Hooknswoop

Ever jump a reserve set up as a main, it opens the same. Derek

No-Stow D-bags seem to work OK, as do reserve free-bags. Derek

Of course, why else get it? Derek

My one and only bag lock was on a tandem because the packer double stowed the lines. Use the right sized rubber bands. They don't have to hold too tight. Just the locking stows must hold the lines snug. Derek

It flys! A very well designed and built bike. Derek

2004 Honda CBR 600RR. Derek

You are right. Relative to the air they are flying through, they are still moving fowards and by making your body bigger, you are decreasing your glide. By getting in brakes, you will be in the air longer, taking advantage of the tail wind longer, but you should still get small for the best glide. Whoever giving the advice doesn't understand relative wind. As for the sail concept,, that doesn't hold water either since the canopy would have to be moving backwards through the air for the relative wind to hit the back of the canopy and propel it foward. This is a very basic concept and if they do not uderstand it, they should not be giving advice to others. Derek

"Tough GA security regulations surface in the Senate Sometimes there is no satisfaction in being right. The ink literally hasn't dried yet on Phil Boyer's editorial in the upcoming issue of AOPA Pilot. In that article he says that if all of us pilots don't do our part to stop the breaches of airport security and violations of restricted airspace, "we might not like the national and local solutions that will be handed to us." It's started already. Two amendments to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill were filed this week in the U.S. Senate. That following the media hype of four recent airspace incursions into the Washington, D.C., Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) and restricted airspace over Camp David, and two aircraft thefts by unlicensed young people. The most severe amendment, offered by New Mexico Senators Pete Domenici (R) and Jeff Bingaman (D), calls for a $100,000 fine, confiscation of the aircraft, and a five-year loss of flying privileges for "whoever negligently flies an aircraft in a manner that violates the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) and causes the evacuation of a Federal building or any other public property...." (The FRZ is the 15-nm-radius "no fly" circle around Washington, D.C., that includes the Capitol and the White House.) AOPA is already talking with Sen. Domenici's office. "The proposed penalty is extraordinarily harsh — too harsh in fact — but it's clear that members of Congress want to get every pilot's attention that they will not accept any more excuses for these transgressions," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "And frankly, there is no excuse. "That's why all responsible pilots must do everything they can to make sure their aircraft and airports are secure and that every member of our community understands the consequences of security violations. The transgressions of a few are tarnishing all of us who fly, and their actions may impact our freedom of the skies," said Boyer. The second amendment, from Senators Hillary R. Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) calls for a government study of general aviation security, including "the vulnerability posed to high-risk areas and facilities from general aviation aircraft that could be stolen or used as a weapon or armed with a weapon." The study would also include GA airport security, technology that could easily track GA aircraft, disabling measures that could prevent aircraft theft, and "an assessment of the threat posed to high population areas, nuclear facilities, key infrastructure, military bases, and transportation infrastructure that stolen or hijacked general aviation aircraft pose, especially if armed with weapons or explosives." The study must also include cost estimates for the implementation of any recommended security procedures. "We would welcome an unbiased study, because we are convinced from our own independent research that within the list of risks and threats to the American population, GA will rank very low," said Boyer." What did we miss? Derek

Why can someone get on a Gulfstream-V weighing 85,000 pounds, 35,000 of that in fuel, without so much as showing ID, much less going though any metal detectors along with no secuirty for their luggage, but you can't get onto a Beech 1900D weight 16,600 pounds without going through a metal detector, your bagage being sent through an X-ray machine and having to take off your shoes? A G-V flown into a building will do a lot of damage. Short of shooting it down with a SAM, which will do a lot of damage on the ground, there isn't any way to stop one before it's too late anyway. Also, how hard is it to NOT fly through the TFR's? You can get a GPS for dirt cheap that will tell you exactly where you are and where the TFR is. IF you can;t navigate well enough to avoid the TFR's, you should not have a pilot's license. If you knew how to fly it, you could steal a G-V or other large aircraft very easily. GA is a possible terrorist target that has almost no security in place. Granted a Censsa 172 isn't going to do much, but there are a lot of large corporate aircraft that can. These are unseured and almost unstoppable by the time the threat is realized. Derek

With small canopies, a collapsable PC makes a HUGE difference. Also, a collasped PC caught in an outer "A" doesn't really matter. If the PC was inflated, well it could mean a reserve ride. I couldn't get the slider down over the larger risers. The smaller risers never failed me, and as Bill Booth pointed out, it is better if the risers do fail before the harness or jumper does. Derek

No way. Even witha PD-106R and no Cypres. I've seen a Stiletto 107 splt an XRS D-bag down the side it was so tight. A 104 x-brace packs up much bigger than a 107. The largest recommended main is a 97 non-cross braced canopy. Derek

The assembling rigger is responsible for compatability and packing a rig that is safe for emergency use. If the components are TSO'd and compatable, the rigger may assemble them. For example, you can use PD's Slinks on any container/reserve combination the rigger deems compatable. Manufacturer's tend to overstate their authority by labeling SB's "Mandatory" (they aren't, AD's issued by the FAA are) or saying you may only put their canopies in their containers. They do not have that authority. A manufacturer can require you wear a pink thong while jumping their gear, but that doesn't mean you legally have to. Until that section of AC-105-2C is superceded, it stands. Maybe someday the FAA will write FAR's and AC's that are easy to understand in plain english, make sense with regard to modern rigging/skydiving, and actually enforce those FAR's. But I am not going to hold my breath and wait for that day. Derek

In the U.S., the rigger determines compatability, even with tandem gear. Derek

No idea. I thought it might be a typo and they meant to say 'reserve' instead of 'main'. Derek

I think you misunderstood. He said he was putting the order on hold because of the upcoming changes to the container, not the rumor of bankruptcy. He wants to see what the updated changes are before he orders. Derek

http://www.apf.asn.au/Documents/Rigging/Service_Bulletins/CASA/AD-PARA-14.pdf Derek

A what? Seriously, get a modern container, the increase in safety is worth it. Derek

Let me take a shot at it. If you aren't 100% happy with it, it's free. If you are happy with it, it's only $35.00. Derek

No, but either way it will have to be patched and if rip-stop tape is used, the final patch is going to be much bigger. Might as well do it right the first time around. Derek

Duct tape is bad because it attracts dirts/sand, etc which damages the fabric. Rip stop tape also attracts dirt, but worse, the adhesive is acidic and will destroy the canopy fabric over time. Derek

USPA owns several STC's for Cessna in flight doors: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/E64AD14296E8129B85256CC2000C60CD?OpenDocument&Highlight=sa40ce http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/C6205EF224EA0F6485256CC1007F3BB0?OpenDocument&Highlight=us%20parachute%20association http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/9A132515F0E2D87D85256CC1007F3BAE?OpenDocument&Highlight=us%20parachute%20association http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/B5BA728DA17D754385256CC20058E8DB?OpenDocument&Highlight=us%20parachute%20association http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/770190CA4463317385256CC2000C5997?OpenDocument&Highlight=us%20parachute%20association Derek

Remeber, your canopy flys the same regardless of the wind, the difference is your ground speed. If you are coming straight down at full flight because your airspeed equals the wind speed, when you flare, the canopy slows down and, even though your airspeed is positive, your ground speed is negative, you are backing up. Fly the canopy. Derek

When you begin your flare isn't as important as when you finish your flare. You can start the flare at 12 feet or 15 feet, as long as you finish the flare just before touch down, you'll get a good flare. A 2-stage flare is a bit of a misnomer, but it gets the point across not to yankt he taoggles down as far as you can at 10 feet to flare. a 2-stage fflare is the process of pulling the toggle down, increasing and/or decreasing the rate of the toggle pull as necessary to fly the canopy to a gentle stop just as your feet touch the ground. A canopy that is flying just above it's stall speed requires an agressive 1-stage flare. A canopy with some excess airspeed above it's stall speed will allow the pilot to bleed off that extra airspeed before their feeet touch down with a more drawn out flare motion. Imagine a C-182 in ground effect over the runway at 110 knots with no power. the pilot will gently pull back on the yoke as airspeed bleeds of, staying just above the ground until lift runs out and the pane settles on the runway. If the same C-182 is in ground effect above the runway just above stall speed, the pilot will pull back the yoke, the aircraft will stall and settle on the runway. This is the difference between the 1 and 2-stage flare. Derek

I agree, no reason to bring this up to the FAA at all. I stumbled upon this when doing some research, couldn't find anyway around it and hoped someone had an answer. I am not concerned about a harness failing, just what the FAA would do if there was ever an incident and they figured this out. They tend to look for anything, even if it had nothing to do with the incident. I am one to definately push the limits of the FAR's as far as I can. This is a decision I now have to make, now that I know. I can either decide to say that there isn't a real safety issue, just a paperwork one and continue to rig like always. Or I can decide to not pack these combinations and avoid a potential snag with the FAA, small chance though it may be. I will be recieving some information from Mirage soon about this that will hopefully offer a way around this issue. Derek

"the maximum generated force of the canopy must not exceed the certificated category force of the harness and container; i.e, Low-Speed Category (3,000 lbs.) and Standard Category (5,000 lbs.)." Close enough. Derek