think your local Mechanic or your modifiying your car is different than taking a Ford to a Chevy dealership and them removing anything that says Ford and putting parts on it that Chevy may or may not approve of. I think this is more of a business ethics question, not my realm of expertese, any MBA's here that could offer some insight? Would PA care if PD offered to re-line PA's canopys w/ a different material and set-up and removed their labels? Who would be liable for an Icarus built canopy re-lined and modified my PA? What if PA built it? PA didn't help w/ the Crossfire issue, even if it was a PA built canopy. To complicate things, PD never produced PA canopys under license. I am in over my head :-) Hook

Sangrio- sorry, my fault, I'll be more careful in the future. Hook

Chuck, nice post. I have gotten away from keeping an eye on people since I don't instruct much these days and gave up the S & TA crap a long time ago. VX-60 @ 3.1:1 Safire 189 @ 1:1 (1.1:1 if you use 174 sq ft) 2781 jumps 1300 of which are on either an FX-70 or the VX-60. My VX is not an all-around canopy. It can swoop like nothing else, but isn't suited to anything else. Same as a lear jet is only good for A-B in a hurry (except for the guy that is going to roll as the gear comes up then perform a cuban 8 in a Lear at airshows this year) and not much else. My Safire is an all-around canopy. It can do anything, but nothing exceptionally well. Hook