pchapman

But when has a dead, experienced skydiver ever cost a DZO? Maybe there have been suits; I don't know. But normally, the rare event of a dead skydiver doesn't affect the DZO's investment. Normally a DZO doesn't ask people to chip in an extra $1500 to jump at the DZ. Yes, gas prices go up, jump costs go up, whatever,. But never before DZ's with mandatory AAD rules have I had a DZO ask me to spend an extra $1500 to jump at their DZ and supposedly protect his ass. Nowadays, with so jumpers many having AADs anyway, there's less and less need to make AAD rules. The battle for AAD's is already won; now mandatory AAD rules just tend to stick it to a few people,

And avgas has much lower vapour pressures, which affects vapor lock susceptibility of the fuel system. And avgas has tetraethyl lead, which affects engine valves and has environmental effects. And avgas has no ethanol (when much mogas has it added), which affects seals throughout the fuel system. So they are significantly different, although I don't know all the details. In certain applications, one fuel can replace the other, but you have to know what you are doing.

(The BBC iPlayer only works for UK IP addresses.)

Another point of view is that at the same time, swooping survives because so many people like doing it, on every normal jump, just for fun, without having the activity pushed aside as some freak show for specialists... (Maybe not actually on a pond though.) If one had to give that up, it would almost be like doubling jump prices, because you just lost half the fun of the jump. (But yes it is an airspace problem if everyone on the Otter load is swooping...)

Based on that translation: Interesting rules. They are a mix of hard limits, plus exceptions allowed with monitoring, plus recommendations. Highly elliptical is only allowed after 400 jumps. Crossbraced is normally 1000, but one can get an exemption at 800 jumps. Other than those limits, one can downsize below the minimums in the table, IF one gets some approvals. IF less current, one must also demonstrate canopy skills. Nice to see that there is some flexibility there.

I have found at least one rig where the tacking at the top end of the ripcord housing wasn't there (or wasn't there, any more). This is what the factory told me in 2011 when I asked about Wings ripcord tacking: From looking at one rig, the housing tacks to the fabric layer that one sees covering the housing, that stops pretty much at where the housing stops, where the ripcord cable then continues to the back of the rig. The tacking goes through the binding tape, close in to the inboard side (towards the wearer's neck). I don't know precisely where the housing should stop though, whether just slightly exposed or slightly hidden. Generally the housing stops pretty much at where the fabric cover stops. Was the one you found totally free floating, or just at the top?

And I'd guess the sport market was being more of a hassle, because their products started to become less relevant. They had some products getting outdated at the start of the 90s. Such as their reserves, especially when compared to the new PD series that just came out. And where they did try to innovate and introduce new stuff, it wasn't catching the market's eye for whatever reason. E.g., EOS rig, Evolution canopy (innovative but bizarre). It would be interesting to hear from someone who was a dealer for them at the time, as they might have a better understanding of how the company was dealing with the market.

I'm curious whether he'll go for a windy day, which would reduce ground speed somewhat (and kinetic energy, even more). More turbulence, shear, and speed variation is typical if it gets very windy though. A place with a good steady breeze wouldn't be bad. In any case, he does seem to have significant box landing experience as a stuntman.

That sure depends on the rig! No problem on an older Vector II I played with, but not for a tight 24-25 lb heavy Wings I just tried. Even in an idealized zero cable drag situation, with the weight being divided along both directions along the cable which is bent out in a loop, that's only some 12 lbs pulling on the ripcord pin, well under the pull force for a tight newly packed rig. As for the video, I was snuck a link to one of those file upload sites, depositfiles.com/files/l3harefp0 Seems to work. At least it isn't out on youtube for the general public; but sure is handy for debugging the issue without having to simulate the situation at home. Who knows exactly where the extra drag comes from. If it might take 20 lbs to pop the pin for a tight rig, that's 40 lbs split between both ends of the cable. If 50 lbs on the scale didn't pull it, there's over 10 lbs of hidden extra drag in there somewhere. Possible sources might be: (a) pulling against the ripcord handle - true for some of the pull directions used in the video but not all of them, (b) drag of the ripcord cable around the end ferrule of the ripcord housing (less slick than an RSL guide ring), and (c) friction of the cable going through the slot in the suit - even though the slot does have some length to allow the ripcord cable to bulge out. One would have to look at the drag of ripcord cables going around corners of fabric, ripcord housings, and as a comparison (to fit with what diablopilot was pointing out), RSL rings. Edit: I tried an experiment just now with an old ripcord cable, housing, and two scales. To get a 20 lb pull on a pin, by pulling the cable at 90 degrees at the far end of the housing, it took 25 or often 30 lbs of pull -- the number varied as the cable alternately caught and slipped a bit as it ground into the edge of the housing ferrule. This was for a ripcord housing secured right up to the ferrule, as some rigs do it. Others allow the last inch or so of the ripcord housing to bend freely, creating a much larger radius, which I confirmed drastically reduces the extra drag "around the corner" I'm sure it would go smoother if bending the cable around an RSL ring instead. The rig in the video, a Voodoo, has the ripcord housing secured right at the end with an Oetiker clamp. Not so good for off axis pulls! Yet there is still some flex, in that the whole lift web can bend and twist to allow the housing to curve, so the ripcord cable isn't right at 90 degrees to the housing any more. That's seen near the end of the video where they pop the reserve at 40 lbs when not pulling through the suit. There might be less twist in the air with the harness loaded, or when pulling through the suit. So I think the 'around the corner of the housing pull' is a big factor in the problem, especially on certain rigs.

I'm open to hear more examples, but I can't believe that whole explanation. Take time to think through the physics Dave and see if you still think Booth's idea makes sense. At all. 1) Physics has an object flung out sideways being spun around. It is not "outward" as in straight away from the center of the spin. Yes, it is "outward" in that as something is thrown at a tangent to the curved path it was on, it will also be moving away from the center of the spin over time. And it feels "outward" in that one isn't being pulled by the spinning canopy. But to think of it entirely as "outward" is wrong. So the wind is NOT directly foot to head. The wind will still be coming from where ever it was during the spin. Maybe you are face to the wind, or maybe back to the wind in the classic 'spinning on your back' configuration. (At high G, in a sitting position in your harness = massively dearched, therefore, back to wind) You chop back to wind, and with an RSL your pilot chute will be jumping out and blowing right back at you. 2) People forget that while rotation around the center of the spin stops when one chops, any existing rotation around one's own center of mass will continue (until changed by aerodynamics)! Some keep thinking falsely, "Yeah but you chopped, you're not spinning any more". Wrong! So lets say you are facing the direction of spin, and you are in some simplified circular spin with no loss of altitude, going around once per 2 seconds. Then your body is pitching 180 degrees per second. But of course the spiral is actually going downwards fast, so it isn't a pure pitching motion, but one's body is rolling too, as one twists to remain facing forward during the spiral. A combination of pitching and rolling creates the downward spiral. So when you chop, your body shoots out to the side of the spiral in a straight line. But the turning of your body around its own center of gravity is unchanged! You are pitching and rolling. Voila, unstable opening as the RSL activates the reserve. Pilot chute, bridle, and lines all moving past the jumper at an odd angle, as the jumper tumbles. An RSL does get the deployment happening fairly fast, so in many cases the instability is hardly noticed. It is still an unstable opening. That may be OK. Risers don't tend to fail from unstable openings when not at a high terminal velocity. And reserve line twists, while disconcerting, are typically not a problem. But it is still an unstable opening. Uneven risers aren't the best for reliable openings. Some spinning mals aren't that fast, and the jumper also maintains a face to wind body position. That will help an RSL activate the reserve without the jumper being too unstable in his body position. I'm not saying RSL's don't usually get the job done, nor that they don't save people who wasted too much time trying for perfect stability. But I think the physics doesn't show the big stability advantage for them as sometimes claimed.

Trying TOO LONG to get stable has killed people. Trying to get stable WHEN TOO LOW has killed people. That's why a delay after a cutaway in my mind could be considered an advanced maneuver, but normal & acceptable. (Otherwise you might as well say that deploying your main is bad because it has killed people. No, trying too long to deploy your main kills people.) Besides, many people have AAD's now, which somewhat reduces the need to think, to some degree replacing the RSL as a backup. An RSL or an AAD can help with the 'lost reserve handle' scenario that affects even experienced jumpers. I've only done a couple chops but find the distance to go from an unstable no-RSL chop, to flipping to belly to earth, to having a reserve is about 700 ft (going from video & protrack). Not bad at all. It's only a couple data points though. As for actual data, diablopilot, can you find that thread where you say the idea came up about trying to go belly to earth not being appropriate when one is using an RSL? It's hard to remember every RSL thread... It does imply that RSL's aren't as fast as some people claim -- not the perfect antidote to unstable chops. I'm not so worried about reserve line twists. (Offhand, I thought they have injured or killed a couple people, but they were probably very low to begin with so getting more stable might not have been an option.) I dislike the RSL cutaway stories about lines going past one's helmet, bridle across one's neck, that sort of thing. But I'm not sure how low those chances are. Unstable deployments are just not as good for parachutes, but the type of problem, frequency, and seriousness can be debated.

Must be some nice weather out there this spring. A few years back I remember it was later in the year, on Memorial day weekend, that everyone was getting killed. (Of course random chance is the biggest factor.)

Curious indeed. From your photo: The packing card has it written in as a 225, but it was scratched out and rewritten as a 200 (which shouldn't exist for a Swift Plus) The serial starts with R6, which on this thread was said to be a 175. And the max suggested weight written on the card is 215, which doesn't match the numbers in this thread (which I confirmed in an old Paragear) for any of the three sizes. Edit: Sounds like it is shrinking every year. If this were still April 1, I'd advise your rigger to launder it in cold water only, not hot water at each repack.

That's about the editing of Z.'s convesration with 911, shortening it down, in a way than can greatly change the interpretation of what his state of mind was. Huh? But what choice do we have, other than listen to media reports? We weren't there. In isolation, how can we know that any one reported fact is incorrect? In this case, after a few days (?) some more detail has been discovered and things made clearer. I certainly would agree that whatever a situation looks like, it can be good to withhold final judgment when the facts are confusing and information appears limited. Doesn't mean one can't argue different issues in the meantime though. (Like in the Incidents forum.)

Although that slider flapping was really annoying, I'll grant her that. Good comments on leg position, wetrock. The position wasn't that bad IF she were slowing down to do an easy 2 step landing with just a little forward speed. (Touch down on one foot, stop with the next foot). Indeed in stop motion it is like she's casually putting one foot down just before the other. But she didn't have the awareness ahead of time that she might not get a good flare and might need to PLF, nor was aware enough during the flare to realize that she actually needed to PLF or do anything different from a perfect landing.

I got another reminder of that today when a local jumper, with maybe 500-700 jumps, had his first reserve ride. He's an average sized guy but that means he was loading his PD 113 pretty heavily. When he flared, he says he brought the toggles down to his shoulders fairly early, waited a few seconds to get lower, and then finished his flare. Not exactly the best way to do it. Luckily it was a soft muddy field that he pounded hard into, and he was uninjured.

Yet insurance does cover stupid. Insurance tends not to cover things occurring from criminal acts etc, but if you are stupid and in so doing crash your plane or car, burn down your house, or have a dumb guest slip on ice on porch stairs when not holding the railing ...insurance does generally cover that. Not that I agree with her suing to be covered under the larger 3rd party liability part of the insurance rather than the smaller passenger insurance. Passenger liability is often lower, presumably because there is some assumption of risk there. (e.g., I don't know the US aviation market specifically, but in Canada one might have a minimum of $100k pax liability, but a minimum of $1M 3rd party liability)

Good question... I'd go with accepting a little turn, as it shouldn't be very much within 10 seconds, and instead make sure one has full speed before going into the flare. If the flare starts to aggravate any small turn, one can flare a little faster and deeper on on side. There's no ideal answer. The Tempo would be no more porous than any other reserve. While packing reserves will slowly increase their porosity, it is a very slow process, so a reserve a few years older than another isn't going to be noticeably worse. (E.g., PD wants a porosity check after 40 pack jobs, and most companies make no such requirement.) So I really don't expect that Tempo to have any porosity issues. Reserves due to their design tend not to be snappy turning canopies, at least not with small control inputs. Not like a typical zero-P 9 cell. As for the Tempo in particular, I don't know, but yeah, it doesn't look too snappy in turns in the video.

Parachute turns on its own when no input is given. May be due to small distortions in the canopy as it is sewed together, even though all the parts are the right size. Generally a sign of a less than perfect production process. A rare issue these days, more common a complaint (for mains) in the 70s & 80s I think.

I didn't realize HOW poor some people can be with flying F-111, considering she was at only a 1:1 wing loading. She seemed to be on the right toggle quite a bit, but hey, it was a Tempo. So if there was a built in turn, it was perhaps distracting her. Sure looked like it just before the flare -- a couple big pumps of the right toggle to stay straight. People don't always remember to arch on the cutaway but stay in the comfortable sitting position. That would avoid the awkwardness of having the reserve deploy over her shoulder. She's probably not super tall, so although at one point she has fully cutaway, the long cutaway cable hasn't cleared the housing. She effectively then goes straight to the reserve but for a split second seems to use one hand to brush the cutaway cable away. Interesting little issue: While people are taught sometimes to clear the cables, if someone is fully cut away and in freefall, you don't want them mucking about with a barely dangling cutaway handle, but go for the reserve. I notice she found the velcro on the reserve toggles good and tight: A straight down pull on the R toggle just pulled the riser. As soon as she peeled it up she was fine. "Pulling the toggle" on its own wasn't enough. Can't blame a newbie for dropping handles and not chasing her stuff down in a demanding DZ environment. It's impressive how many little things come up that a newer jumper might not have thought much about and could be a little surprised to confront. I appreciate that she uploaded the vid.

Mind you I don't know how the certificates are matched to a person and thus identified as "transferred". When raffled off say by a DZ, is there one part of a form that is filled out by the DZ with the recipient's name and mailed in to the equipment company? Or else who will know if a private sale takes place, not posted on DZ, and without the winners posted by the DZ online? At least Vectors don't come with Do Not Sell agreements... Having a Non Transferrable proviso on the certificate would make the certificate still appear valuable ("50% off!") but lessen it's actual value as many people won't be in a position to take advantage of the offer. Yet it has the reasonable marketing aim of trying to tip someone to buy the gear who otherwise wouldn't (and have the company take a hit this time), and not just make it cheaper for someone who was going to buy anyway. What some customers like, others won't. (I'm not taking any stance here on how certificates should be handled, just pointing out issues.)

Now that's a rigging plot twist!

Personal opinion is that I'd allow landing on a slope or crash pad or giant lemon meringue pie as a "landing". Flying into a giant vertical net, maybe less of a "landing" although it would still be a feat. Beyond that, it would be another big step to land on a horizontal, non-shock absorbing surface. That would be a much higher level of landing ability. Celebrating the first as a big achievement doesn't mean one can't later celebrate the second as an even bigger achievement.

Think there's a Skyhook on that bridle. So maybe everything did come down together. A spring loaded PC or rings on a riser could give someone a pretty good smack on the head if they were unlucky enough to be hit. We don't usually think about any risk from jettisoned gear, especially for those of us not jumping over or next to populated areas.

While breaking into the a DZ socially can take time, are you trying hard enough? Just going by that list, it seems to miss looking for others to jump with, planning loads, talking to other newer jumpers, etc. Maybe you are already getting typecast as the guy who quietly gets on the plane and does just solos all day. It bumps up the jump numbers but gets a little dull.