pchapman

The DZO at one DZ I'm at actually created an upgrade for a tandem jump, beyond just getting video, where two well experienced jumpers also come in and fly with the tandem. A weird but interesting concept, and the occasional tandem student goes for it and thinks it's pretty cool to be flying with a few others in the sky. The DZO did it for a big celebrity once, and put it 'on the menu' after that. To keep the price from being too high, for the experienced jumpers it's just a free jump. (If they're doing other working jumps they may not be enthusiastic, but if they have time, they'll go for it.)

I'm no expert, but it can depend on body shape too. Tall and skinny? Not as big a deal - MLW's run fairly straight down the body. If solid and shorter, MLW's have to curve a lot more around to the side of the body from up at the shoulders.

Interesting; I hadn't heard of that case. They were only partially successful there because they couldn't get to their objective, but were of assistance when assisted by an arriving ship later. It brings to mind the more recent Canadian SARTECH rescue attempt in the Arctic in 2011. In that case, one SARTECH jumper was able to get to the people they were trying to help - assisting until other help arrived hours later. Another jumper only was able to save himself and get in his raft but not to render assistance. And a third jumper was unable to save himself and died. http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/12/21/initial-flight-safety-report-into-october-death-of-sar-tech-sergeant-janick-gilbert-released/ First you have to be able to save yourself before saving others -- not easy to do when jumping into open arctic water in bad weather.

As Dave says, the increased wing loading wouldn't be that big a deal, but make sure that landing your current canopy is no sweat in all normal conditions before downsizing. You will find that the Triathlon isn't as awesome as the Navigator for the flare & landing. They are perfectly OK, but the flare timing will have to be more precise than the easy-to-land Navigator.

You mean like this dude? No idea who he is , but someone should get the FAA on him for jumping over cloud.

I don't know either way. But years ago a female skydiving acquaintance mentioned that in her line of work as a prostitute, "Never show fear to a client!" That particular job situation is out of the ordinary, but I always thought there might be a useful lesson somewhere in there for the rest of us too.

There have been a couple other good, long threads in the last couple years on the topic of parents or spouses not liking the sport. (But I'm not sure what search terms to best use to find them.) One technique is to bring parents out to the dz to see all the reasonably normal people from different walks of life, taking safety seriously & having so much fun; that it isn't all young men with a death with. (... and just hope that nobody femurs that day.)

(I'm one of his instructors.) Damn! Yeah it looks like we needed to try to tighten up the main lift web (MLW) adjusters just a little, even though you are a tall, solidly built guy and the harness did seem good and tight. And (as debriefed) we can do that by lifting up on the container, which will rotate the whole harness forwards and bring the chest strap down a little. Lifting up the container also takes the load off the straps somewhat, making it easier to tighten both MLW and sometimes leg straps. Since all the rigs are identical (except slightly different canopy sizes), we should be able to find a MLW setting that works for you. If one lifts up from the bottom of the container while wearing it, someone else can haul on the MLW adjusters for you. The design on those rigs slip easier when not under load, so tightening them up before donning the rig is OK to do, but one may need to retighten once the rig is on. A trick for tightening a rig when alone is to lean your upper body forward almost 90 degrees so the rig weight is lying on your back more and not dragging down towards your feet. Still, MLW adjusters are tricky to adjust when wearing the rig, so you may need someone's help. The 'starting to sit up' idea is a reasonable optional thing to do down the road but I'd avoid it until you have perfect stability and just stay in a good arch until you feel the tug of the parachute -- as TK says, it is hard to teach at this point. A few jumps back another PFF student "anticipated" the opening after he pulled, and just got himself into an unstable dearch, rolling to his side, before the canopy deployed, thus giving him a hard opening because he was taking the loads sideways. You think that was spinning like a blender? I'm sure it felt like that but I've seen far faster! I did a few catch & releases to keep the turning from having time to accelerate too much. We'll work on getting everything perfectly symmetrical next time, and work again on the little turn inputs that can both start a turn and stop them. And with me being tall & skinny, I'll keep wearing those 18 lbs of weight to keep up with you. If we had a less slick and more baggy suit that would slow you a bit. Those new Aerodyne Solo canopies do seem a little variable in their opening speed -- I have seen the occasional snappy opening.

Your photo of the Lotus is a nice one -- one can see the diagonal tension in a lot of the airlock panels, and that always corresponds with which ribs have lines or no lines. So one can see how the airlocks are providing diagonal bracing to the canopy, for the ribs without lines. As you say, likestojump, that's only in the nose area. But it is at least a more highly loaded area and more critical to aerodynamics.

Nice post actually, bochen. Your perception for detail is useful not just for someone thinking about their first jump, but also for experienced jumpers to see (or have a laugh along with you) how there are many things in skydiving are so alien, odd, and unexpected to non-skydivers. (Mind you, if you start saying that something isn't just "odd" but "wrong", that's where you'll get into those arguments with experienced skydivers...)

A totally joking answer!

The problem is fairly obvious when one plays with a freefly handle on a packed rig: The tab on the handle restricts the handle from easily being pulled straight outwards -- both for accidental pulls (good), or intentional pulls. Therefore one may not want to pull straight outwards to the side like with a "regular" handle. A push away from the bottom of the rig, for example, will help pop the tab out, before one drags the pilot chute out of the BOC to the side. Like with many things, to get an added feature, there is added complexity, that the user needs to manage properly. That's the tradeoff.

Interesting. Which may be why Airtec says to switch the cypres on and off a few times after installing a new battery. Not that I ever expect a problem not doing so, but it would help get the current working through the battery system.

[You would physically be pushing the nose of the outer cells (typically folded to face inwards and back, or rolled more), into the nose opening of the center cell, on the appropriate side. A more modern way would be to roll both sides (noses of the outer cells all together on each side) and tuck them on either side of the center cell, but not actually into its nose opening.

I guess it largely comes down to money. Someone could put hundreds of hours (and/or lots of money) into a making a professional video but where's the return for them? There have been the occasional commercial skydiving videos over the years on how to fly one's body for relative work (formations), or how to sitfly, etc. And a very few well organized, big DZ's may have little videos on aspects of their student jumps. For example, Skydive Elsinore has little computer graphics / cartoon videos of each of the AFF levels, that anyone can watch on their web site. Most DZ's will just have printed procedures taped to the DZ wall or in a booklet. Another example is packing: There are paid videos out there, and free videos too (eg, from gear company PD) on packing. Yes it is hard to find things like that on one's own and know whether a source is any good for you, if you are new to all this. Not to say that some further consolidation or standardization can't happen. In a way it is like other learning: You can learn physics by picking up books and self teaching. But for most people (other than the top 5%) it sure helps to pay for classes, and have a professor and teaching assistants to help you through the process. When you have the framework provided by interaction with experienced humans, then it is really beneficial to also 'hit the books' and do some self learning. And where physical skills are involved, whether skydiving or learning to machine metal, then it is even more important to learn from other people and practice and be critiqued, as such things just can't be learned from a book. If you want to see if you can learn about skydiving from a book, try reading the USPA SIM (available for download free). Lots and lots of info there, but trying to process all that without interacting with instructors may be tough. Another point is that a lot of programs are designed for some 'average' person and adjusted from there. Some DZ's may want everyone to do a tandem first, to avoid those really nasty level 1 AFF's where a student just can't cope with it. Maybe you aren't in that bottom 5%, and it is a waste of time for you personally, but there's no way the instructors can know ahead of time that you are in the top 95% or indeed the top 10%. Over multiple jumps, if you have great skills, then sure you'll progress quicker and spend less money than someone having problems. So you'll still come out ahead, even if that one tandem did nothing for you. If one does a tandem, with the intention of continuing on, one should tell the DZ & instructor, so they can add in some extra learning -- for example, you can get some good coaching on how to fly the canopy to evaluate winds, approach the DZ, and fly the circuit.

FYI: It's a standard skydiving expression, looking down on non-skydivers. If skydivers feel someone is unsuited to our sport, we joke that they should be told to TUB - take up bowling. That's nothing against bowling, just that bowling is safer. Bowlers don't end up as limp, crunchy bags of meat and bone fragments if they are stupid or incompetent.

So there is the option of just doing AFF, or doing 10-20 minutes of tunnel first. Another thing I've seen people do is to go to the tunnel after they have done some AFF, if they are having freefall issues that aren't getting solved in a couple jumps. If they are getting stuck, and only providing amusing scenes for the AFFI's year end video, then plan for the 6 hour drive (around here) to the tunnel. Life is like that: you can save money by not spending extra, or spend extra up front to possibly avoid spending even more extra later, or only spend extra when it becomes apparent that one is already starting to spend extra... There's no one ideal method.

Of course some such DZO's are also co-owners of the tunnel they send students to, both serving the same metropolitan area. Very convenient both in practical terms and financially..... (That being said, the ones I'm thinking of are extremely professional and have a well designed program.)

Ah very interesting point Mark. So it says a rigger can supervise anything they are rated on, "in accordance with" rules that say, for example, "The main parachute must have been packed within 180 days before the date of its use" etc. As you point out, that does make it seem like supervision is about mains only. Yet one can interpret it the other way too, that supervising a reserve pack job is "in accordance with" any rule about mains, because when you supervise a reserve pack job, there is no main involved. It would be the same if they said you may supervise anything you are rated for, in accordance with "All dogs must remain on a leash", or "Main parachutes must be colored purple." Supervising a reserve pack job in no way breaks those rules. Thus one interpretation is that a rigger can supervise reserves!! I really wish the FAA would freaking tell us what they really want. (I know the issue of FAA interpretations of supervision came up earlier, but it still isn't entirely clear what they want.)

Great contributions here, Ron. You mentioned a couple exemptions, but I found yet another: The USHPA has #4721L, current this year. This one applies to 2 place paragliders, but only unpowered flight. That's not the case in this incident but shows a case where the FAA does allow flights other than for instruction. With that exemption, two paragliding pilots can go up and have fun. They both need ratings and one needs the appropriate rating to fly a tandem. As for how much "instruction" needs to be done, that's another area for argument. I know some powered trike operations in Hawaii (Light Sport I guess?) got into FAA trouble for their tourist flights, but I don't know if it was the way they presented things, or the whole activity that was at issue. And was the old skydiving tandem exemption also for "instruction" only, even when most of the jumping was really for fun?

Interesting ad. I actually do have a little admiration for the straightforwardness of the post. It isn't like he's trying to pawn off some old junk to a newbie. If someone is going for a JVX 94, they have a certain mindset anyway, whether they can handle it or not. Why not make the sale and take some money from the DGIT who is going to dig a hole for himself one way or another? So there's one of the philosophical questions: Selling a hot canopy to a DGIT adds to the risk in the sport if you are the only one who would do such a thing, but it adds very little to the risk in skydiving if there are others who will sell the DGIT such a canopy anyway. Which makes policing things hard. What I also find interesting in the ad is the willingness to trade either for a Velo 96, or a Katana up to a 120. There's a vagueness about goals there. Often if you are looking for one of those choices, ending up under the other is either unwanted or stupid. (But on the other side of the argument, both are good canopies and would be fun for an experienced jumper to have in a second rig for example.)

The DZ I'm at finally started charging a little extra and paying a little extra for big tandems -- those over 250 lbs. There were only a few TI's like myself who were willing enough or trusted enough by the DZO to take up the big guys, not to mention being low enough weight in a couple cases. The appreciation of others and the satisfaction of a job well done are nice, but I don't always want to be the one to have to take up (at standard pay) the guy who is 265, 280, or even 300 lbs, mostly out of widebody C-182's in earlier years. I'm not saying there's only one way of doing things, but at the extremes I'm not going to say no to extra pay as a TI.

To be more precise about the NOTAM thing: We skydivers etc can notify ATC. That isn't a NOTAM. Only the government guys can issue a NOTAM, as a warning to aviators about some airspace issue. It is just that if there need to be special rules for some airspace due to a demo, or an ongoing DZ, then the gov't will issue a NOTAM. For a one-off jump that needs nothing other than basic ATC coordination, no NOTAM might be issued. Note that the Class E and G stuff doesn't even need APPROVAL, just NOTIFICATION! ATC needs to be aware of what you are doing, but they can't stop you.

Other than the debate about the FAA wording & intent (which has leaned towards no supervision), yes. It's like assisting a mechanic to do maintenance on an airplane. The person supervising is fully responsible for the work done and has to sign it off in the end. A supervised pack job does tend to take much longer to complete than a regular pack job....

Yeah, stuntman Jim Bailey. If that's the video I remember, it's a little on the nasty side, as one can hear him grunting in the intercom while trying desperately to hold on, before he falls to his death.