pchapman

I think that is still highly disputable -- because there are different kind of limits. "Maximum weight" ON ITS OWN seems to have no legal definition and no validity as a legal limit. For a Raven 150 there are two "maximum weights", 153 lbs or 254 lbs. Companies have generally never tried to enforce those lower kind of maximum weights, in effect encouraging jumpers to exceed suggested values. PD in the 1990s may have tried to keep Stilettos out of the hands of newbies, but they sure didn't stop anyone weighing over 125 lbs without gear from buying a PD 126. (Max weight listed in that era was 151 lbs.) For Precision, those low Maximum Exit Weights (such as 153 lbs for a Raven 150) are actually listed on the orange warning label, making it look like it is the true legal limit. But then the wording on the label mentions TSO C23c Cat B's 254 lbs and states that "to lower the risk of death, serious bodily injury, canopy damage & hard openings, never exceed the following limitations".. after which that low 153 lbs number is listed. That confuses the issue -- It is certified to 254 lbs but the manufacturer wants you to load it lower. But is that a legal limit or not? "To lower the risk of death", you could also keep parachute gear in the closet and not jump. Is anything a company says about the reserve's use binding on a user, other than the TSO'd limits? They can dictate how a rigger packs it, but can they dictate what a jumper does? PD's Reserve Manual says: Note the difference in terminology from the quote you found! So there's a difference between RECOMMENDED and ABSOLUTE maximum weight. And nowhere is there an official definition for all manufacturers about maximum weight terminology. PD doesn't even use the exact same terminology from above, in the actual tables of reserves specs -- there one sees "max suspended weight" and "max suspended weight (TSO)". In another PD document online (for PD reserve flight characteristics), there are again other words being used: Both types of weight are listed as "maximum exit weight" but with categories like Student, Intermediate, Expert -- and then "Max." for the actual TSO weight, without saying TSO. So that shows ever for one of the top companies that puts out the most detailed info for users, there is no standardization of terminology, probably to some degree because there are no official FAA or PIA terms in use. Conclusion: Unless someone can show that manufacturers' recommendations are legally binding on users (and I'm willing to learn about that), any statement of "maximum weight" is not legally binding unless it is the TSO'd weight. (I'm not talking about what is smart or not, just what is legal.)

Re: kdrivas1989 You may need to say more about who it was (or apparently was). That handle does show up on google in the email address of a skydiving jumpsuit dealer, complete with name and location. One wouldn't want to accuse the wrong person.

Not explaining everything, just some aspects of the issue: 1) A "delay in response" in modern canopies may be because there may be more slack in brake lines now, for we expect to have more slack to be able to front riser without applying brakes. 2) Fewer canopies are Spectra lined than at a certain earlier time, so we'll have fewer with shrunk brake lines that remove the slack. Having slack in the lines may change one's perception of response delay, depending on what one is thinking of, response from zero brakes or response after slack is taken out. 3) Canopies that are really sensitive to small brake deflections might also be more sensitive to spinning up on opening if the opening isn't perfect. So that may be a disincentive to canopy designers to have a canopy like that. It may take minimal extra time for a jumper to use a little more hand motion to snap into a turn, so there's little down side for the jumper. (If one takes the idea too far, yes the canopy will be slower to maneuver if one has to move one's hand all the way down to the waist to get a decent turn.) 4) Longer recovery arcs on canopies could also promote a feeling of a slower initial turn. I'd have to think more about the dynamics to be sure of this. But let's say you have an old Sabre 1 and snap into a 45 degree turn. It banks and yaws into the turn, pops out of its little dive, and very soon heads off in the new direction. Use a ground hungry canopy instead, it snaps into the turn, but then does a long dive before coming out of the dive. It may have turned in heading 45 degrees just as fast. But did it fly off as fast in the horizontal direction as fast? Maybe slower, if much of its speed went into the the more vertical dive. But maybe its faster speed in general does get its horizontal component of movement faster despite that. The turn on the long recovery arc might feel less responsive if it takes longer to complete the whole turn process, to the point of flying normally, even if the initial heading change was just as quick. So there are some psychological factors involved in evaluating what we perceive as faster or slower to respond.

Ah I remember that one. Reminds me of the scientific humor found in the publications "Journal of Irreproducible Results" or "Annals of Improbable Research". It sounds like the article did start some good discussion on assumptions and methods in medicine -- the use and limits of evidence based medicine and randomized trials. The BMJ page doesn't show the full article but it is out on the web in other places, e.g., http://www.neonatology.org/pdf/ParachuteUseRPCT.pdf

I guess one thing to do if unsure about one's flare is to only go up in moderate winds when returning to jumping. Nothing too high, nothing too low. It won't change one's vertical speed, but by taking out some ground speed, it will remove some of the overall speed & ground rush, and require less of the canopy's inherent flare power to get oneself to an easy stop.

First I have practical suggestions for any country wanting to be downsizing Nazis: (Downsizing Quislings? Yes, I chose my words to be just a little harsh.) I still like the idea that a local safety person should be able to approve higher wing loadings temporarily. That way someone can try out a smaller canopy, even if not regularly. Or it would be OK to have a system that allows almost unlimited downsizing, IF one has demonstrated going through downsizing canopy control exercises. Secondly, here's my rant in general about downsizing restrictions: I got to try out a 92 sq. ft. canopy loaded 1.8 in no wind conditions when I had 205 jumps. Seemed to be no problem. Sure, my chance of a cutaway on opening or from line twisting myself would be higher, and the landings were a little scary. But it wasn't going to actually kill me unless I did something stupid. If there were downsizing rules, how would they take into account that I was already used to flight vehicles requiring precise control? Being able to fly aerobatics or land a taildragger aircraft doesn't make you a canopy pilot, but it should help one avoid stupid errors of turning into the ground because of stabbing a toggle. Nobody stops a doctor from getting his instrument rating, buying a Mooney or Cirrus, and going out and getting himself killed in hard IFR over the mountains at night. Insuance companies, maybe, but that's not an issue with our rigs. Mountain climbers get to go out and kill themselves in the mountains, to do routes they aren't ready for. Why would we skydivers be discriminated against just because our toys are cheaper, or it is tougher for us to kill ourselves in more expensive ways? Not everyone goes on to make thousands of jumps, or do 250 jumps a year. Let people have some fun instead of saying that they can't try out cool canopies until they've been in the sport a decade. I'd rather see dumbasses die than restrict people from jumping canopies they clearly can fly and have fun with. It is nice to try out canopies you shouldn't be flying regularly, so you know what you don't really want yet. I've seen people try out a ground hungry canopy and then decide they'll stick to something more conservative for a couple season. Part of the problem is that a canopy that may be safer normally is a lot less safe if people start trying to swoop hard -- but that's about discipline, not the canopy. Just because a canopy might not be the best to learn to swoop on, doesn't mean you can't fly it. What kills people under small canopies anyway? I'd really have to look at the stats again, but here are some: -- Attempted swoops --> so don't attempt to swoop until you've done a proper downsizing canopy control progression, starting with larger canopies. -- Panic turns in off landings --> So don't be a dumbass and hook it in, fly the canopy like you were taught. And in airplanes too, if you have to land out in a Pitts, it will be a lot more dangerous than in a C-152. But that's not the criteria people use when deciding whether you are ready to solo a Pitts. Some risks have to be accepted. -- Panic turns on the DZ --> Same as off dz landings pretty much. Pick an open area to land in if you aren't as experienced with your canopy and don't hook it if you get stuck low on downwind making it back from a long spot. -- Mid air collisions --> Not sure how many are caused by rapid downsizing, but of course being "behind the airplane" is a distraction. So maybe don't use the small, new canopy in the middle of a boogie or a super busy DZ. -- Misjudged slightly accelerated landings --> That's a tricky one, where someone isn't trying to do a full-on swoop, but just a front riser 90 or something and misjudges when to let up. Smaller canopies do make injuries worse. Still, it is about not being a dumbass and focusing on your jump. Don't do a maneuver unless you can take the consequences. Go through the downsizing progression exercises. So there are plenty of ways to reduce the risk to others and yourself to reasonable levels -- and too bad for the guy who makes a mistake. Canopy restrictions would get some jumpers bored with their canopies. Maybe that would just be an excuse to do some low toggle hooks or anything to have some fun again. Or maybe it would encourage them to actually work in a disciplined way through all those canopy downsizing exercises we are supposed to do. That might be a good point of restrictions. (I'm saying all this as someone who only owned an accuracy canopy for his first 600 jumps -- but nothing stopped me from borrowing a buddy's Stiletto 120 to have some fun on once in a while.)

Yes I'm bringing back a 3 year old thread. It's about the snaggable end of a hard metal spring in the chin cup adjustment for Rawa helmets. I just found it interesting to hear that among jumpers at the DZ where I jump, someone else (on vacation in Florida) had their Rawa chin cup snag their rig recently -- and after people got talking, 3 more local jumpers said they had had it happen in the air, and 1 more on the ground. It's not like it has been hurting anyone directly, although it is a distraction on a jump that at worst could have further consequences. Sounds like the metal end should be covered over. (Tape, epoxy, hot glue, ?)

So to be clear: are the weights along the top of the chart the full suspended weight or not? "Egenvekt" sounds like 'own weight' - does that imply body weight, no gear? FWIW, a google translate of the box at the bottom: It sort of seems that to match the chart to that statement, the values across the top of the chart would be body weight. In any case, way way too restrictive, but that's an old school opinion from someone who believes there should be NO restrictions whatsoever -- only recommendations.

Yeah if the rig is packed up, if it isn't the same rigger installing the AAD, you need a full repack according to the FAA. Doesn't matter if the pack job was done yesterday. The rigger is responsible for everything in the pack job, and he can only certify it good to use, if he inspects and repacks it. (The rule can be argued, and I'm not in favor. But the rule exists, and isn't just some silly rule from a voluntary sporting organization like the USPA, it's from the FAA.) Edit: Sorry, what with others talking about rules in the USA, I continued on that tack & didn't think to check the O.P.'s location. (As the next poster pointed out, the O.P. isn't in the US.)

The actual job of installing may be 5 minutes, to do things like poking the control head and cutter through various sleeves and work out an appropriate coiling of the remaining cable once everything is in place. But also add on time time to check bulletins (in some cases), write the AAD data (& maybe cutter data) on the reserve card, & log the same data into his rigging logbook. Depending on how tight the rig is and the cutter placement on the rig, the closing loop might have to be lengthened or a new longer one put in. And as everyone has pointed out, there may be the whole opening up of the rig & repack to do too.

The video does highlight one of the issues of watching UFOs: Apparent motion. When zoomed in, it looks like the object is moving quickly. When zoomed out, it is moving across the visual area in a similar direction as the ground is moving, but faster. Which suggests it is a small, nearby, slow moving object, being passed by the helicopter -- not a far, large, fast moving object. (I won't try to study the video in detail, but it's more like kids balloons in a cluster, some collapsed, some not, or something like that.)

Why, why, WHY would you even ask? a reason. Follow them - or face the consequences. Hang on here - that's going too far. We know some limits on skydiving gear are just ultra-conservative limits from the manufacturers that have little to do with actual use. And other limits are certification limits, which are very important to take heed of. A newbie has to learn which is which. For example, the maximum suspended weight for a PD126 in a 1993 advert is 151 lbs. That's laughable, just a conservative suggested number, that nobody realistically pays attention to, now or then. The real hard limit is the 254 lbs certification limit, while other lower loadings can be debated depending on jumper skills and other factors. A newbie needs to learn the subtleties, and that's what this thread is about. Part of that is that Microravens start to take significantly more skill to land as one loads them up, relative to a PD at the same wing loading.

For those inclined to read, here are the web pages I've read and saved: An article emphasizing the years-of-preparation over the saving-lives-with-duct-tape aspect of rescuing Apollo 13: http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/apollo-13-we-have-a-solution/0 (If something good happens due to both planning for contingencies, and due to last minute improvisation, which do people focus on and keep talking about?) One commentator's view: http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apo13.htm Another commentator, Jerry Woodfill: (He over hypes some aspects of it all, but does a good job in trying to look at all sorts of factors, including ones from well before Apollo 13, that contributed to things working out. Not all of these things were "luck", some were "good planning".) He wrote a short article: http://www.spaceacts.com/stircryo.htm And prided the input for "13 Things That Saved Apollo 13": http://www.universetoday.com/62339/13-things-that-saved-apollo-13/ Understanding the time line of events is a great help in going from a mental image of Hollywood movie timing to the actual sequence and timing. E.g., How soon after the accident did they power down the CM and jump into the LM? One might imagine it happening pretty fast, and maybe the Apollo 13 movie implied that too. But they didn't start a full power down for 1/2 an hour after the accident. Nobody went into the LM until 1 hr 50 min after the accident. And the CM and CSM (service module) weren't fully powered down until 2 1/2 hours after the accident. A fairly exhaustive timeline - but one has to pick through it to highlight the crucial parts: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13h_Timeline.htm (Even wikipedia has a graphic of the flight with a few times listed, but it is more about the engine burn times than parts of the accident sequence.) And if you want to examine the raw voice transcripts etc, the official NASA source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a13/ Every analysis, even by experienced people, is a bit different, because it takes so much background knowledge to evaluate the MEANING of factual statements. One has to take everything into account if one tries to answer the question, "Would they have held out another 12 hours? 24? 36?" E.g., How many amp hours are available in the CM batteries? How much are needed to prepare for reentry? How much power was sent back from the LM to the CM by their manual cable connection? And so, how important was that to not losing the crew? Or, one commentator mentions that a good proportion of H2O supplies would be needed by the sublimators for system cooling. Would they have run out if they had to fly longer? What are the alternatives? Could they put water into the system by taking it from the lunar suit cooling systems, and would that be enough? Particularly interesting is Jerry Woodfill's point of view on the timing of how many cryostirs were done, and when the wire actually shorted -- it couldn't be so late that the LM was already 'used up', but not so early that it would add a couple more days to the whole trip. I like this stuff.

Congrats! I recently packed a T-10 MIRPS - an interesting change from the older style chest mounts. (I had it easy -- being grandfathered in to pack anything according to the Canadian rules in place when I got my rating. There are more separate qualifications now.)

Hey, I think Skydive Radio had him on their show late last year, as a Skyvan pilot.

If this is a serious post about skydiving, keep it in General Skydiving Discussions. If you are joking around, don't try to waste my time and get the *uck over to Bonfire. Luckily others have checked out the link already and sounds like you are trying to scam us.

The "trailing bomb" method of airspeed determination is a good one; it has even been used (either for pitot or just static pressure) for professional aircraft flight test. I think the PG magazines use sensors like the Flytec one for canopy flight tests. I have used a handheld wind speed meter for canopy airspeed measurement. (Fine for full flight & below, but not swooping, besides the dynamic response may or may not be fast enough.) Some of the smaller gadgets have a greater inaccuracy range than I like. I also re-calibrated my early Skywatch model in a university wind tunnel. When measuring airspeeds, I always tried to hold the instrument well out to the side of me, so that I'd have little flow blockage effect on the measured airspeed from my body. (Whether holding out front or to the side will also depend on where the display screen is on the gadget used.) Impelller style gadgets do have a fairly good tolerance for not being aligned directly with the flow direction. One still tries to tilt the airspeed indicator directly along one's estimated descending flight path, and swivelling up or down a bit can help to see where the maximum value is recorded. One has to be aware that an impeller type measurement will measure a True style airspeed rather than an Indicated type airspeed from a pitot tube, as far as I know. (ie, one wouldn't change the data to account for density altitude, as one would for rate of descent from a variometer, if trying to standardize the data to ISA conditions) The trailing bomb might be less costly if you could find an older used model of variometer that still works with it -- find some HG or PG pilot who is upgrading to the latest & greatest. Maybe you want the vario anyway for rate of descent measurement, but maybe not, in this age of GPS's. While GPS's can be used for airspeed measurement, even for aircraft with their greater speeds, taking out the effect of wind is tricky. One may do flights on two or three different headings and mathematically remove the wind component. But in skydiving we don't fly level, so three stabilized runs of 1 minute each in different directions is going to subject you to different winds at different altitudes. While people will suggest using a GPS for speed measurement under canopy, I think the variation in wind and its great magnitude compared to canopy speeds (especially if one is doing high hop and pops to flight test a canopy) is going to make data reduction a nightmare and hard to get accurate.

An AOPA article in 2010 on the new US rules: http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100402ssri.html The conditions are pretty strict though -- any aviator would have to give up their job for a year:

#3 right side, then #4 left side, in the Vector II manual.

Orbital mechanics sure are fun to get your head around, with all their counter-intuitive aspects. As for actual guns in space, I'd think the only ones would be on the Soviet Almaz manned military reconnaissance space stations, orbited in a couple of the missions identified as Salyut. (Or did anyone have any sort of weapon stashed in some survival kit? Unlikely but I don't know.) Internet sources are a little unclear on the details, even when one digs to the specialized space sites, beyond just Wikipedia. But it sounds like the adapted aircraft cannon may have been test fired on Salyut 3 when crew were not aboard. The cannon was fixed to the station structure, so the whole station had to be maneuvered to aim it. Like the Soviet moon program, it's all cool cold war era activity that only came to light afterwards.

I think spikes is just asking about the definition of HALO. The opening is "Low" as opposed to right after exit (or what exactly does it imply?), but it doesn't mean "suck it down to 1000' like some badass special ops dude in the movies". So although HALO is a standard term used, in the context of civilian skydiving I think he was suggesting the last part might better be "NO" - Normal Opening.

A getting back to basics summary, without too much Speakers Corner stuff: A Yak-52 in the skydiving video was painted up in WW II German military style colours, complete with camouflage, the straight cross on the fuselage, and the swastika on the tail. I didn't see the registration on the Yak, but with all sorts of aircraft in it being Russian registered, the jumping certainly seemed to be taking place in Russia. Military paint schemes not matching the actual aircraft model's history are not unknown. It just seems to observers that painting a Russian aircraft in German WWII colours is relatively unusual, given the nature & scale of the war that took place between the nations, that is still within living memory for some.

The Toronto Star (which is a bit leftie family & consumer oriented) does have the story, a longer version (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1136659--kitchener-dad-arrested-at-school-after-daughter-draws-picture-of-gun)from an affiliated paper in the city where it happened, while the Sun one seemed to be second hand through some news service. (But I haven't checked who owns who in the media.) I haven't seen it in the other news media you mentioned yet. Maybe it is just that some media got the story from a smaller city first? I'd give it another day before deciding that 'the lefties think it is OK so it isn't a story'. The more business oriented National Post does have a completely independent article at http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/24/joe-oconnor-arrest-over-daughters-gun-sketch-a-case-of-vigilance-and-too-much-zeal/ Sounds like a clear plastic toy gun from Walmart was involved, "that shoots soft plastic biodegradable BBs". I'd like to see exactly who said what. The story makes it sound as if when the school called the cops, they stated that there was a gun that the kid had access to, as if it were a certainty. And we don't know what the kid said in addition to the drawing. It isn't clear if the home was searched although a) it sounds like the dad was pressured into voluntarily allowing the cops to search, and b) I don't know how much power child services have to start poking around, other than to remove kids. You don't have to be on the Right to think that this all sounds like a bit of over reaction. I found it interesting that they actually CHARGED him with the crime, handcuffed him at school and put him in a cruiser. That goes way beyond, "Hey we've got this report, sorry sir, the law says we have to investigate, could we talk to you?". Whatever the details, you really did choose to rant on this one!

I had to look it up myself. It isn't changed for everyone, from the manufacturers' point of view:

In the context of this thread, I'll pick the firearm. Reason: A concealed carry bat stuffed down your pant leg makes it really awkward to walk. Back to the original topic.